Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science

[ATFFL]

Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science

 By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said.

But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

He was asked about comments made in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who dismissed in a New York Times article the 1996 statement by John Paul as "rather vague and unimportant" and seemed to back intelligent design.

Basti concurred that John Paul's 1996 letter "is not a very clear expression from a definition point of view," but he said evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops.

Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

The Vatican project STOQ has organized academic courses and conferences on the relationship between science and religion and is hosting its first international conference on "the infinity in science, philosophy and theology," next week.

[afleitch]

Amen to that

[Gabu]

I can't find a lot that I disagree with there.

[John Dibble]

I can't find a lot that I disagree with there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And if "science" claims that Jesus never rose from the dead...then what?

I would like to ask this Vatican cardinal just one question:  Were Jesus and the Apostles "fundamentalists" in that they believed the historical account as given in the bible?

1Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

What an idiot!

[Gabu]

And if "science" claims that Jesus never rose from the dead...then what?

I would like to ask this Vatican cardinal just one question:  Were Jesus and the Apostles "fundamentalists" in that they believed the historical account as given in the bible?

1Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

What an idiot!

I don't think he's saying that you should completely ignore religion when science disagrees, only that reasonability and the ability to have constructive discourse are assets to a religious person and that that can come by reasonably considering what science has to say instead of mindlessly discarding it simply because it's "science".  Nowhere does he say that you necessarily have to agree with all of science, only that you should earnestly listen to it and consider what it says.

I think the example given of what happened to Galileo is an excellent display of what can happen when the religious decide to simply plug their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENIIIIING" as loud as they can whenever they find a disagreement somewhere.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So let me just get this straight...

The Catholics gave Galileo a hard time because of the false doctrine of the Catholic Church (the bible NEVER claims that the earth is the center of the universe, contrary to the Church's belief), and now the Catholic Church is at the other extreme and wants its members to "listen" to science in order to avoid believing the biblical account of history?!

Instead of going from one extreme to another, why not simply be a moderate?

Phil 4:5 "Let your moderation be known unto all men."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think the example given of what happened to Galileo is an excellent display of what can happen when the religious decide to simply plug their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENIIIIING" as loud as they can whenever they find a disagreement somewhere.

No, Galileo is a prime example of the church not listening to God because THE CHURCH went beyond what was written in scripture:

1) Galileo's theory in no way contradicts scripture.

2) Christianity does NOT give the church the right to mistreat people simply because they disagree with the church.

[Gabu]

I think the example given of what happened to Galileo is an excellent display of what can happen when the religious decide to simply plug their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENIIIIING" as loud as they can whenever they find a disagreement somewhere.

No, Galileo is a prime example of the church not listening to God because THE CHURCH went beyond what was written in scripture:

1) Galileo's theory in no way contradicts scripture.

2) Christianity does NOT give the church the right to mistreat people simply because they disagree with the church.

...and unless the church is willing to listen to what others have to say who are possibly not religious, no errors such as these could possibly come to light.

[Emsworth]

And if "science" claims that Jesus never rose from the dead...then what?

I would like to ask this Vatican cardinal just one question:  Were Jesus and the Apostles "fundamentalists" in that they believed the historical account as given in the bible?

1Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

What an idiot!

Cardinal Poupard did not demand that Catholics agree with everything scientists say. He only says that Catholics should "isten to that which secular modern science has to offer." This seems more like an admonition of those who reject evolution and those who believe that the Earth is flat. It does not appear to have anything to do with fundamental doctrines. For example, although scientists might claim that virgin birth is impossible, I doubt that the Catholic Church would reject the dogma of the Virgin Birth.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't think he's saying that you should completely ignore religion when science disagrees, only that reasonability and the ability to have constructive discourse are assets to a religious person and that that can come by reasonably considering what science has to say instead of mindlessly discarding it simply because it's "science".  Nowhere does he say that you necessarily have to agree with all of science, only that you should earnestly listen to it and consider what it says.

Well, then, tell me...to whom is he speaking?  For who mindlessly discards science simply because it is "science"?

And what is his objection to fundamentalism?  Does he believe fundamentalists mindlessly discard science?  Is he saying he believes Jesus and the Apostles weren't fundamentalists?

This so called cardinal, like most "Christians" that mindlessly reject fundamentalism, hasn't even attempted to adopt the faith of the writers of the bible, for it is clear that EVERY ONE of the them were fundamentalists.  Yet this clown is totally unaware of this obvious fact.

He is the blind leading the blind.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Cardinal Poupard did not demand that Catholics agree with everything scientists say. He only says that Catholics should "isten to that which secular modern science has to offer." This seems more like an admonition of those who reject evolution and those who believe that the Earth is flat. It does not appear to have anything to do with fundamental doctrines. For example, although scientists might claim that virgin birth is impossible, I doubt that the Catholic Church would reject the dogma of the Virgin Birth.

Again I ask:  To whom is he speaking?  Who totally rejects science?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And is this cardinal comparing fundamentalism to the actions of his own Church during the treatment of Galileo?  How does fundamentalism get tagged with the responsibility of rejecting the idea that the earth isn't the rotational center of the universe?

Fundamentalism wasn't to blame for Galileo's treatment, for his theories aren't in conflict with scripture.

To the contrary, the fault lies with a church who creates non-biblical doctrines and then enforces them with the unChristian action of physical threats and imprisonment.

Note to Catholic Church:  Take responsibility for your own actions and don't try to pass it off on fundamentalism, because you were not fundamentalists at the time, nor are you now.  The errors that led to the mistreatment of Galileo, inventing false doctrines and forcefully insisting that you are infallible, were caused by your continuous elevation of yourself.  Instead, lift up Christ Jesus, and place him at the center of your universe; then you won't feel the need to imprison and kill people simply because they won't bow down to your beliefs concerning yourself.

[2952-0-0]

Science dosen't exist, jmfcst you prude

[J-Mann]

This is quite in line with the post-Vatican II view of science, and more or less in line with Pope Benedict.  This is from a column I wrote in June:

"As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI presided over the International Theological Commission, which found, 'all living organisms on earth genetically related,” and that, “it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.'

"In the end, Ratzinger’s commission simplifies the intelligent design argument to a level that is far beyond the likes of Connie Morris and Kathy Martin. It describes God — or for the purposes of a public school classroom, a generic creator — as “the cause of causes.”

"As far as a science classroom is concerned, that’s all that would need to be said about intelligent design."

[Emsworth]

There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.

For example:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [...]

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [...]

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:11-24)

There is nothing here to indicate that these creatures did not evolve. After all, it is possible (as far as the Bible is concerned) that God guided the process of evolution.

[J-Mann]

^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, exactly.  And you have to keep in mind that these were ancient people trying to comprehend a very technical, confusing and scientific process, and they just didn't have the means to do it.  So a "six day" creation or Eve being made out of a rib was a way for them to reconcile the enormity of the evolutionary process with their limited knowledge of how and why it occured.

[angus]

Faithful Should Listen to Science

more importantly, those without faith should listen to science.  First of all, the vatican shouldn't be in the business of preaching secular science any more than scientists should be in the business of preaching faith.  And Cardinal Poupard needn't go around talking about "mutual prejudice" between religion and science, as none need even exist.  I have said before that religion deals with the ethereal and science deals with the corporeal.  I've heard my own colleagues bitch and whine about religious fanatics, but this takes the cake. 

But besides all that, and perhaps even more importantly, jmfcst makes an excellent point.  while I disagree with his conclusions on such issues as these, I do agree that the cardinal is misguided and the whole arguement is a bit non-sequitor.  "Fundamentalism" should not bear culpability in the case of Galileo's treatment, but the church's own arrogance should.

jmfcst's own intransigence is another issue entirely. 

[Gabu]

Cardinal Poupard did not demand that Catholics agree with everything scientists say. He only says that Catholics should "isten to that which secular modern science has to offer." This seems more like an admonition of those who reject evolution and those who believe that the Earth is flat. It does not appear to have anything to do with fundamental doctrines. For example, although scientists might claim that virgin birth is impossible, I doubt that the Catholic Church would reject the dogma of the Virgin Birth.

Again I ask:  To whom is he speaking?  Who totally rejects science?

Nobody totally rejects science as a whole, but there are certainly those who completely refuse to even listen to certain ideas given by scientists.

[they don't love you like i love you]

An example of people who refuse in such a way are those who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

[Citizen James]

On the flip side of things, some quotes from a qouple of famous scientists on this topic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Storebought]

There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.

For example:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [...]

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [...]

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:11-24)

There is nothing here to indicate that these creatures did not evolve. After all, it is possible (as far as the Bible is concerned) that God guided the process of evolution.

Since when did you decide to join The Dark Side of the Force?

[afleitch]

I'm glad to see the Catholic church seeing sense in this issue.