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.

43 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 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.

    7. 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?
    8. 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.

    9. 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!

    10. 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
    11. 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/
    12. 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
    13. Re:Hmm by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. 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.

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

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

  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

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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? :)

      --
    6. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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