Pope Cancels Speech After Scientists Protest

Reservoir Hill writes "Pope Benedict XVI canceled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza university in the face of protests led by scientists opposed to a high-profile visit to a secular setting by the head of the Catholic Church. Sixty-seven professors and researchers of the university's physics department joined in the call for the pope to stay away protesting the planned visit recalled a 1990 speech in which the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, seemed to justify the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633. In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was 'rational and just' and concluded with the remark: 'The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason.' The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini who wrote the rector complaining of an 'incredible violation" of the university's autonomy. Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.'"

Once again we see

That its only Christians and conservatives who are intolerant... Its not like a rational scientist or tolerant liberal would shout down someone they disagree with... /sarc

Re:Once again we see

In a local article about this, I read that a former Pope FOUNDED the school, which I find quite ironic.

Re:Once again we see

In a local article about this, I read that a former Pope FOUNDED the school, which I find quite ironic.

Not just any pope either, it was Boniface VIII [wikipedia.org]. Dante [wikipedia.org] hated him and destined him to his hell for simony (with the other damned asking "Is Boniface here yet?"). Since Dante's Inferno is the most read of the three books of the Commedia [wikipedia.org] and compulsory reading for high-school students in Italy, pretty much every Italian connects Boniface VII with corruption, greed, hypocrisy and lust for power. Which brings us back to the current pope...

I live in Italy: the Vatican is simply evil

Sorry but your are wrong: no one has "shout down" the Pope. He owns a newspaper and a radio, and he's the politician that we see more than anyone else in TV here in Italy, even more than Silvio Berlusconi that owns half of the Italians TV stations.

Yes the Pope acts exactly like a politician in Italy: he tell which laws should be passed or not, or changed, for whom to vote and sometimes even tell people not to go voting, like in a recent referendum. And it's far from nice and good: the Vatican opposes (successfully, thanks to corrupt politician) the right of women, gays and lesbians, is opposing right now an anti-racism law (you read it right: they aren't opposing racism, they are trying to shout down an anti-racism law) and they even opposed a donation from Italy to a children hospital (they didn't oppose the use of the same budget money for the war in Iraq a few years ago), because they want to have the exclusive of charity in the minds of the Italians (the stupid ones, at least) so they get more donations.

And we already know exactly what he was going to say: that abortion is murder, even if it's a simple embryo one day from the fertilisation. And abortion must be completely illegal (in Italy we have a very sensible and balanced abortion law, that has reduced to less than half the number of abortions from when it was completely illegal and all abortions were clandestine, and saved countless women). I know this because I see him every day on every television news always saying the same things, and insulting women, gays, scientists and atheists.

Well he's free to says what the hell he wants, but scientists are also free to not invite him to say those things in a university. He can say the same thing but not in my home. This isn't censorship!

And the Earth is not flat. It's approximately spherical! And it goes around the Sun, not vice versa. I don't care what the Pope says about it: Galileo Galilei was right and the Bible is wrong!

Re:I live in Italy: the Vatican is simply evil

Since you're presenting the bible is "wrong" without qualifiers and without reference, and I know you wouldn't want me to take you on faith...

It's clear that I was speaking about the fact the the Earth is not flat and the center of the universe, but now that you mention it, there are a lot of place where the Bible is inconsistent, factually and/or morally (IMNSHO) wrong.

Have you an example verse that is not open to metaphorical interpretation and uncontingent on present-day constructs of Geometry you'd like to present for discussion?

You mean like this one: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Killing stubborn children is a metaphor for what exactly? And if you think this is funny I can find dozen more examples of this shit, in both the old and the new testament, since I have actually read the whole bible from cover to cover, something that most christians don't do, apparently.

Re:Once again we see (with improved POT format ;)

So it's perfectly okay for a Creationist to demand that he be allowed to give a speech at a biology department? It's perfectly alright for a Holocaust Denier to give a speech at memorial to Nazi genocide victims?

No one is censoring the Pope. Quite the opposite, the man gets far more attention than I think he deserves. That he isn't showing up at a university for some sort of glorified photo op where he gets to pretend he's cozy with science is hardly some vast attempt to silence him.

Re:Once again we see (with improved POT format ;)

So it's perfectly okay for a Creationist to demand that he be allowed to give a speech at a biology department?

You do know that the Catholic Church, including Benedict XVI, supports the theory of evolution [wikipedia.org], with only a few caveats that it's part of God's plan?

Re:Once again we see (with improved POT format ;)

Man, just because you were born in a world where practically anyone claiming to have a science degree is considered infallible by the media doesn't make Galileo's imprisonment unforgivable.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Man, just because you were born in a world where practically anyone can claim freedom from slavery doesn't make slavery unforgivable.
Man, just because you live in a world where rape and murder are illegal, doesn't make rape and murder unforgivable. ...and so on...

See I can justify any action with handwaving.

He wasn't imprisoned because of his scientific findings, but because of his behavior that implied an unacceptably belligerent stance against his intellectual opponents. He not only insulted his scholarly peers, but also certain religious authorities (e.g. the pope) who were the very people trying to defend him.

In some ways that is much WORSE. It means the very people who claim to be the protectors of mankind from all things evil were quite happy to trash scientific truth just to put down anyone that would question their authority.

I also hear this argument a lot and it simply doesn't hold true. You do realize that Copernicus held off publishing his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until he was old and close to dying for fear of retribution from the church? He didn't go around insulting the pope now did he? His works were still banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus [wikipedia.org]

First of all, I doubt that the pope at the time ever threatened to order bodily harm against Galileo, but you're welcome to enlighten me on that point.

You DOUBT? You mean I'm having this argument with someone who doesn't even KNOW the history, but is happy to rabbit on about things he knows nothing about? If you're actually interested in what really happened I can recommend a couple of good books I studied as part of my History of Astronomy subject when I did my Astronomy Masters. Never mind...I'm wasting my breath, aren't I? You're prepared to repeat whatever you've heard without examining it at all.

I didn't say the pope threatened Galileo with anything. I said the current pope condoned the actions of the inquisition that did threaten. Go look up a biography some time.

Now, I wonder whether it's even worth while arguing about excommunication with you, given that apparently you do not accept it as anything other than a cruel expulsion.

Again you show your ignorance. It's more than just a "cruel expulsion". A man who is excommunicated became a pariah, often had his belongings stripped from him, and was threatened with the fires of hell for eternity. This was no mere slap on the wrist.

I wonder if you could at least accept that the a person whose actual beliefs do not jive with his professed belief system would be foolish to remain within that system, or that said belief-system would be quite self-destructive if it allowed dissenting members to continue on acting as members.

Ahhh so it's a form of control. A man's life, livelihood, and beliefs mean nothing because he dared to make fun of the holy church. This is no defence. You clearly have no conception whatsoever of what excommunication meant in the 1600s!

Yet we haven't addressed the central issue: was the former Cardinal defending the debilitating life-long house arrest of Galileo, or was he merely saying that the trial itself was a rational response (if harsh for our standards) against one accused of heresy under the authority of the Church, and that it wasn't an attack on Science at all?

The pope was condoning torture, forcing a person to recant deeply held beliefs, interference of the church with scientific freedom and publication.

But yes strictly speaking you're right. If you're running an evil and descructive totalitarian organisation it is rational to cond

Re:Once again we see (with improved POT format ;)

Going out and putting a gag on him, or making it illegal for him to speak. Other than that, it's a group of scientists who find his position on Galileo, and how that speaks to his views on science, troubling, and feeling that he really has no place speaking at an institution. The Pope has plenty of places he can say his spiel.

Re:Once again we see (with improved POT format ;)

You're right, of course. Protests and letter writing will silence the Pope, who has no other forum for airing his views.

If only there was some place he could speak from, that others could hear. Some sort of... what's the word... pulpit or even a balcony above a crowd.

I guess that'll always be the dream for the Pope though, since we all know he can only speak at universities.

Re:the 6 million mark

You are obviously aware that the Pope served in the Wehrmacht

He was drafted into the army by a fascist state. Not something he had any choice over or should be blamed for.

his previous employment was as head of the Inquisition (which did in fact kill a few people in its heyday)

In 1981, Ratzinger was named Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Inquisition, although the activities we now associate with "the Inquisition" ended centuries before Ratzinger's birth.

forbids the use of condoms and family planning resulting in disease and famine

He holds no legal authority outside a few blocks in Rome. He is the head of a faith that teaches chastity outside of marriage, but so is the Dalai Lama.

goes around dressed in gold

Yes, the Pope does wear papal vestments, although "dressed in gold" is another exaggeration. You might have also noticed that the Pope is indeed Catholic. Look, if you have a bone to pick with the Pope, at least be honest about it. Don't go around misleading people.

Re:the 6 million mark

He was drafted into the army by a fascist state. Not something he had any choice over or should be blamed for.

Some people, at the risk of their lives, defected. He stayed in the system. Many others did, like Nobel laureate Günther Grass [wikipedia.org], but Grass lived an entire life of anti-fascist political activity afterwards. Another Nobel laureate, Dario Fo [wikipedia.org], was drafted but defected at the first occasion to join the resistance. Note that Fo was born in 1927, less than one month before Benedict XVI, and Grass is only six months older.
And anyway, the point was to point the irony with the six-million figure indicated by the parent post, when Ratzinger was among those that helped establish that tally.

the activities [of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] we now associate with "the Inquisition" ended centuries before Ratzinger's birth.

They are not allowed to torture people anymore with the comfy chair, but their main activity is still censorship and repression of free thought within the Church. He could have chosen to be a missionary like Mother Theresa, but preferred the activity of a censoring bureaucrat.

He holds no legal authority outside a few blocks in Rome.

Man, I am Italian and I wish it were like that. He has far more authority in the country than politicians. He says what he wants, and politicians usually give it to him because too few dare to tell him to mind his business, even though the separation of state and church should be a principle in the agreements the Italian state has with the Vatican. Partly it's because being "catholic", over here, is like being "patriotic" in the US. He is currently attacking the Italian abortion law: instead of simply telling catholics not to have abortions, he wants to make it illegal for everybody. Some people still remember how it was before the abortion law: double as many abortions and all performed by untrained, shady figures, resulting in women dying every year.

Yes, the Pope does wear papal vestments, although "dressed in gold" is another exaggeration.

I probably did not finish the thought in my original post. It is not just that the pope is actually dressed in clothes that would cover significant charity projects and probably save hundreds of lives from starvation, the Church as a whole is actually a quite greedy parasite. They get about 0.8% of the Italian income tax and all their activities (including the for-profit ones) are tax-exempt, which in the last 20 years has allowed them to amass a fortune. Weren't these the guys who should preach poverty?

Re:Once again we see

did you notice how the scientists played it so that he couldn't win? [...] it seems that they believe that their ideas can only stand if they suppress competing ideas.

You're wrong: this professor and a lot of professors and students asked the cancellation of the invitation to the Pope from the university chancellor to speak without a debate. The invitation wasn't cancelled at all, and now they're trying to portait the Pope as a victim (successfully, judging from a number of apologist comments even here on /.), which is why the professor is complaing.

And they didn't suppress his ideas at all: on the contrary they have on Italian media much, much more space than science, other religions and atheism combined togheter. We see the Pope every day on almost every Italian TV channel, sometimes for hours without interruptions! They simply asked that the university do not give implicit scientific legitimacy to his extremist ideas without a debate, at the most important ceremony of the year!

If you don't live in Italy you may not understand how strong is the offensive from the Vatican against women, gays, lesbians, science, atheists and pretty much anyone who doesn't bow. Please read my previous comment [slashdot.org] about this. This IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION: is about money, power and the violated rights of actual people in Italy and elsewhere.

So what does he want?

The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini who wrote the rector complaining of an 'incredible violation" of the university's autonomy. Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.'"

Let's see. He asks that the visit be canceled. The visit gets canceled. Then he complains about the visit having been canceled.

This sounds like the guy's ready to complain no matter what happens.

Re:So what does he want?

It's not as simple as that. The pope wanted to come, make a speech and leave. No questions allowed, no debate. The physicists wanted to be able to respond and have a proper debate on his stance on scientific issues in general if he was to come at all. By backing off, the pope paints himself as the victim, avoiding a debate that would make him look like the medieval remain that he is.
This has cause a big stir because, in general, the Italian political system is completely captive to the Vatican. Every day the media reports any move of word of the pope no matter how minor. Any talk show always has at least a priest as a guest. The church has huge properties and pays no taxes. The church get 0.08% of the tax collected unless one goes to great lengths to direct it somewhere else et.c etc.

The Galileo Myth

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU5ZDk3NGY3OGI4NDY1OTdmNzc2NmEzYjUzZWQxNWE= [nationalreview.com]

The story of Galileo is a tad more complicated than the simplistic version we're used to. I'm no Roman Catholic, but this meme needs to be corrected.

The Galileo Myth and the National Review.

For those of you that don't know, The National Review is a conservative magazine that publishes political opinion pieces. It's not exactly a scholarly journal of well researched historical fact.

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS and a VIDEO

Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.

I am actually in La Sapienza university. I'm following the unfortunate unfolding of the events. The Pope cancelled the partecipation to avoid confrontation between the police and the "students" willing to "siege" (Their words http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=U6hfyz4LuIY [youtube.com] ) the Aula Magna where the meeting was scheduled. The decision came after the "students" occupied the Rectorate.

More than refusing dialogue it looks to many of us as the Pope was forced not to be present under the menace of riots: One of the students stated "THERE IS NO DIALOGUE WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL" and the leader in his speech claimed the presence of many other collective outsiders to participate in the event to make it as much inhospitable as possible to the Pope. Last image is the invasion of the rectorate and a meal served outside the premises.

I am disgusted to be italian in the same university as those.

I'm disgusted as well to be forced to post as AC because they are VIOLENT-RED-FASCISTS supported by squatters in the SanLorenzo suburb next to the university.

Somewhat on-topic.....

Has anybody else noticed that Catholicism is quickly becoming the more "accepting/open-minded" branch of Christianity, especially compared to "mainstream Christianity" in the US? Discuss.

Current Pope aside (who, from what I can tell, isn't even well-liked by most Catholics), the Catholic church has more or less apologized for most of its past crimes, and John Paul II even made a case for evolution. Likewise, the Church has definitely placed a huge emphasis on charitable works, and focused very little on evangelism (which, is effectively very much in line with the text of the New Testament).

Although I could be completely wrong, Catholicism seems to be one of the more progressive mainstream branches of Christianity, whereas the bible-belt Christians seem to be moving in the other direction. (This is rather significant, given the Church's history)

Personally, I'm a bit upset at these scientists for protesting a speech from the Pope, which is -- dare I say -- rather dogmatic of them. No scientist should be afraid of ideas, even if they contradict his own.

Re:The Pope Speaks

Talking to scientists is can be ever so tiring. Some days you are just too pooped to Pope.....

Re:Dialoge?

The funny thing about rationality is that it's entirely subjective (however irrational that rationality may be, and vice versa, ipso-facto, falcon punch, etc... now I'm just confusing myself).

Re:Dialoge?

He's a German theologian.

I think that says it all.

Re:What dialogue?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic
is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man
is happier than a sober one"

-George Bernard Shaw

-amen

Re:What dialogue?

In case your wondering, the point is, if it makes them happy, they who are you to stop them?

To paraphrase Richard Dawkin's central argument in "The God Delusion": all religion is necessarily evil because it fosters a culture in which a faith-based life is an acceptable lifestyle, which in turn leaves a society with no means of resaonably extirpating the extremists, who are truly dangerous. In other words, if moderate faith is acceptable, it is implicit that extreme faith must also be acceptable.

With that in mind, I personally have no sympathy for the "but it makes them happy" argument. There is much more at stake here than the happiness of a bunch of hoi polloi... especially when that (delusional) happiness can be more than replaced with (rational) wonder at the mystery and beauty of the natural world.

Re:What dialogue?

To paraphrase Richard Dawkin's central argument in "The God Delusion": all religion is necessarily evil because it fosters a culture in which a faith-based life is an acceptable lifestyle, which in turn leaves a society with no means of resaonably extirpating the extremists, who are truly dangerous. In other words, if moderate faith is acceptable, it is implicit that extreme faith must also be acceptable.

So your saying it is perfectly acceptable to throw the baby out with the bath water? I mean this is basically making the case that one or two bad people justify persecuting everyone right?

With that in mind, I personally have no sympathy for the "but it makes them happy" argument. There is much more at stake here than the happiness of a bunch of hoi polloi... especially when that (delusional) happiness can be more than replaced with (rational) wonder at the mystery and beauty of the natural world.

I don't have much sympathy for the it makes them happy idea either, I was just tossing it out there to show the hypocrisy delivered by the haters of the believers. But tell me, you have sparked my interest, what is so bad about religious faith that you seem to be so disgruntled over. Why must you act like the religious and impose your beliefs over theirs? For what reason do you justify your actions over their similar actions?

Re:What dialogue?

The first second and third commandments.

Re:What dialogue?

Life is itself a problem-solving system, you'd think that we'd have abandoned a tool that's become as useless as religion, using Science instead! But the inertia of stupidity is infinite.

You have part of it.

What problem does religion (and belief in general) solve?

Bonus: Can you formulate an answer that does not make you inherently superior to religions people? See this as a challenge befitting your superior intellect. (Then once seen, unsee.)

I can't... I've just used my brain, seen that comparing religion to science rationally makes science stand out as the superior tool, and feel pity and contempt for the myriads of people who live their whole lives believing those delusions and living in accordance to them.
It is an waste of effort of apocalyptic proportions and infinite stupidity; I can't see it any other way. Even if I try to imagine "all the good religions have done", I view it as an oasis in the midst of the pile of all corpses, all the witches and the dead in the religious wars... Religions are only peaceful when the people are. If they need a reason for war, they'll listen to the priest telling them to go die for God.
All those conditions, environmental switches, species-specific behaviors, is a sort of social game that us primates play unconsciously and collectively.

The solution to all wars, and to religion to a large extent, is EDUCATION to teach Science to everyone, and RESOURCES so that they never get the perception that those will lack.

Do you really think millions of years of human evolution can be changed by education and resources?

And, before you turn the flames on me, I'm agnostic, so chill.

Million of years of evolution can't be changed, but, just suppress the environmental conditions that flip the behavioral switch to "war mode", and the dire consequences of religions will all be avoided : they won't be the xenophobic meme that mediates the dehumanization of the people's perception of their neighbours, if the conditions in which xenophobic memes thrive (impending lack of resources) just never happens anymore.

See? No flames :-)

Re:Dialoge?

Benndict seems to be on a mission from god

Does he, now? :)

Re:Dialoge?

No, they are not, except when explicitly claiming that particular power. And this has apparently been done exactly once since that particular dogma was instated in 1870.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility [wikipedia.org]

Re:Dialoge?

This is extremely misunderstood. Gallileo was told not to teach his theories as fact until they could be proven, and to not contradict the church in theological matters, not matters of science.

One also forgets that the Church was Gallileo's employer (he taught at a Catholic university.)

Re:Dialoge?

Freedom of religion does not prevent my right to mock it.

how they act when they gain power

If you actually knew religion well, you would know that its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones.

Warm fuzzy feelings far outweigh torture and genocide?
Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies.

I'm not saying you're just bidding your time to start raping and pillaging, but I think religion is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and you seem really focused on the softness of its hide.

Re:Dialoge?

Sorry, not ignorant, I know religion all too well and have seen what it does to people.

No, you have not. You have seen what it does to SOME people. If you actually knew religion well, you would know that its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones.

As discussed at length in the book 'Breaking the Spell', you made a statement, now come up with the evidence. Prove it. If you think religion has such a great history of positive effects show it: statistically not anecdotally.

The sad thing is that anyone thinks this needs to be proven. What are they teaching in schools these days?

Start with science. Science as we know it today was brought into existence by religious people who -- unlike their atheist contemporaries -- believed that, because God exists, the universe must have order, and rules, and that those rules are discoverable. It is because of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs that he brought so much knowledge to our world.

Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true.

I could go on but dinner is approaching. Now, to turn things around, all the things mentioned to me -- the crusades and so on -- don't appear to me to be related to religion at all. Religion was no more inherent to the Crusades than Nationalism was to the Holocaust. Those were both just tools used to promote other fascistic ideas about conquering and destruction. You could make the case that unthinking religion or nationalism is bad, but that's nothing new, and not unique to any particular idea. For example, courage is not bad, but courage without wisdom is bad, and so on. There's nothing bad inherent in religion.

Now, maybe there's bad things inherent in a particular religion, such as Scientology. But that's a separate discussion.

Re:Dialoge?

Maybe it's just the media, but when was the last time you heard about Christians actually helping people?

Every day. Just today I heard from a good friend of mine who is helping to set up computer networking for people in Papua New Guinea. Yesterday, another friend helping a couple whose child is very sick. That same friend, by the way, also was down in New Orleans last year, helping Katrina victims. It happens all the time, but they just don't tend to make a big deal out of it.

Not that this is unique to Christians, of course: most people are like that. Well, most people I know, anyway. :-)

None of the outspoken Christians even seem to follow the moral teachings of Jesus or their holy book.

You won't find a much bigger critic of some Christians than me. I have many times criticized, for example, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and many televangelists. That is, of course, not a reflection on either religion, or other religious people (except the people who follow them).

Basically, what I'm getting at, is that for my entire life, living in what is one of the most Christian places in Canada, I have never seen this 'good' side of Christianity; "If you actually knew religion well." you say. I know it well enough.

I don't think you do, though I could be wrong ... but I doubt it. You are talking about viewing Christians at a very shallow level: looking at the news, seeing some of them occasionally in public. That is not a very strong form of knowledge.

I've seen classmates at school berate and threaten other kids because they believe in evolution, or had a homosexual relationship.

Sure. And I've seen classmates at school berate and threaten other kids because they were religious. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with people hating differences. It's not a good thing, certainly, but it is not a "feature" of religion.

In my eyes, Christianity only gives people a reason to bully other people, no more.

That only proves you really, in fact, do not know Christianity well at all.

Re:Dialoge?

Actually, I feel that one should mock everything and everyone. People who are serious and things that `are to be taken seriously' are the only things and people that make me really scared.

Re:Dialoge?

1. The establishment clause only applies in the USA.
2. The establishment clause only prohibits the government from opposing religion. As long as their actions are otherwise legal, people can criticize the Church all they want.
3. If someone says grass is blue, it is within societal norms to laugh at them. But mysteriously it's not okay to do so if they say the world is 6000 years old.

Saying "Black people are inferior" is bigoted. Saying "Statistically, black people in the USA are more likely to commit robbery" isn't, since it's a statement of fact.

Saying that the Bible is two-thousand year old fiction produced by goat herders is a statement of fact. It is verifiably not true.

Re:Dialoge?

How about freedom from persecution?

What persecution?

Exactly. Too many relgious types seem to confuse criticism with persecution. It's laughable for any Christian to think they are being persecuted in a Western country, and particularly American Christians... for Christ's sake [pun intended] your friggin' President is a Christian.

Re:Dialoge?

"Irrationality" is any thought that defies the predetermined narrative (as defined by the mainstream). In the 17th-century, it was any man of science. Today, it's any man of faith. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Dialoge?

the pontiff looks at questions that have no place in reality or in rational discussion.

I'm sorry, but questions like "where did we come from," "why are we here," and "what is my moral duty to others" are important questions that have been part of rational discussion for literally thousands of years. Most of the great Western philosophers--people who perhaps define "rational"--have spent time thinking about those questions. For example Plato [wikipedia.org], Descartes [wikipedia.org] ("I think, therefore I am" [wikipedia.org]), Epictetus [wikipedia.org], Nietzsche [wikipedia.org], just to name a few. Each of those philosophers has thought about why we are here and what duty we owe to others--questions that the Pope also seeks to answer. He uses a different method to reach his answers, but the question is shared between secular and religious philosophers.

You might agree with the Pope's answers, but the questions are certainly important and deserve rational treatment.

Re:Dialoge?

Some questions are simply wrong. Asking "why" presupposes a reason and in a lot of cases there isn't one (on the level people are looking for - people still don't seem to accept the possibility that humanity's whole existence did not serve a higher purpose).

Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.

Re:Dialoge?

Sure, but there are degrees of coherence here. Just because no one has a completely consistent and coherent set of beliefs does not mean all sets of personal beliefs are equally coherent. For example, someone who believes in a virgin birth and a resurrection, but who is also a engineer or scientist trained to look at evidence, probably has a lot more cognitive dissonance and partitioning going on in their brain than the typical person. Similarly, a scientist who at least attempts to adopt only beliefs which can be supported directly with physical evidence may not totally succeed because non-evidence-based beliefs are often required in daily life to simply function. Nevertheless, they probably have a reasonably consistent world view with a lot less superlative fluff to fill in their knowledge gaps.

Re:Big Deal

No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science

Re:Big Deal

yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science

Um, Catholics don't care what the Pope has to say about scientific matters, nor is it relevant to his position. He is only considered infallible on issues of faith and morals, and even then it is only when it is done in an official capacity (ex cathedra as it is called). I think you are confusing the Pope with some nutter like Pat Robertson. Catholicism != Modern American fundie Evangelicalism.

Re:Mecca and Medina

In any case, there is currently no unified theory that explains the connection of the spiritual realm ("soul") and physical world.
Here, let me fix that for you: In any case, there is currently no evidence of the spiritual realm ("soul")...

Re:Real bias?

Perhaps you could cite where any scientist is pushing atheism as the new religion. How would atheism be a new religion, neither being new nor a religion?

Re:Real bias?

The public perception in many places is that Richard Dawkins is a spokesperson for scientists (with a position like Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, perhaps the perception is warranted). When such a well-known public figure rags on religion as much as he does, it's no wonder that religious people feel threatened by science. In a very real sense, Dawkins does evangelize for atheism. This is one reason why people have started calling it a "religion."

On the other hand, many extremely accomplished scientists (Stephen Jay Gould, to name one off the top of my head) have a view of religion that is fundamentally different from Dawkin's view, and not nearly as antagonistic.

Re:Real bias?

Is disbelief in Zeus mean you're a Hellenic paganist? Does disbelief in witchcraft mean you're an occultist?

Atheism is the disbelief in God. It has no meaningful tenets, no dogma, no holy books, no ceremonies, no rites, no declarations of faith, no churches, no temples, no leaders, no hierarchy and no common moral code. In short, it has none of the hallmarks of a religion.

Irony

Of course atheism is a religion, [...]

You know you have won the argument when your adversaries denigrate you by claiming you are just like them.

Re:Real bias?

Many scientists are pushing atheism as the new religion and they seem to want to force everyone to accept it.

Atheism is not new, nor is it a religion.

Silencing is the way of Hilter, Stalin, and others.

The Pope has not been silenced, not one bit.

It's exactly what the church did centuries ago to scientists and now its redeveloping on the other side of the coin.

If ever the Pope is burned at the stake with scientists lighting the pyre, you'll have a point.

Re:Not surprising

What is it, specifically, that prevents you from performing dangerous experiments on unwilling human subjects?

Not being a psychopath, I identify with other people somewhat, and have some capacity for putting myself in other people's shoes. I wouldn't like to be experimented on unknowingly, so I wouldn't experiment on other people unknowingly. Even if I were psychopathic, those who aren't will tend to keep me in line.

Religions do not have a monopoly, as it were, on morality, but you'll find that most of the moral standards to which we hold ourselves emerge directly from them

Such as? Ultimately the things people tend to consider wrong, such as murder, adultery, theft and so on are considered so because of ideas like ownership, desire for social cohesion and stability, in in-built emotional responses evolution has seen fit to provide us with; they're universal (for the most part) not because people are scared Sky Master From Beyond The Universe will beat them up if they break them, but because they're easily recognisable as being bad for the life most people want to lead, and those who disagree tend to get removed from the equation one way or another.

You don't think you find the idea of murdering someone abhorrent because you're Muslim, do you?

I assure you even those questions, not to mention all the others you have not considered, are more complex than you might imagine at first.

Why? Because I do not take into account what I think a possible creator of the universe might think on any given matter? "Well, I have no problem with homosexuals, but now I take into account the fact that this book says they're an abomination upon the Lord, I'm going to be an asshole and try to mess up their lives", hmm. "I thought condoms were a pretty good idea, but then I remembered the big guy in the sky who can do absolutely anything He wants gets upset when I thwart His plan with a thin layer of latex".

I ask you, how do, living beyond good and evil, tell Right from Wrong without returning back to religion?

Normal people have this thing called a conscience. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's kind of like God, only this invisible friend is normally recognised as being ourselves, and you can actually have a conversation with it. Possibly you're even confusing yours with the creator of the cosmos; an easy mistake to make, and one I made myself, long ago.

With a religion, while the impulse to follow this self-serving bias is still there, it's not nearly as easy to carry through on it. Why? Because an honest man will always go back to the book, the priest, or the sage and ask him, "hey, is this alright?"

This is "why social support networks are good for morality", not "why religion is good for morality". In the context of science it's normally a requirement to actually get anything done, if only for practical reasons.

the problem people have with religion is the problem people have with all things; practitioners of a religion are human, just like practitioners of anything else, and they're going to fail and falter occasionally.

Well, sure, except many of the problems I have with religions are when they appear to be working properly; decrying the use of contraception, persecuting homosexuals, underminding our own understanding of the nature of reality, indoctrinating children, suppressing women, and pushing their own agendas on everybody else. You talk about evil? That's it, right there.