Papal bull [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Thu 2006-06-01 10:32
Papal bull

At [livejournal.com profile] stephdiary's house last night there was a silly conversation about papal infallibility, and how the Pope is only infallible when he specifically says he's being infallible. It occurred to me that this was probably just as well, since you'd hate to be burdened with the responsibility of infallibility when you'd just got up and were wittering incoherently over your breakfast.

This morning I got up, saw the ‘1’ on my calendar, and while still half asleep said to myself ‘oh yes, it's July now’. I think that proves my point. If I'd been the Pope and my infallibility had been always-on, there's no telling what might have happened to the nature of time and causality as a result of that absent-minded misstatement!

LinkReply
[identity profile] stephdairy.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 09:57
Alternatively it proves that you're not the Pope.

(S)
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2006-06-01 09:59
Well, that's certainly a relief.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] marnanel.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 12:33
No, no, you're supposed to say "A fact so dread extinguishes all hope."
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous)Thu 2006-06-01 15:10
Sha'n't.

Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 10:16
People run after him in the street pointing and going "Bertrand Russel! Bertrand Russel!"
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 10:05
Does he say when he STOPS being infallible, as well? One wonders what would happen if he forgot to close the end condition properly. Er, not that he could forget, being infallible, I suppose.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2006-06-01 10:10
I can see there might be a risk there. If I were him I'd do the initial declaration of infallibility with a limited time span, in case I forgot.

Part of last night's silly conversation actually did draw the analogy between declaring his infallibility and typing "su" :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 10:28
Heh.

I do think it's slightly hilarious (fx: *zot*) that

theologians disagree about which statements are considered to be infallible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility)
()
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2006-06-01 10:38
Yes, that's quite fun. Even given an infallible statement, you can still avoid being forced to believe it because your own fallibility inserts itself between your belief in the statement's nature and your requirement to believe anything which is definitely infallible. Reminds me rather of What the Tortoise Said to Achilles in that respect: every time you think you're forced to a given conclusion, there's always another pointless stepping stone you can invent and stick in between.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 11:32
Indeed. See Hofstadter's "Goedel Escher Bach" (as I'm sure you have done) for more; much more! :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2006-06-01 12:09
Indeed I have :-) I borrowed it in my sixth form from a maths teacher who'd been struggling through it all term. I think he was a bit disheartened when I got it back to him within 48 hours, bouncing up and down and going "wow, what an amazing book"...
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 12:13
Hee hee :-))

I have started it three times, once in each year of University. The first time I got about a quarter of the way through before giving it up with brain-ache; the second time I got about half way through before ditto, and the third time, finally, I finished it. With brain-ache :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] phyphor.livejournal.comThu 2006-06-01 10:35
According to the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility) it is more like sudo, being a single instruction, along with restrictions on who can make an infallible papal statement (the user "pope") and what the statement can affect (only doctrines that are owned by the group "church", and are in /usr/faith or /usr/morals).
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] fanfThu 2006-06-01 17:56
I don't think paypal is infallible.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2006-06-01 17:58
Link Reply to this | Parent
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]