Slashdot Mirror


Pope Says Technology Causes Confusion Between Reality and Fiction

Pope Benedict XVI has warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of new technologies, and not old books. "New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life," he said.

73 of 779 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life."

    That's funny. It's arguable that the same could be said about the Bible. How many thousands of pages have been written about the workings of the Divine, or of the afterlife, when no one has truly seen either?

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention how many pages have been changed.

      The fact that there are different "versions" of the Bible amuse me to no end. If it was truly god's word, wouldn't there be just one version?

      I'm not referring to words or phrases lost in translation...I'm talking about things like King James versions, etc.

    2. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uh...actually, if anything, the bible proves free will doesn't exist either. god's supposed omnipotence makes free will an impossibility.

      If someone already knows what you are going to do, how is it a choice?

    3. Re:Hmm by NecroPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't quite understand how anyone can stay a Christian after reading the Bible. It's badly written Jesus fan-fic, co-authored by Abraham Z. Brite and Moses Pacione. I'd call it slash-fic, except there isn't enough sex in it.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    4. Re:Hmm by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will? Essentially that is the Christian concept of God. He exists in the past, present and future and knows how everything will turn out.

      Granted, I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to....

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:Hmm by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well considering that one would have to be fluent in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew to read the "just one version" I think that you have to accept newer translations over time as the English language evolves, and as historians discover new idiosyncrasies in the ancient languages. You can argue that this is not all that's changed, but it doesn't preclude new versions from coming out for good reason.

    6. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to some people (namely the people that follow "the book"), god works through us. Assuming this to be true, I ask you: do puppets on strings have free will?

    7. Re:Hmm by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) Why do you people always post AC?

      2)...
      As a matter of fact, science says free will doesn't exist.

      Citation?

    8. Re:Hmm by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Please stay on your original comment, not swaying off to a new argument.You argued that if God knows the outcome that we don't have free will. I argued it is not. What is your counterargument?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:Hmm by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is god would have created the football field, and the players, and could have created them in another configuration which would have led to another outcome which he would know beforehand.

    10. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It spills over into what people would do with a bible, though...if all creatures on this planet are god's children, why would we A. be the only ones given his word and B. the only ones given the ability to comprehend it? Standard "why is the universe so big if we're alone" and "if the universe isn't empty except for us, why don't we know of god's other children" type of questions apply as well.

      The fact that there are different versions of the bible (again, external of "lost in translation" issues) understandable only by man should be proof enough for anyone that it is the word of man, not the word of god.

    11. Re:Hmm by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, those are translation problems. You have to read it in the original Klingon.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    12. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.

      Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.

      A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.

    13. Re:Hmm by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The players have free will, but you aren't watching the players. You are watching images of the players on a screen: a recording. The recording and images definitely do not have free will.

    14. Re:Hmm by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could be said to come down to the question of if the universe is deterministic.
      If you somehow saved a copy of the universe and played it a second time if it would turn out the same like a finite state machine or if it would turn out differently.

      from the inside there's little difference, you have as much or as little "free will" (as fuzzy a term as that is) either way.

    15. Re:Hmm by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I believe God is omnipresent, because I have not been witness to any divine interventions, nor seen tangible evidence of such an event.

      Hey, that's the same reason I believe god is omni-absent!

    16. Re:Hmm by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will?

      Definitely. No matter how many times you play it, they will always do the same thing. What's your argument here? If god controls and knows everything, then anything he changes, he knows the outcome of it, and even if he only sets the initial parameters (though the bible says he does much more than that), he is still knows the outcomes of any changes he makes. He set exactly the ratio of people that would go to heaven/hell, if you believe such things. He created billions of lives that were already condemned. To me that seems a little sick an unecessary.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Hmm by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A very key example of God actively interfering with the free will of a human, for those who believe the literal truth of the Bible: In Exodus 7-11, God repeatedly "hardens the heart" of Pharoah, so that Pharoah won't actually give in to Moses' demands until after God has wiped out all the firstborn sons.

      So the Bible actually teaches that God grants you free will unless that will somehow interfere with a divine plan, in which case you're screwed.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    18. Re:Hmm by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Funny

      The human neural net reacts to watching TV shows and movies as if they were real world events.

      Does it react to bible as if it was real?

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    19. Re:Hmm by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Funny

      Geddy Lee chooses free will, so it must be true.

    20. Re:Hmm by stubob · · Score: 5, Funny

      I really don't want to read the new version:

      "And God was like 'Moses, dude, you totally need to kill your son.' And Moses was all "WTF?" but then he goes "Meh, F it." So God's all "LOL, dude you were totally gonna do it. I pranked you good!'"

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    21. Re:Hmm by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously that is true of any ordinary book, but the point here is that it refutes the Bible as the supposed "One True Word of God".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:Hmm by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd call it slash-fic, except there isn't enough sex in it.

      You missed all the begatting.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    23. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.

      Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition of free will.

      This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.

    24. Re:Hmm by pianophile · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If the Holy Bible was printed as an Ace Double", an editor once remarked, "it would be cut down to two 20,000-word halves with the Old Testament retitled as 'Master of Chaos' and the New Testament as 'The Thing With Three Souls.'"

              - Charles McGrath, New York Times, May 6, 2007

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    25. Re:Hmm by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The universe is inherently hostile to our life. Why is that, if it was created for us?

      Ah, well, there's a potential point of contention. Most Christian (and even Jewish) theologians would say that the universe wasn't created for man, but that the universe (and man) was created simply for God's glory. Simply stated: the universe isn't really about humanity at all, it's all about God.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    26. Re:Hmm by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to

      *You* may be some soulless automata predestined to believe in free will, but *I* choose not to believe in free will.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    27. Re:Hmm by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      God's chosen and righteous man, Lot, having drunken sex with his two daughters not hot enough for you?

      Check out Ezekiel 23:20-21.

      "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

      So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

      It's not exactly a Mills & Boon romance, but I reckon it's enough to get a priest's wang wobbling.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    28. Re:Hmm by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the argument that Pojust was trying to put forward goes something along the lines of this:

      Axiom 1: Assume an all-knowing God. (All knowing implies knowledge of that which has not yet come to pass).
      Axiom 2: Assume a God that is always right. (Follows somewhat from Axiom 1).
      Axiom 3: Define "free-will" as the ability to make an independent choice.
      Question 1: Can free-will exist?


      Suppose an individual is presented with the choice between X and Y. If God is all knowing, then God will know that the individual will 'choose' X. If God always knows this, and God must be, and is always right, then the individual must choose X. If the individual chooses Y, then God was wrong, and, therefore, God did not know the outcome. Thus, the individual must always choose X, and, therefore, there is no choice being made at all. For there to be an all-knowing God, all choices must be predetermined, and no choices actually exist.

      Now, personally, I have seen folks try to route around this logic by saying, "Well God actually knows all-possible outcomes. That's what all-knowing means."

      This is logically inconsistent. If God knows all-possible outcomes, but does not know the outcome that will actually be chosen, then God is not all-knowing. God simply knows all possible permutations of reality, not which permutation will actually occur. If God knows all possible outcomes, and knows which outcome of any given choice will follow a decision, then we fall back to the original logical demonstration that free will cannot exist in a reality with an all-knowing being. It is merely an illusion hosted by lesser beings.

      Now, mind you, this is not necessarily an argument that there is no God or anything like that. It is merely an argument that a reality in which there is an all-knowing being as well as individual free will is a logically inconsistent reality. Now, whether or not reality is logically consistent, or, for that matter, an all-knowing being would have to be logically consistent is an entirely different argument. This argument merely holds that, in a logically consistent reality, free-will and an all-knowing being are logically inconsistent.

    29. Re:Hmm by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's rather evident you didn't read the old version either, if you think it was Moses who was asked to sacrifice his son.

    30. Re:Hmm by mcneely.mike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      god works through us.

      So it's God molesting poor, defenseless children, raping women (our mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, etc), killing people on Crusades, (etc etc etc) not us humans: we're just doing God's work!

      Well.... uhhh... thanks for clearing that up for us.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    31. Re:Hmm by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there is an omniscient god, then it can see all possible futures.
      If this god is also omnipotent, then he can cause any possible future to take place, simply by using it's powers to make all other futures impossible.
      If god could see the future, but be unable to change it then god could only be described as powerless.

    32. Re:Hmm by BotnetZombie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're talking about Abe, but here's a link to the new version.

    33. Re:Hmm by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative
      It can't be much worse than this:

      Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

      --
      Qxe4
    34. Re:Hmm by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... did the joke work, despite errors in details? Then, are the details important?

    35. Re:Hmm by LambdaWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really don't want to read the new version:

      "And God was like 'Moses, dude, you totally need to kill your son.' And Moses was all "WTF?" but then he goes "Meh, F it." So God's all "LOL, dude you were totally gonna do it. I pranked you good!'"

      That actually exists. (Okay, not really, but it's sort of the same idea.)

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    36. Re:Hmm by dindi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the contrary, most modern "technologies and the progress" (whatever this might mean to him) have a strong technological (and logical) foundation, explanation, and their existence (virtual or real) can be verified, proven explained and reproduced. Given, that you care to get the details.

      A lot of things in religions writings are not possible to prove, their existence is "anecdotal" at best. And if you care about the details and try to prove any of them, well, then there you go down the rabbit-hole.

      Evolution and global warming is a hoax anyway.

      My take on this? Well, buddhism does not encourage greed, never started a holy war and accepts the existence of a ghost (gods) world without caring too much about it. Builds on the promise of a good afterlife without threatening with endless horror, not forcing anyone to do anything really. It is self centered in a way without hurting community... It teaches you not to kill things (others or living creatures) too. It is a view of a thinker, a clever one, maybe more than one.

      Then again, just a few thoughts, it is not my intention to offend anyone religious ....

    37. Re:Hmm by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, you can always look at the lolcat bible.

      (1) Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

      (2) Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

      (3) At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.

  2. As opposed to religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pretty sure people have been unable to discern the stories told in the bible from reality for quite some time.

  3. That's funny, because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't distinguish the pope from some loony old guy who keeps talking weird stuff

    1. Re:That's funny, because by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Religions are supposed to be rigid; they're not social structures, they're ethics frameworks that fall into divine belief systems. If you want something flexible, look into a system of philosophy.

      John Paul II had the balls to come out and tell priests to stop being fuck-ups. He came out and said Jews weren't evil, gays should seek God's forgiveness but it's the church's job to offer guidance not judgment, etc. He stuck to the rules but kept trying to remind people that Catholicism was supposed to be a religion of tolerance and we're not supposed to take pitchforks and torches to peoples' houses for doing shit we don't like.

      Benedict doesn't seem to focus much on orthodoxy so much as he's a lunatic and babbles about random shit. He hasn't come out to chastise the churches burning Qu'ran and swearing that all Muslims are going to hell (wasn't there something in the bible about NOT doing shit like this?). He hasn't put in his opinion about any churches trying to leverage religion as a political fulcrum to push bullshit at all, really. That's what we need out of a pope: Someone to keep the church in the exact order it's meant to be in.

  4. If you see the pope ... by 6031769 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... tell him he owes me a new irony meter.

    --
    Burns: We're building a casino!
    McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
  5. Here is my reality by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reality is that I'm never letting my kid around any priest, or ever trusting the church again. That real enough?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Indifference towards real life? by ColdGrits · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tell us, Papa Ratzi, how else would you describe someone who adtively protects, supports, defends and hides known repeat paedophiles, hmm?
    That sounds exactly like someone who is indifferent toward real life.
    So get off your high horse and join the real world.
    And startby turning over those of your priests who are paedos to the lawful authorities and stop protecting, supporting, defending and hiding the paedos.

    --
    People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
  7. Guess he never saw the Creation museum... by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Talk about confusion! Dinosaurs walking with people, Noah's Ark, a walk through Biblical History...I can't figure out WHO is telling the truth! http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Guess he never saw the Creation museum... by supersloshy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just so you know, the Catholic church welcomes scientific explanations for the origin of mankind besides "Creation Science", including the theory of Evolution, so long as that science is used in a non-misleading way (for example, Evolution is fine so long as you recognize that there was a God that started it in the first place, but superstitious "mind science" like New Age theories are obviously false, assuming that you believe all of the other Catholic doctrines). You're thinking of fundamentalist, Protestant churches and denominations which take a rather extreme biblical literacy approach (which the Catholic Church hasn't had for well over a thousand years).

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:Guess he never saw the Creation museum... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can logically prove that a soul doesn't physically exist in this world. However, the soul just so happens to be spiritual and cannot be represented by matter alone, therefore that conclusion is left up to whether or not you believe God exists (which the Catholic church does).

      So let me get this straight: the soul has no observable effect on the universe, yet it exists anyway? Could you clarify what leads you to believe this hypothesis? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you somehow.

      Assume for a second that all life is sacred. Assume for a second that sex was never meant to just be a pleasureful act, and was meant to represent the love of God Himself by allowing us to spread that love another generation by "becoming one" in the act of sexual intercourse.

      So what you're saying is, basically, "assume that I'm right"?

      How about this: I don't accept your assumptions. I reject them, because they assume facts simply do not exist. You leave the quality "sacred" undefined; you'll have to give a definition if you want me to accept that life is sacred. The entity you term "God" is not in evidence, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a creature - and, lest I start sounding like a broken record, it is also undefined. The existence of meaning behind the existence of an action is not in evidence; you'll have to provide a plausible hypothesis for why such a thing would exist, which I think will be tricky given that there is no evidence for the existence of a God Who "meant" for sex to mean anything.

      Basically, your argument boils down to "assuming I'm right, I'm right". Sorry, but for matters of public policy (which covers things like sexual education and the promotion of contraceptives and prophylactics) that just doesn't cut it.

      As for the catholic church molestation issues, the Church itself says that if you have deep-rooted, perverted sexual tendencies, you should seek help with those before you become a priest. There are only a few bad eggs in a giant basket of them here, figuratively speaking. The underlying principles that molestation is a grave sexual offense and that it severely separates yourself from God are still true in the Church's eyes; if Pope Benedict XVI truly is covering up these instances without a good reason (which I'm not sure is possible to have), then maybe we just have a bad pope on our hands.

      The evidence that Ratzinger did in fact cover up the instances of child molestation is effectively incontrovertible. The evidence that the Catholic Church has a history of covering these things up is also incontrovertible; just look at the recent furor in Ireland, or look at the history of a potential Australian saint (hint: she was temporarily excommunicated because she went public with the fact that a priest was abusing children).

      Sorry, but it looks like the rot in the Catholic Church goes back centuries - and that's not even accounting for the hypocrisy inherent in preaching tithes but living in a gilded castle.

      tl;dr, It's their beliefs, not yours. Respect them for that please and stop claiming they're so backwards that they don't allow any fun. The problem isn't the church, it's you. Just because a church that you don't agree with and that you are not a part of doesn't approve of things that you want to fulfill your own selfish sexual desires, logically speaking, does NOT mean, in any way, that the Church is backwards; agree to disagree!

      No, that's not the way it works. When you are wrong on matters of fact, and your wrongness on matters of fact leads you to encourage bad public policy, you should be opposed. Your beliefs matter very much when they mean the people my children end up having sex with don't know wha

  8. This is just red meat for the /. crowd by nysus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, when you're done ripping on the pope, stop and consider his point of view and what he has to say. Whether you agree or disagree, his point deserves some honest thought and debate.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by Millennium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Among large parts of the Slashdot crowd, the fact that he's not an atheist is enough to disqualify his viewpoint from any kind of respect.

    2. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay. His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth. As part of that, he has to convince them that the stuff written in everyone ELSE's book of choice is lies, at best misguided, but more likely evil. His organization, which derives it's take on reality from a book, has a long history of violently opposing stuff written in other books, or interpretations of stuff written in their own book they don't agree with, then eventually deciding, well, maybe it's true after all (or at least not burning at the stake worthy). You might even say that the bible has confused the church about reality.

      Now he'd like us to believe that books (well, the right kind of books anyway) tell the truth and don't confuse us about reality, but that this newfangled electronic stuff does.

      Hm.

    3. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by Target+Drone · · Score: 5, Informative

      The actual article seems like a troll as it only reports a couple of snipits. Here's a better one with the full quote I found via google. The Pope was actually talking about the way modern media reports the news.

      Today, for example, the world of appearances has an increasing weight with the development of new technologies; but if on the one hand this has doubtless positive aspects, on the other, the image can also become detached from reality , it can give life to a virtual world, with diverse consequences, the first of which is the risk of indifference to the truth. In fact, new technologies, together with the progress that they bring, can result in what is true and what is false becoming interchangeable, it can lead to confusing the real with the virtual. In addition, reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection. The search for ways to authentically promote man then disappears into the background, because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions. These issues are alarm bells: an invitation to consider the danger that the virtual distances us from reality and does not stimulate the pursuit of what is true, the truth.

    4. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With respect to the specific issue of being able to tell fantasy from reality?

      Absolutely.

    5. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be true, but there are plenty of very good reasons to be mistrusting of Pope Benedict, religion notwithstanding. He's a powerful leader who pushes policies which cause significant harm to people's day to day lives (discouraging the use of condoms, shielding paedophiles from the accusations of their victims, perpetuating an intolerant attitude to homosexuality, and generally attempting to interfere with people who are attempting to privately live a happy life). More or less all of his public suggestions and ideas, regardless of the stated reasoning, would have the effect of increasing the power of his organisation were they carried out or taken literally.

    6. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection.

      because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions

      Yeah like Foxnews, Daily Mail and even Slashdot.

      And the way many treat US politics like prowrestling, only dirtier (and with nuclear options).

      Thus I think it not so much technology that's the problem. It's the lack of integrity and sincerity. No respect for the truth.

      The mass media etc are just cynically trolling their "consumers" for hits/circulation.

      Like this Slashdot article perhaps? :)

      --
    7. Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like the Pope criticized places like Slashdot (amongst others), and Slashdot responded in kind by flaming the Pope's message and trolling it's own board with an inflammatory summary. In other words, par for the course on a typical /. day!

      =)

      I only worry about what 4chan's response to such comments might involve... /shudder.

  9. The church is struggling for relevance by RichMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The church is struggling for relevance in the modern world. This does not help.

    Sounds to me like the Catholic Church wants to go back to the old days of an illiterate flock lead in a latin mass.
    Because then people had a more "realistic" connection to things that were important like tithing or the consequences of no doing so.

  10. And he knows were NOT virtual how? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, the whole monotheism thing strongly suggests we ourselves are in a layer of simulation. So how real is virtual reality under those circumstances?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  11. Not a new concern by Palestrina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In any age, there were those who blurred reality for oppressive means. Whether rewriting history to depict Native Americans submitting to colonists in a painting, to airbrushing out Stalin's opponents in photographs. Technology is a tool, and as moral beings we have the ability to do good or evil with it with it, including distorting reality.

  12. What a waste of an article by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aside from everybody spotting the obvious irony here, I went to read the original article to see if I could get all contrarian and spot some useful insight. I find that whenever I hear a story of the form "Person X said something monumentally stupid", there's practically always something in either the subsequent or preceding sentence that provides context and makes it debatable or thought-provoking or even obvious. That doesn't necessarily apply to people who make a living saying monumentally stupid things, often for political gain, but people who actually think for a living (and I do include the Pope in that category) often think more subtly than single-sentence extracts from newspaper articles makes them out to be.

    Except in this case, that's all there is. The article is 5 sentences long. It gives no context and only the barest hint of who the audience is. It doesn't link to the full text. As far as I can tell it's not the Montreal Gazette's fault; they ran the entire article as it came to the off the Agence France-Press wire service. I had a reasonably high impression of AFP; perhaps I need to reconsider that.

    Maybe there will be a more useful article coming in the future, one that provides something more than an opportunity for something other than simply going "tsk tsk" at the Pope. But RTFA in this case isn't going to make you any smarter.

    (Look, I'm not here to defend the Pope. Yes, I'm aware of all the terrible things the Church and he personally have done, and I think it needs to be prosecuted. But I want my opinions to come from actual crimes, not suspiciously short quotes.)

    1. Re:What a waste of an article by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you; that's MUCH better. It's something you can disagree with.

      In context, it's clear that he's using "virtual" in a way different from the way Slashdotters do. The next sentence is much more compelling: "In addition, reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection." That is sadly true: technology has broadened the world, and in some ways, people ignore situations near to hand in favor of 24-hour entertainment. Taking news on a news channel feels virtuous, participating in the large-scale problems, but if it means you're not actually physically helping with the poor and downtrodden right near you, you're not doing anything more valuable than watching TV.

      I still disagree with plenty he said, but it's reasonably insightful and worth arguing about. He's clearly NOT saying what people immediately assumed he meant. And ironically, it's very similar to what he was warning people about.

  13. Scientist Says Religion Causes Confusion by mrvan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientist (well me, in any case) Says Religion Causes Confusion Between Reality and Fiction

    1. Re:Scientist Says Religion Causes Confusion by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, Confusion Between Reality and Fiction Causes Religion.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  14. Interesting by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Informative

    To a greater or lesser degree, the Pope might have a point. If we take his broad argument and narrow it down to some information of the internet, he very well be on to something. One problem with information on the Internet is that it's accuracy can be dubious at best. A person could post a bald-faced lie and pass it off as truth. Technology can make it easier to use propaganda that is founded on a lie to gain popularity for a politican. On the other hand, the same can be done with printed material - technology only makes it more economic and faster.

  15. The real risk is not technology... by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the real risk is simply human beings don't know how to think and most aren't intelligent enough to think. Most people would rather live illusions and lies. This is why religion is so pervasive, we are a species that loves our lies, technology or not. It takes real courage to pursue truth with eternal vigilance because it means your morality and feelings get over turned and you have to let real knowledge change you.

    Most people do not want to do that.

  16. Here, fixed that for you by Dalzhim · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pope Benedict XVI has warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of questioning blind faith. "Reconsideration of dogmas and the refusal to believe proposals without proof can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to damnation instead of salvation. The questioning individual can also become independent from the Bible, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards the Church," he said.

  17. I'm not surprised by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No surprise that somebody who believes in virgin birth and a water-walking zombie riddle-speaking prophet God has difficulty distinguishing between reality and fiction. The real question is, does technology make it difficult for atheists to distinguish between reality and fiction?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  18. Wait... by WillyWanker · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now I can't jerk off OR play video games? Damn dude, WTH am I supposed to do with my free time?

    1. Re:Wait... by Gorkamecha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not supposed to have free time - Any time that you're not working in the fields for your King/Leader/Authority figure you should be spending in contemplation on how awful a person you are, and begging for forgiveness for that. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

  19. LOL by Iburnaga · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is anyone else laughing about this coming from the bloody pope of all people?

    --
    iburnaga.blogspot.com
  20. Imagine that ... by LoudMusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine that, the slashdot crowd would rather take shots at religion than assess what the man is actually saying.

    No where is he saying that technology is bad. No where is he saying that technology will be the doom of us all. No where is he saying repent ye sinners! He's saying be careful with your gadgets and how you let them augment your life. I believe Asimov had similar warnings.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  21. As Arthur said... by falken0905 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    But where would the church be without magic?

  22. he's right by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    look at the rise of right wing blogs, and the people who would trust it more than they trust mass media

    a media channel loses its credibility, its audience, and its advertisers when it lies. so it has to fact check. additionally, it must remain neutral and moderate, and not espouse an agenda, or it turns people off, which means less advertising revenue. moderation and neutrality is of paramount importance to mass media

    when bush was in office the far left complained about the right wing mass media supporting the phony march of war on iraq, etc. well, there is no right wing mass media, and there is no left wing mass media, there is only mass media. the real problem is that the far right thinks it is liberal, and the far left think it is conservative, only because their own perspective is so far right (or left). move far right enough, and you can't tell the difference any more between moderate and lefty. move far left enough, and you can't tell the difference any more between moderate and right-wing

    so now, with the internet, we see the rise of far right wing people and far left wing people walled off in their own media universe. their own little walled garden of self-reinforcing lies. obama is a "secret muslim". obama is not an american citizen. this is obviously insanity. but walled off on their own, in their own ideological echo chamber of lies, people begin to believe these obvious smears and lies rather than reality

    so the pope is 100% correct: the internet has allowed reality and illusion to become inseparable for people. it takes energy to change your beliefs to align with reality. so why change your beliefs? just change your reality instead, by choosing your partisan blogs over mass media

    there are a class of people now who distrust mass media, yet, exasperatingly, trust partisan blogs which lie all the time in support of an agenda, and openly do not care about the truth or fact checking or credibility, as long as they advance a cause

    this is genuinely dangerous and scary. the internet is enabling the fractionating of society into walled fiefdoms of ideologues, and no real truth, or at least even common mythology. people pick and choose what they want to believe, regardless of reality. at least mass media made for a true commons of the people. now we only have open warfare amongst entrenched ideological gangs. and the internet makes that possible

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  23. Of course the Bible Israel by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it react to bible as if it was real?

    Of course it does, because it Israel.