Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right 669
HughPickens.com writes: The Independent reports that Pope Francis, speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has declared that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real. "When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," said Francis. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment." Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they "require it." "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Experts say the Pope's comments put an end to the "pseudo theories" of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI who spoke out against taking Darwin too far.
Haleluja ... (Score:5, Funny)
Haleluja ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the time scales involved are staggering. and corruption would always be suspect.
I don't have that kind of time booboo.
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:5, Informative)
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
If you want to argue about papal infallibility it's probably wise that you understand papal infallibility and ex cathedra before uttering idiotic statements like what I quoted.
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:4, Informative)
And if you want to enlighten people about their misunderstandings of your religion, it's probably wise to know the difference between a "statement" and a "question," and, at a bare minimum, decency requires not conflating ignorance of internal concepts like "ex cathedra" to stupidity.
Otherwise, you come across as just another thumpin' asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you want to enlighten people about their misunderstandings of your religion, it's probably wise to know the difference between a "statement" and a "question," and, at a bare minimum, decency requires not conflating ignorance of internal concepts like "ex cathedra" to stupidity.
Otherwise, you come across as just another thumpin' asshole.
It's complicated. Many old religions have two components: the popular beliefs and the philosophical part of them. This is true of Catholicism (do not confuse with Christianism), Buddhism, etc.
The philosophical part is complicated. It's not something that you just explain in a couple of sentences on Slashdot, it will take some studying to get the meaning right of many concepts, such as "ex cathedra" or "metaphysical causality".
Going back on the topic of the article, you could read a great comment at the
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:5, Informative)
Which is true, the vast majority of the time. The Pope is only considered infallable when claiming ex cathedra which is almost exclusively used for the canonization of saints. There are fewer than 15 acknowledged papal statements that are considered ex cathedra and consequently infallable. It was a rhetorical question made from a flawed premise that ended at the right conclusion. That's of course discarding any sort of argument against papal infallibility made from within the Catholic Church or other Christian faiths.
However, as juancn stated, the philosophy of the church and faith is a deeply complicated matter that a few simple sentence cannot do justice. Terms rarely as blanket statements and are usually far more nuanced than people realize. Religious orders themselves have influenced things in various ways. The Jesuits have always been an interesting order to follow and it certainly doesn't hurt that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit elected to the Papacy.
Re: (Score:3)
It is called a retcon. God does it all the time. Stan Lee at Marvel did it all the time.
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:5, Informative)
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
Papal infallibility [wikipedia.org] only pertains to Catholic doctrine, and nothing else. If you asked the Pope what the weather was going to be like next week, and he said it was going to be rainy, but it ended up being sunny, it wouldn't violate papal infallibility.
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
Papal infallibility [wikipedia.org] only pertains to Catholic doctrine, and nothing else. If you asked the Pope what the weather was going to be like next week, and he said it was going to be rainy, but it ended up being sunny, it wouldn't violate papal infallibility.
How convenient, he's only infallible on things that can't be proven.
Re:Haleluja ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the whole irreducible complexity deal - (blood clotting requires some 30 chemicals in just the right proportions and cannot have come about through gradual changes - remove one of those and the smallest cut causes the organism to bleed to death, remove another and the clotting never stops and all blood turns solid).
Of course it can. Creatures without the right chemicals in the right places bleed to death from minor injury before getting chance to reproduce. Others with solid blood never get to reproduce either. The ones with the right balance survive long enough to pass the traits onto the next generation. If some god had set the chemical balance right then why does it fuck up in a bunch of different circumstances? Blood clots are a thing and so is haemophilia, it's not either too thin to clot, just right or too thick to move like some Goldilocks porridge deal. This is as redundant as the pathetic something as perfect as the human eye (which is far from perfect) or any eye for that matter don't just pop into existence argument.
What species are shown as 'just appearing' with no previous chain? Citation very much needed.
You need to get over the idea that everything has to be made by someone(thing) because who the fuck created your creator? The God God? And then who made him? It's turtles all the way down no matter how you look at it.
You also need to have the confidence to say 'I/We don't know' instead of attributing all unknowns to some god.
Re: (Score:3)
Though as an aside, I wonder how long it will take the hardcore Darwinists to realize in greater numbers that a chain of cause and effect, if traced back to its beginning, must eventually have a prime mover, an uncaused cause?
Even if you could somehow prove that the beginning wasn't a massive but happy accident, you would still have zero proof that the "uncaused cause" had anything to do with a personal god. And anyway, why can your "uncaused cause" not need a cause but everything else does? You can't have a logical argument when you're willing to break your own rules to justify your beliefs.
DNA contains lots and lots of highly organized information that doesn't just happen
No one said DNA just happened; they say that small chemical changes from simpler molecules happened over millions or billions of years
Let me butt in one second. (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have been accepted theories in the Catholicism for just about as long as they were around (last century or so). In fact the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest! Pope John Paul II said that evolution was the most probable theory and referenced a predecessor Pope's words as agreeing with him.
The article itself thankfully references this fact:
But Pope Francis’s comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul II went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” and “effectively proven fact”.
Though they did seem to want to keep perpetuating the myth that the Church was ever anti-science. When it's just not true.
Re: Let me butt in one second. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, the atheist bloc tend to propagate myths like this without any evidence to support their claims or being open to rational discourse.
Re:Let me butt in one second. (Score:5, Interesting)
Galileo is the victim of politics. It was actually the pope that asked Galileo to complete his studies and publish his works. It may sound odd today, considering how we do science so differently from their times, but back then the pope (and much of the RCC) felt stuck with this "heathen" geocentric world view. After all it went back to Aristotele and he was much but not a good christian child. They found auctors, i.e. authorities (the "ones that had it generally right"), for nearly every other field, but just Astronomy (which was pretty big back then, believe it or not) was left to that heathen guy because nobody came up with something better (and to dethrone such an authority, you had to do something pretty spectacular. Usually, though, it only meant that you summarized various authorities to become the new authority).
So the Pope was originally VERY interested when Galileo started talking about an astronomy model that worked better than the old one AND had no relation to the heathen times. But even the Pope wasn't impossible to fell and political intrigue was pretty big back then. I'd have to look up the details, but iirc the main problem was that some powerful family held various cardinal seats, wanted to overthrow the pope and this could easiest be done by claiming that Galileo (who got a lot of backing from the pope) was in league with the devil for trying to upset the good wholesome Christian doctrine that god created the world as the center of the universe.
The pope generally had two options: Drop Galileo or fall with him. We know how he decided, and who could hold it against him?
Tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Interesting)
There's actually a lot of potentional scientific correct stuff in the Bible. Yet, discussing them usually gets frowned upon by either team - it seems (for atheist scientists) a lot easier to discard the bible as 'rubbish' instead of an historical document - where the religious camp tends to take this same history book too literal, despite all translation issues.
Genesis conforming our current Big Bang theory is already a nice start. But, it also hints of more scientific knowledge already known back in the days we call 'stone age'.
A good example of this are Mozes' hygienic laws - about washing hands, seperating raw from cooked food, refraining from eating animals which carry nasty parasites (pigs) etc.
To stretch the imagination more, more stories possibly have some scientific origin. Let me mention a few (without claiming this is correct, but hopefully also without hilarious laugther):
* The arch of Noah - might well have been a spaceship from another planet or solar system, colonializing earth with humans and various animal species.
* Adam and Eve may tell us about genetic engineering - and hence being banned from paradise (animals have no worries apart the current moment) by the knowledge gained (our brains improved by genetic engineering).
* Jesus might have been a space traveller with a good first-aid kit - hence the miracle curings.
* Ascension tells us how he (Jesus) left with his spaceship.
* Even our fossile records supports theories of an alien origin of mankind - there is the famous 'missing link' between apes and humans, especially recent fossiles. Admittingly there are plenty other explanations for that.
* The reasonable recent human races (homo sapiens, neanderthalers, denisovan) might hint to a humanlike race already spreading accross the universe, and colonizing earth with astronauts from various planets.
* The bible distinguishes between 'The Lord' and 'God' - where the Lord is an actual impersonification of a man. Such Lord may well be some space traveller, or otherwise well-educated person, and is mistaken for God only by misinterpretation.
Etc etc. It's easy reply to this with a 'what the f* did you smoke'. However, keeping all options open is what a scientist ought to do. We may have well been interpreting the Bible the wrong way all along. The better reader already noticed that some of the theories mentioned above conflict eachother. However, seeking a scientific explanantion makes more sence than believing in miracles and an almighty God.
There is so much in history that we don't know, and can only guess. Thinking that we are the first intelligent species and culture that lives on this 4-billion year old earth may be very naive.
To put that in perspective: We will probably be able this, or next century latest, to colonize other planets. We will also be able to send robotic vehicles to other star systems. Chances are, that in the next 500-1000 years, we will be able to geo-engineer another planet (Mars). We may be able to send deepfrozen life and DNA in a robotic space ship to another star. We may be able to send bacterial life to other planets. We even may be able to send animal embryo's to other planets. This is all only limited to our imagination, technically this all seems possible in theory.
Now, if you accept this is possible, by us. Then it is reasonable to assume it happened before. It may be reasonable to speculate that earth is actively colonized, possible after being geo-engineered first for millions of years to make it suitable for human life forms.
Surely the Pope won't like this last speculative thoughts. Yet, it's just a scientific-plausible theory. And we may actually have a record of exactly such in our very own Bible.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
Keeping an open mind is good but make sure your brain doesn't fall out.
What state are you in, your dealer appears to have some great stuff?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not saying it was aliens [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Informative)
might well have been a spaceship from another planet or solar system, colonializing earth with humans and various animal species.
Unless they populated Earth with every single lifeform, that wouldn't be possible, since all lifeforms have a single family tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they populated Earth with every single lifeform, that wouldn't be possible, since all lifeforms have a single family tree.
Perhaps all life is in the same family tree? The environment it grows in shapes it to the needed design for the best chance of survival.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, I was just thinking: "You know, if there were space aliens in here, this whole book would be even more believable."
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
That's how we know Scientology is real. I'm not saying it's because of aliens, but.... aliens.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientology is the religion of taking advantage of the protections afforded religions as a way of dodging taxes.
The LGBT community should declare their on religion in a like manner and then thumb their noses at state, federal, and local laws.
Sorta like Scientology does.
Why aren't the unthinking assholes who cry, "sanctity of marriage," going after the Scientologists?
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy reply to this with a 'what the f* did you smoke'. However, keeping all options open is what a scientist ought to do. We may have well been interpreting the Bible the wrong way all along.
This is not how Science works. Science makes and observation and attempts to explain it. The Bible explains nothing in nature and no amount of re-interpreting changes that fact.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
There's actually a lot of potentional scientific correct stuff in the Bible
As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy reply to this with a 'what the f* did you smoke'
Saying "I'm not insane" is not, in itself, a proof of sanity.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for this is much more mundane. In the original Hebrew, God has many names depending on whether God is being referred to as someone who judges sins, as merciful, etc. These don't all translate perfectly from Hebrew to English so sometimes "Lord" is used and sometimes "God" is used - depending on the translation. No need to bring in space aliens and further complicate matters when a simple translation explanation will do.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
And "Adonai", in turn, is spoken as Hashem (literally "The Name") whenever it isn't used in prayer.
If you were saying the prayer over bread, you'd say:
Baruch atah Adonai, elohainu melech ha'olom hamotzi melech min ha'aretz.
If you were just reading the same prayer (but weren't about to actually eat bread), you'd say:
Baruch atah Hashem, elohainu melech ha'olom hamotzi melech min ha'aretz.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)
The main problem with using the bible here is that it has no predictive power at all. It's all the classical case of "hindsight is 20-20". We can't read into the bible as to what to look for in future scientific endeavors. All we can do is do science the right way, and then try to use it and claim "hurr durr see bible was right - here here and there". The revisionist approach many religious people seem so fond of can be reduced to: the religious text X must be right, let's see if we can fit it to our current understanding of reality. I shouldn't need to state the obvious problem here: any time spent on such revisionism is a big waste and has nothing but faint entertainment value. If you're easily amused, that is.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
There's actually a lot of potentional scientific correct stuff in the Bible.
The point about science is the process, not the result. There may be correct content in the bible, but that does not make it scientific.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
I do like how you've taken the Ark story and turn it into a bastardized panspermia myth. The idea that earth was colonized by super beings from outer space sounds awesome! I'll put on the shelf next to my book of native american creation myths.
As for the bible, it's a train wreck. You can take the bible and make ANYTHING out of it. It's theological mess, it's a moral mess, it's self contradictory mess. This is why we've got X denominations of Christians who can't decide on any single part of the bible. For every part that you like, you'll find some other group who has issue with it.
However, our fossil record does not contain any evidence of alien origin. We have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to transitional fossils and genetic evidence and radiometric dating that shows that genetically and chemically we're all related. You have lots of DNA in common with an oak tree, and a bunny, and a fish, and a chimpanzee, etc. I'll grant you that maybe some comet crashed to earth 4.5 billion years ago that had a strand of DNA in it and whole process got kicked off. However, until we start catching comets and examining them for evidence of genetic materials or the precursors therein, it's just a hypothesis without any evidence.
Making the argument that the Earth as been geo-engineered for humans is preposterous. 2/3's of it is covered with water we can't drink! Large swaths are covered with desserts and mountain ranges. There are earthquakes and volcanoes, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, all that may be true. And it may be that the reason that William of Ockham's had no beard is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
I blatantly stole that from some slashdotter's sig. Sorry for the lack of attribution. I don't remember who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
" How exactly is is he then worthy of worship or awe from us?"
Throughout history, the more technologically advanced societies tend to think they deserve awe, and in some cases outright worship, from the much more primitive tribes they encountered. Why should we think this kind of mindset is limited to humans? Why couldn't an alien species share the same philosophy or take it even further?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like he just watched Prometheus.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a difference between trolling and insanity? The guy's off his rocker, he might be this guy. [slashdot.org] I parodied those people in Nobots.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a difference between trolling and insanity?
Yes, trolls choose to do what they do.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Informative)
(Full disclosure, I'm an atheist) Actually, god was afraid we would steal his power. That's why he kicks us out.
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
- Genesis 3:22
Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Informative)
This has been mainline Christian thought, even among evangelicals, for decades. YEC's get the spot-light because they're zany, but this has already been accepted for a good while now.
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, most churches won't come out and say that you need to be a YEC or a OEC. But they'll still have that double standard that someone who talks about Adam and Eve being directly, physically created by God will never have any problem, while those who point out that it's scientifically inaccurate will be labeled intolerant, divisive, unfit for leadership, etc.
Around 30% of evangelicals accept evolution. And that's with a very generous definition of evolution that allows for God to guide the process. If you ask people whether they think evolution is true and that was due to natural processes, i.e. the scientific consensus, you're down to 8%. I'm wondering if the Pope is not also leaving the door open to that when he says "evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve".
And note that many among the 30% are not the most committed people. If you were to look at the leadership and other influential people in churches, the percentage would be a lot lower.
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Interesting)
As a church-goer, I can tell you that, yes, an out-spoken evolutionist will be met with awkward silence. Not because anyone disagrees with him, but because they all are thinking the same thing: "Oh, deal Lord, he's going to get crazy old Mrs. Doddard stated again on fossils again. How can I get out of here politely?" It's the same awkward silence you'd get discussing anything contentious at all. Politics, flu vaccines, or even theology (I'm a Presbyterian, and even still discussing Calvanism is a crap-shoot of accidentally starting an argument). Modern churches, even here in the deep south are pretty diverse places, and the general policy seems to be "if you think this is going to start an argument, and is not vitally important, don't talk about it."
I don't doubt your 30%, though it does not reflect the evangelicals I know (and, like I said, very conservative deep south; perhaps skewed because my acquaintances run in the young adult range).
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern churches, even here in the deep south are pretty diverse places, and the general policy seems to be "if you think this is going to start an argument, and is not vitally important, don't talk about it."
I cannot see the point of an organisation that you go to voluntarily (i.e. excluding work) where you aren't allowed to have any meaningful discussions.
Even going out for after work drinks you're likelyto argue about football, politics or something.
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about being allowed; it's about not being a bore. I have vigorous and enthusiastic debates with religious friends, including about evolution, but I know my audience. I only argue with friends and random strangers on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
In describing my church, you also describe Slashdot.
Re:Only YEC denies it (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been mainline Christian thought, even among evangelicals, for decades. YEC's get the spot-light because they're zany, but this has already been accepted for a good while now.
You can read in Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", his popular science book from the 80's, his conversations with the Pope in the 70's during which the Pope "concedes" time after the Big Bang to science. Hawking gets a little happy about then explaining how time didn't exist until just an infinite moment after the Big Bang, but that's besides the point.
No, the theologically interesting part here is:
The bit about magicians and magic wands are a throw away softening statement as nobody has ever imagined the Abrahamic God as requiring magic devices. More concisely then:
That may well be the most controversial thing a Pope has ever said. And has the potential to re-focus Christians on what Jesus was talking about - they've become lost in Old-Testament vengeance in the most recent millennium. Long gone are the days of Constantine not being able to fight wars of conquest because his army was full of Christian pacifists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to tut-tut your church's backward thinking, except it sounds like they do more for their fellow man than I do. TBH, it doesn't sound too tragic; I wish I was less into right-thinking and more into right-doing.
Re: (Score:3)
The universe has cause and effect and requires it for everything.
Not according to quantum mechanics.
Which is kind of opposite the whole concept of God
But now you just made up arbitrary atrributes for god, without providing any reasoning why they might apply to him. We are back to wondering why you would say god is special and does not require a case, when you maintain that the universe does. Surely a simpler explanation, with an equal amount of evidence and logic to it, would be that the universe itself simply has the special property of being able to exist without a cause.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Evolution isn't earth-origin theory. (Score:3)
The theory of evolution isn't Earth-origin theory. Why can't people understand that?
Re:Evolution isn't earth-origin theory. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also not abiogeneses theory.
Religious people tend to lump these together because most creation myths cover both Earth-origin (and Universe-origin mind you) as well as life-creation.
All of them assuming that life-creation basically got right to present-day creatures from the start (with a few rare stories where a particular new species is created in a myth in an almost evolution-life story).
In the case of the Christian creation myth in particular - no such exceptions exist, so for Christian creationists big-bang, solary-system formation and evolution are all intruding on something they explain with a single (unscientific) story.
Hence they tend to lump the science together as well.
Of course this is ironic and silly - abiogenesis at this stage has no firm answers or theories, it has a few ideas but none have any significant supporting evidence yet.
Evolution was hailed as a scientific breakthrough since first published and been validated with only minor corrections ever since.
The Big Bang (like black holes) on the other hand was despised by scientists when they first realized that Einstein's theories had it as a possibility, physicists do not like singularities and to them the Big Bang theory was little more than creationism ! The fact that popes had embraced it by the 1960's actually HARMED It's acceptance in science.
It wasn't until decades later as the evidence mounted that the big bang theory became mainstream science - something helped in no small part by the growing evidence for black holes (another hated singularity).
Indeed the hypotheses that black holes in one universe are the big bangs of another universe was first proposed because it would take a universe with two types of known singularities and at least reduce it to ONE singularity, and importantly - one we understand a lot more about !
If that hypotheses is true - then the "other side" of the big bang theory isn't a mystery - it's a black hole in another universe created by a supermassive star collapsing under it's own gravity.
Not actually a new stance (Score:5, Informative)
I have a feeling this only seems newsworthy because most folks here are more acquainted with American Catholicism, which tends be very very influenced by American protestentism (ie, evangelicals) and thus very very conservative in some areas (especially science).
The Catholic Church has not been opposed to these things for some time, regardless of the feelings of certain members of the Church who didn't bother to learn their Catechism very well. Granted, the Church does an end run around them by essentially saying "if it is so, then it is so because God made it so", which is fairly standard religious belief around and not really out of hte ordinary.
But the point is, the Church's actual teaching is that there is no conflict between the Church's spiritual beliefs and teachings and these sciences, and thus the Church does not reject these scientific theories.
Re: (Score:2)
There are catholics with very conservative views such as "the world was created 5000 years ago", and catholics that are very progressive and modern in their views. The real problem is that the second type does not call out the first as cranks and forces them to change their views, but rather they shrug and consider it a minor matter.
Christians, even catholics, keep saying "why don't the moderate muslims ostracize Al Qaeda and this kind of extremisms?", but they behave exactly in the same way in this respect
Re: (Score:2)
They have been very involved in science from the beginning, they do not take that shit lightly and have a history of believing whatever the scientific consensus comes up with and steering their belief structures around that. In fact it was a Catholic Priest who came up with the theory of the Big Bang.
I have a feeling this only seems newsworthy because most folks here are more acquainted with American Catholicism
But how is that right? Isn't the whole point of Catholicism that that the church in Italy is in charge. Period. You don'
Re:Not actually a new stance (Score:5, Informative)
American protestentism (ie, evangelicals)
You seem to be equating protestant Christianity with evangelical Christianity with literal biblical interpretation. Don't do that.
Most Protestant Christians in America do not take the creation story as literal and do not believe that you can add-up the ages of the people in the bible to conclude that the earth is ~6,000 years old. As a non-denominational Protestant Christian, I've attended Nazarene, Adventist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. So far as I know, none of them took literal interpretations of the creation story. I believe they all agree with the Catholics on this topic.
Regarding evangelicals: The term merely means people who believe in the gospels and follow Jesus. That's really all Christians, so the term doesn't mean much. But it definitely doesn't mean "fundamentalist" or "literal interpretation."
Re:Not actually a new stance (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe we live in different Americas? Here in Missouri, if it says Baptist at the door, you can expect young earth creationism. And the worst part is, that's not even the worst of what they'll teach you. A friend of mine was OK with the YEC bullshit, but she ended up leaving her church, and really, her family, when she figured out the kinds of things that were being taught to her daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
The Vatican is not committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible, nor is it committed to any truly allegorical interpretation. The Bible can say X and the Vatican can say Y and it's never going to be a problem as long as the pope and the cardinals and the priests are all reasonably in line. In fact, it probably works even if they aren't reasonably in line.
Don't waste your time trying to have logical arguments about a subject with people who aren't committed to logic and reason with regards to that subj
No, You Don't Know What You're Talking About (Score:2)
you didnt even read what i wrote did you?
in fact, you are the perfect illustration of what i meant.
you are the one who doesnt know what he's talking about.
I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine.
You know, since I am one, albeit very poor one that rarely practices and goes to the cafeteria.
Cool, but nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, most of the biblical literalists don't consider Catholicism to be a valid branch of Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
...the Big Bang theory was was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
I hadn't heard that before, can you link a source? I do know that atheists vehemently opposed that theory, because until then the accepted theory was the "solid state universe" that always existed and exists forever, and the big bang theory postulated that it had a beginning and will have an end.
Re:Cool, but nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
The metaphysics of evolution are a different story (Score:2, Interesting)
Behind the theory of classic evolution lies a metaphysical explanation for the universe: that life "progresses", from simple to complex, from the more fundamental to the more sublime, from problem to solution. The metaphysics of evolution is very much rooted in the philosophy of positivism and progressivism. It is anti-religious not in the sense that it is against the idea of a God, necessarily, but in the sense that the concept of a God is not needed to explain the natural world. God is irrelevant.
One does
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The philosophy of evolution gets boring when you realize that an organism capable of doing philosophy can only ever find itself on a planet where such an organism evolved.
The philosophy of evolution isn't going to get really interesting until we begin to find evidence of life on other planets, or better yet in other star systems.
This has been doctrine for decades. (Score:4, Informative)
Why are people getting so excited?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This has been doctrine for decades. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre [wikipedia.org]
It was ejected by the scientific community for a while since it was too close to a 'creation' story.
This is not news for people who have been paying attention to such things.
of course he supports them (Score:5, Informative)
Does this change anything? (Score:3)
Will the pope declaring this really have an effect on people who are deeply entrenched in anti-scientific teachings? It seems more likely to me that these people will reject the pope. Or find a way to twist his words so as not to contradict them.
Re: (Score:2)
It will affect church going catholics to some extent. Which means in the US, it will matter very little, and well, having been raised catholic north of the border, very few people I knew rejected evolution as it is...
But hey, baby steps.
Who's his favorite character... (Score:3, Funny)
On "The Big Bang Theory". Mine is Penny. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Since 1909 (Score:5, Insightful)
The big bang theory matches creationism perfectly (Score:2)
The universe growing from a singularity, the fact that we don't know what happened before. I am an atheist but I think may be the scientific theory that is the most compatible with the idea of a creator.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not suprising at all (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm Catholic, this isn't really news. (Score:2)
It's good to know (Score:3)
It's good to know that the Church's beliefs are evolving.
Finally, some rational thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in 7th grade I was attending Catholic school. We had a teacher who was very, very religious but at the same time a good science teacher. How was this possible? She taught us a few memorable things: first off the creation in genesis took 7 days for god (7 th day was rest, chillin and having a beer hopefully). But who said a day for god is the same for us? In her words she said a day for god could be millions or billions of years to us. That made sense. Another thing that stuck out was that all of the physical processes we see are rules laid out by god. So basically, the laws of physics were created by god. Evolution? A natural process that god created. So here was a very godly woman who also was a firm believer in science because science is a gift from god. So the two can certainly coexist.
A while back I was talking to a religious guy I know from the local dive bar I used to frequent (religious guy at the bar, go figure. a regular hypocrite was more like it). We got in talking about science and during the course, he bought up the opinion that science is against god. But I bought up the counter of, why would god bestow such an awe inspiring field of study only to restrict us from pursuing it? He gave us a giant sandbox to play in and we refuse it? To me it would be rude to declining a gift from god. He started to see my point and said: "you know that makes sense. don't know if I like it but it makes sense". You could see he sorta understood the point.
So you can argue that all of science is merely a creation and gift from god. To deny it is to deny gods gift and possibly, god itself. Though there are some who will refuse any of those beliefs, if they are in a position of power be it a school board, politician or preacher, they have a self interest in that denial (control).
Disclaimer: I am agnostic. I doubt there is a god. Or perhaps there is a god but not in the way we traditionally think, a person. Perhaps the laws behind our universe are god. Or we are a 3d projection of a 2d hologram or inside a giant computer simulation. We don't know and perhaps, we never will know. And if there is a god as we picture, I am sure he/she is not the dick they are made out to be in various man made books. And to be honest, I really don't care either way. I just live my life and enjoy it :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A blanket hatred to somebody based on believes is irrational; such blanket hatred would itself be a believe.
That does not mean that a dislike, or perhaps even hatred, of any individual religion is irrational.
History tells us that eventually, all religions will end: None of the earlier religions are still being practiced.
Assuming there are common reasons earlier religions have ended, these reasons also apply to the world's current religions.
Re:Don't wear a condom, it thwarts God's will (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Don't wear a condom, it thwarts God's will (Score:4, Insightful)
that's not what he said.
he said what the Church has said for some time now: if evolution does exist, it exists God created it.
Regardless of certain American Catholics who have more in common with evangelicals in their rejection of the science, the Catholic Church itself has not had a conflict with scientific theory for some time now.
Re: (Score:3)
Which in a way is to try to please everybody.
I think that what he tries to do is to defuse the debate entirely and take a pragmatic approach to it. We don't need more religious wars right now.
Re:Take that, Christians! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, the Pope just has his priorities in order. "Argue about shit that doesn't matter a whole lot to the church or God" is waaay down the Pope's list, but waaay up the list of many people who just like to argue because it gives them a sense of superiority.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As an opinion that has been held by many a scientist, that's fine.
We don't know what went bang. We can't even begin to have the language to discuss multi-dimensional physics and what happened before time began. There's a dark area from a certain part in time backwards. Though people may argue where that area is, they can't argue that beyond it is the unknown.
Those people who choose to refer to the unknown as "God"... that makes sense. You can understand that. Whether you personally agree or not, it's a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If not who gets to make that call? The Pope?
Ummm...exactly. The Bible is obviously an important part of the Catholic belief system but it's the institution of the Church that has the final say. Catholicism is what the Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head, says it is. It may seem tautological but it actually isn't. For example, for many Protestant (especially Evangelical) sects, a layperson could make an effective argument about a controversial subject by saying "Here is what it says in Bible...", while an argument that appeals to an authority s
Re: (Score:3)
For instance, the modern synthesis of descent with variation has no supernatural guidance, but the Catholic version does.
While that's true, it's something of a misrepresentation of the situation. Catholics (and many other religious people, and most Christians) believe that everything is influenced by their God. Depending on how excited they are about this, they may insist that God is capable of producing any individual result, or that he is responsible for every outcome, but His Hand is supposed to be everywhere, or at the very least, everywhere necessary for His Plan. With All Appropriate Capital Letters, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
The only magic that exists is David Copperfield trickery, and I say that as a Christian. Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities (like several that have happened to me, including my surviving an "unsurvivable" auto wreck).
The bible doesn't contradict science, although many religious people unfortunately do.
Re: (Score:3)
The only magic that exists is David Copperfield trickery, and I say that as a Christian. Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities (like several that have happened to me, including my surviving an "unsurvivable" auto wreck).
That is absurd. The whole point about Jesus performing miracles was that they proved he was the Son of God, i.e. a supernatural or magic being.
If they're just lucky flukes or party tricks, they're meaningless.
As an atheist, I don't understand how you could call yourself a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We have not reached "fulfilment", or indeed any kind of end point to the journey.
And who is saying we have, except your burning straw man?