Here, I’ll restate it: is deliberately taking the wafer used in the communion ceremony for later desecration a crime?
The “no” side seems to be relying on the notion that once the property (the wafer) has passed, it has been “freely given” and thus the person in question can do literally whatever they want with it - eat it, throw it away, piss on it and make a youtube video of that - it’s now their property.
The “yes” side is pointing out that, in many if not most juristictions, property can be given only on condition that it be used for a certain purpose - if one obtains it by misleading the giver, it isn’t obtained legally.
For example, in Canada if you take property “without colour of right” you have stolen it; in Texas, if you take property without “effective” consent ("effective’ here meaning that the person consenting isn’t being mislead) you have committed theft; in New York, if you take property by means of a “false promise” (which may be “implied” in the circumstances) you have committed larceny.
The kid in ths case was merely taking the host back to his seat because he wanted to show it to his friend before he ate it (which wasn’t a church, but a student union).
For the record, I find it amusing that people barely have even mentioned Myers purposefully destroying a Quran.
I assume people who think destroying a Eucharist shouldn’t be seen as an insult directed at Catholics would not think destroying or defacing a Quran is an insult to Muslims and would be outraged by the thought that US servicemembers have been disciplined for destroying or defacing their own Qurans.
How is destroying a Quran in response to something done by Catholics “giving the finger to the bigots”.
What Myers did was the equivalent of, after hearing about someone being threatened for burning the American flag, publicly burning both the American flag and throwing the Russian flag in as well.
It might be, but there’s a legal principle known as “de minimis non curat lex”, basically meaning that the law will not take notice of minimal or trival matters, such as stealing a penny or sampling (taking a little taste) of a bulk food available for sale (theft), or driving over a plastic bottle in the road and driving on (hit and run).
I’d imagine that the cost of each wafer is pretty low, in terms of monetary value. I don’t know to what extent a secular court is going to recognize a claim that a consecrated host is worth more than a normal cracker or matzo because a priest has embued it with the Body of Christ (you can’t prove it, can you?).
I don’t think this counts as “demolishing” the argument. I know that the possibly necessary premise is disputed. To “demolish” the argument you need to show why it is impossible for this premise to be true. Just making some vauge reference to the problem of evil (which Plantiga has written on as well) doesn’t count as disproving anything.
This is just multiply confused. Amoung the confusions are:
Dawkins does not demonstrate that God is not necessary. All he does is point to how evolution explains biological complexity and then hand-waves a similar solution for all other physical laws. He presents no real argument or evidence that this is the case, more really just a statement of faith that it must be found somewhere in the future. It is hardly a convincing case.
There is no such thing as a “logical default”. If one has no evidence to show that a proposition is either true or false then the truth value of the statement is uncertain. Absent any argument why a should be true it is impossible to assign any sort of truth value to a statement. To simply assume a statement is true or false without any evidence or argument is simply irrational.
Lack of evidence is itself not an argument for anything. First, it is in most cases impossible to demonstrate that there is actually no evidence for a proposition. You might argue that you have seen no evidence, but just because you don’t see it or accept it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Maybe you just need to look harder. Certainly Dawkins nor anyone else doesn’t give a reason why we should think there is no evidence for God beyond the hopelessly circular “There is no evidence for God because God does not exist”.
“Lack of evidence” can only work as an argument when you demonstrate that if a statement is true there must necessarily be seen some evidence that is not seen. The POE is a simple example of this. So for instance:
(1) If God exists there necessarily must be no suffering in the world.
(2) There is in fact suffering in the world
(3) Therefore God does not exist.
I think that the first premise is false and so is the entire argument, but that is how you would use a “lack of evidence”. If Dawkins could point out something about the world that is not true that would be necessarily true if God existed he might have an argument. He doesn’t do that however, so he doesn’t.
Invoking Occam’s razor here is unwarranted because it has simply not been shown that God is not in some way necessary.
The statement that “the laws of physics are inviolable” needs some justification. And just pointing out that I cannot name any event that shows them to be inviolable does not count. That does not prove that they are inviolable, just that I am ignorant of any example of them being violated. In fact I think this is simply circular reasoning on your part. The only reason I would think to believe that the laws of physics are inviolable would be because God does not exist and that God did not create the world. To then use that to demonstrate that God cannot exist is simply begging the question.
Also, I am genuinely curious. Can you name any other professional philosopher that supports and defends Dawkins work? You seem to think of his as some sort of philosopical giant, so I am wondering on what you base that view. I can think of several atheist philosophers that have denounced Dawkins work (Michael Ruse is one good example). Yet if the arguments do have merit then they should be taken up by others. Can you name any philosophers (again, apart from Daniel Dennet) that have embraced his work?
I understand that common law legal systems recognize implied statements for purposes of committing fraud (false pretenses), in that while one can fraudulently obtain something by making an intentional direct bald-faced lie, such as telling a priest that you are Catholic when you are not, but it may be possible, by your behavior, to intentionally cause a false impression. I’d imagine that the result, in theory, depends on whether or not you “knew” that:
Communion in a Catholic church is only available for Catholics and Orthodox.
Approaching the priest to obtain communion, according to the tradition of the Catholic church, constitutes an implied statement that you are entitled to Communion according to Catholic doctrine.
You knew that #1 and #2 were true.
You were aware that you were not entited to Communion in that church.
Knowing all of the above, you made a free choice to approach the priest anyway for communion, intending to fool the priest into giving you communion by appearing to be a Catholic by approaching him.
If any of the above are false, an offense may not have occured (though a civil case for wrongful enrichment might lie).
In this case, obviously the monetary value of the wafer is low, but the offense given is high. There would clearly be an argument that it is de minimis, but that’s a decision within the discretion of the court - they may choose not to exercise that discretion if the person is behaving in a manner they think ought to attract opprobrium.
Say, for example, someone stealing a penny from a store would not be prosecuted because it’s de minimis, but someone putting out a youtube video of stealing a penny from a blind beggar’s cup, all the while making fun of the indigent, taunting the guy etc., may not be granted the same judicial indulgence - even though the monetary value of the crime is identical.
This I think is a true circular argument, and also an irrational one to boot.
Irrational because one is justified in believing a statement when the statement is more probably true than it’s negation. So with the existance of God it is rational to believe that God exists if you consider that it is more likely that God does in fact exist than if he doesn’t. To insist that God cannot exist until some arbitrary level of “proof” has been reached is I think irrational.
It is also circular because the resurrection is only prima facie impossible if God does not exist. If God does in fact exist then there is no problem with miraculous things happening. You are assuming atheism as a reason for why the evidence of the resurrection is not “enough”, or likely why any amount of evidence will ever be enough. Since atheism necessarily holds that the resurrection did not take place then the argument is circular.
Heh, if one wanted to be really nasty, wait 'till the fellow publishes a book based on the incident, then plead waiver of tort - and seek all of the profits derived from the guy’s book.
Ah my mistake. Well then I assume those who insist that destroying a wafer shouldn’t be seen as an insult to Catholics don’t think destroying a Quran or flushing a Quran in a toilet should be viewed as an insult to Muslims.
Anyway, would you mind answering my earlier question.
Since you’ve claimed that “Catholics have only been discriminated against by other Christians” were you A) unaware of the Armenian Holocaust, the discrimination Christians faced in the Ottoman Empire, the discrimination Christians face in the present day Middle East and Israel or B)when you say “Catholic” are you only referring to Roman Catholics?
