Support NeoGAF

[Meus Renaissance]

There has been a misunderstanding in regards to the role of evolution within the Catholic Church.

What does the Church believe?

Ultimately, any science that can support or at the very least does not contradict fundamental Biblical teachings. Microevolution, for example, is a more palatable notion that religious scholars are willing to accept. But it has to fit the teachings in scripture.

Adam and Eve

The Catholic Church does not accept polygenism; human evolution is a no-go. Adam and Eve were real (the first) people made in the image of God. The science does not fit the Bible in this case.

 

[Son of Sam]

Given the inherent limits of science, it would be disastrous for human growth and enrichment to forego philosophy. Hell, many mathematical fields with interesting questions can be categorized as philosophy....


And you are making the assumption that there isn't. That's why it isn't a scientific questions. Science theory is only if can make predictions that can be verified and reproduced, and purpose can't be tested, since the assumptions aren't even settled (and can't be).

Clearly, scrapping it in it's entirety is not productive but to think philosophy can provide any concrete understanding of the nature of reality is wrong. You keep making these claims that science won't be able to answer the questions, as if you know.

If a question isn't a scientific one then it might as well not be a question at all. It's worthless. There is no other alternative than science. Everything else is completely and utterly meaningless to reality.

 

[rambis]

There has been a misunderstanding in regards to the role of evolution within the Catholic Church.

What does the Church believe?

Ultimately, any science that can support or at the very least does not contradict fundamental Biblical teachings. Microevolution, for example, is a more palatable notion that religious scholars are willing to accept. But it has to fit the teachings in scripture.

Adam and Eve

The Catholic Church does not accept polygenism; human evolution is a no-go. Adam and Eve were real (the first) people made in the image of God. The science does not fit the Bible in this case.

Its crazy how the same arguments circle round and round.

Its been like 60 years since Pope Pius declared that the church is open to teach that "adam and eve" could have evolved from a previous form.

The only constant is that God created the soul and that humans are made in his image. And the bible doesnt contradict with evolution, some people's interpretation do.

 

[Naked Snake]

If a question isn't a scientific one then it might as well not be a question at all. It's worthless. There is no other alternative than science.

I'm not sure about that. Even Richard Dawkins says that there are morality questions that should be answered outside of science. For example rape is "scientifically" natural; pretty much all animals do it, but as humans we can recognize that it's immoral and decide not to do it.

 

[pa22word]

The only thing this thread has proven is that if you sell old news from a new car then you can get free pr just for the effort.

 

[Son of Sam]

I'm not sure about that. Even Richard Dawkins says that there are morality questions that should be answered outside of science. For example rape is "scientifically" natural; pretty much all animals do it, but as humans we can recognize that it's immoral and decide not to do it.

That still can be argued within science, but that's not what i'm discussing here

So, let me be more clear that i'm talking about the nature of reality, questions like purpose, existence, how we can to be, etc.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Best Pope Ever confirmed

.

 

[Speevy]

If a question isn't a scientific one then it might as well not be a question at all. It's worthless. .

Was the Civil War justified?

Answer that with science.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Was the Civil War justified?

Answer that with science.

He's perfectly within his rights to answer that the question you just asked is meaningless, in the sense it doesn't have a true or false output.

 

[dragonelite]

Its crazy how the same arguments circle round and round.

Its been like 60 years since Pope Pius declared that the church is open to teach that "adam and eve" could have evolved from a previous form.

The only constant is that God created the soul and that humans are made in his image. And the bible doesnt contradict with evolution, some people's interpretation do.

Bit of a cop out tbh.
How can science proof something it can't measure or detect?

 

[Phoenix]

In this thread we learn that people who don't profess religion really have no fucking clue about how wrong their concept of what actual religion endorses/believes is. For generations, priests were some of the largest establishers and practicers of scientific principles and the like.

 

[vato_loco]

I hardly ever have the chance to feel good about being an Argentinian.

But every damn time this man opens his mouth, I am truly glad he exists. He is one amazing human being.

And for that, I very much fear for his life. There is always a sick bastard out there...

 

[manueldelalas]

As a catholic who admires this pope, I see nothing surprising in his words here, not even to warrant a thread on GAF, but I guess misconceptions about catholicism make people surprised at this things...

 

[CadetMahoney]

People fell for the Pope's bullshit again? Just restating what the Church has been saying for hundreds of years, but thinking it's actually in line with modern science, ethics, civilization etc?

They think the Church believes in the atheistic version of evolution because they got taught evolution in school. They need to read the small print, God is still very much a "pre-requisite" in both evolution and the big bang so nothing has changed really.

 

[El Topo]

They think the Church believes in the atheistic version of evolution because they got taught evolution in school. They need to read the small print, God is still very much a "pre-requisite" in both evolution and the big bang so nothing has changed really.

Their PR department is doing a terrific job for the new pope, gotta admit that.

 

[Valkyria]

oh please, the amount of catholic people thinking genesis is real is staggering.

have you heard any priests saying genesis wasn't real, everything was figurative? no, and never. oh they talk about it, but guess what they'd be non-committal about its validity...yeah. or guess what they never bothered to tell their constituents who spread these lies to shut up. do they?

"never happened in the history of christianity"
aaaaaahahahaha.


sorry to break your bubble, but majority of catholics believe genesis happened. earth was created in 6 days, etc. all the other nonsense. and their churches do not do anything about it.

authoritative figures talking about earth being created in 6 days over and over for centuries. but no these are just "interpretations".

then how come these "interpretations" are so easily and overwhelmingly misinterpreted. so much so that there is always *always* someone who believe in it to be literal, and most catholics still do?

or are you telling me i can go in to any church right now in north america and ask people about genesis and majority will all go, "well it's not actually true.."? please, let's not kid ourselves here.

Because USA=world, right? Even taking into account that Catholicism is not the principal faith in your country.

Being a atheism myself, I'm finding the interventions of several "science" defenders in this thread lacking in the real knowledge of what Science is, and also disrespectful.

Since I was a child I have been told that the Bible is not literal, and the teachings of Jesus are the core of the catholics beliefs.

 

[mario_O]

If God created evolution by natural selection, he set up a mechanism which rendered him completely superfluous from that point onward. If God guided natural selection along the way, then it wasn’t natural selection.

 

[keuja]

They think the Church believes in the atheistic version of evolution because they got taught evolution in school. They need to read the small print, God is still very much a "pre-requisite" in both evolution and the big bang so nothing has changed really.

Fortunately there are many religion experts in this thread to teach us what those Catholics really believe in and show us the errors of their ways.

 

[teruterubozu]

They think the Church believes in the atheistic version of evolution because they got taught evolution in school. They need to read the small print, God is still very much a "pre-requisite" in both evolution and the big bang so nothing has changed really.

The pope is atheist? Who's saying that?

 

[Joni]

Lamarckian evolution is wrong. (Ex of lamarkian evolution: someone who works out a ton and is bulky will have bulky kids because of his working out and not because of traits independent of that activity)

Gregor Mendel's work was lost until 1900s, people were figuring out and replicating his work by that time so its not a significant as you think.

Yes, Lamarckism is wrong. It shows however that they have been looking around evolution for a long time.
(Darwin also gave credit to parts of Lamarck's work.)

 

[RoadHazard]

Cool. But this is getting very close to not needing a God behind everything at all. If you've gone far enough to reduce him to having "kickstarted" the process or whatever, why not go one step further? Which is, of course, the rational conclusion once you put some thought into all this.

 

[soul creator]

The pope is atheist? Who's saying that?

I think what he means is that people are assuming that the theory of evolution that the pope is talking about (the one that stills involves gods, souls, higher purpose, humans being of primary importance, etc.) is the same as the one scientists talk about (the one that never mentions any of those supernatural claims)

So that's why you get a lot of "Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science!", even though I would argue that it's more of a partially true statement. I think it's probably more accurate to say "The Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science...as long as they're still able to add extra layers of faithiness and supernatural, unscientific claims on top of it to suit their religious purposes"

 

[Saintguine]

Pretty much non-news considering the Catholic Church has been A-Okay with evolution for a long time.

 

[teruterubozu]

I think what he means is that people are assuming that the theory of evolution that the pope is talking about (the one that stills involves gods, souls, higher purpose, humans being of primary importance, etc.) is the same as the one scientists talk about (the one that never mentions any of those supernatural claims)

So that's why you get a lot of "Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science!", even though I would argue that it's more of a partially true statement. I think it's probably more accurate to say "The Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science...as long as they're still able to add extra layers of faithiness and supernatural, unscientific claims on top of it to suit their religious purposes"

I know. I'm just saying isn't it obvious the pope would endorse a God-driven model? eh, these threads are always people just arguing past each other.

 

[Timedog]

Nostadamus said this will be the last pope. Is it because this pope IS the antitrust?

 

[Lothar]

Its crazy how the same arguments circle round and round.

Its been like 60 years since Pope Pius declared that the church is open to teach that "adam and eve" could have evolved from a previous form.

How would that work? What previous forms were Adam or Eve? Apes? Keep in mind God created them in his own image. The bible also traces lineage from Adam.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think what he means is that people are assuming that the theory of evolution that the pope is talking about (the one that stills involves gods, souls, higher purpose, humans being of primary importance, etc.) is the same as the one scientists talk about (the one that never mentions any of those supernatural claims)

So that's why you get a lot of "Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science!", even though I would argue that it's more of a partially true statement. I think it's probably more accurate to say "The Catholic Church has always supported evolution and science...as long as they're still able to add extra layers of faithiness and supernatural, unscientific claims on top of it to suit their religious purposes"

Bingo!

 

[teruterubozu]

Bingo!

Except they haven't always supported evolution and science. Galileo anyone?

 

[CadetMahoney]

The pope is atheist? Who's saying that?

He is? who said that?

Also atheistic version of evolution (you know the one without God) vs the one the Church offers.

Just cos someone got taught evolution by a nun doesn't mean the Church accepts the established scientific version as the "right version". It's quite clever PR since it makes ppl think they're progressive and they're A-OK with science, but it's old news.

Since I was a child I have been told that the Bible is not literal, and the teachings of Jesus are the core of the catholics beliefs.

Where does the cherry picking stop though?

I bet the magical magician stuff Jesus did like raising the dead, exorcisms and that he actually existed at all did happen as written though right?

 

[metalslimer]

Well I think the magic wand thing just means that people in the bible didn't do things like say abra kadabra and poof things happened. They were still supernatural, but the supernatural things they did used some kind of process.

 

[DrForester]

So that's why it's so popular...

 

[soul creator]

Except they haven't always supported evolution and science. Galileo anyone?

Well, yeah. Because at that point, Galileo potentially challenged their power and authority. But after years of PR and softening up a bit, and years of scientists (some of them Catholic!) making genuine progress and discoveries, they now tend to take the approach of "accept scientific theory, but just add God on top of it, now it's Catholic doctrine! As long as those scientific theories don't go getting all uppity, like with things dealing with sex and women".

It's like a corporation feeling threatened by a small upstart. Initially they might either pretend like it doesn't exist, or react with fear and lash out at it, but eventually the winning strategy is to just buy them off and absorb them into your ranks and act like they were totally on board all along.

 

[Wilsongt]

Loving the new pope, but I fear for the massive backstep into a canyon should the next pope elected be like NaziPope.

 

[params7]

Loving the new pope, but I fear for the massive backstep into a canyon should the next pope elected be like NaziPope.

The new pope should only build upon his predecessor's teachings. At least one would hope so.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

At this point why not just come out and say the Bible is mostly bullshit? If God loves gays and evolution is true, you've re-characterized the God of the Bible so much it's not even the same entity.

 

[dragonelite]

Cool. But this is getting very close to not needing a God behind everything at all. If you've gone far enough to reduce him to having "kickstarted" the process or whatever, why not go one step further? Which is, of course, the rational conclusion once you put some thought into all this.

There will always be an curtain where religion can hide a deity behind.

 

[Log4Girlz]

There will always be an curtain where religion can hide a deity behind.

Fear and ignorance are the sword and shield of religion.

 

[alba]

Best Pope.

 

[mario_O]

There will always be an curtain where religion can hide a deity behind.

Yep, and this is what the new pope is doing, playing God of the gaps. 100 years late to the party this time.

And also this..

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” ...Epicurus

What else is there to say?

 

[Mengy]

Loving this new Pope.

I have to admit, he is quite impressive. Seems like a very down to Earth and rational Pope. He seems to really want to bridge the gap between religion and science and bring people together, which is very admirable IMHO.

Plus, he's hilarious and has a great sense of humor.

 

[Joni]

Yep, and this is what the new pope is doing, playing God of the gaps. 100 years late to the party this time.

And also this..

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” ...Epicurus

What else is there to say?

Free will. God isn't willing to interfere with human free will.
Also, the destruction of Sodom also paints him as a wrathful god.

I have to admit, he is quite impressive. Seems like a very down to Earth and rational Pope. He seems to really want to bridge the gap between religion and science and bring people together, which is very admirable IMHO.

Plus, he's hilarious and has a great sense of humor.

A lot of popes wanted that. Main guy on that is John Paul II

 

[boiled goose]

I have other views that I'm not sharing here. I just don't hold Mary or the Saints any higher than historical figures. I think personally that praying to them is not Christian at all.

Evolution is real!

Is Jesus a god and god is god?
Sounds polytheistic to me.
Not a true abrahamic religion.

 

[DedValve]

If god isn't willing to mess with free will then did I just completely miss the point of Moses vs the Pharaoh where he hardens the Pharaohs heart?

 

[helloresolven]

Is Jesus a god and god is god?
Sounds polytheistic to me.
Not a true abrahamic religion.

Christians would argue Jesus and God are the same thing, just different manifestions... wholly equal, but separate. It's a mindfuck.

 

[dragonelite]

Is Jesus a god and god is god?
Sounds polytheistic to me.
Not a true abrahamic religion.

Holy trinity if i'm not mistaken?

 

[boiled goose]

Holy trinity if i'm not mistaken?

So polytheistic

 

[Pollux]

So polytheistic

No.

 

[mario_O]

Free will. God isn't willing to interfere with human free will.
Also, the destruction of Sodom also paints him as a wrathful god.

Isn't that a contradiction? Which is it, He interferes or He doesn't?

And free will is just an illusion of the brain. You should read Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.

 

[dragonelite]

So polytheistic

Given how Catholics have a shitload of saints.
Im almost inclined to say yes.

 

[boiled goose]

No.

Powerful rebuttal

So Jesus is not in heaven sitting to the right of the father?

Didn't he pray to the father when on the cross?

It's two dudes. Both powerful. Two gods. At least.

Satan is kinda like a god too. Just the bad one.


On topic. The Catholic Church has been okay with this for a while.