Yep. In fact, when I was in my hardcore evolution denial phase in high school, the biggest arguments I had over it were with friends in catholic schools, not self professed atheists.
Looking back on those days seems weird.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pope invites scientists into the Vatican to talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter Caayn
- Start date
Yep. In fact, when I was in my hardcore evolution denial phase in high school, the biggest arguments I had over it were with friends in catholic schools, not self professed atheists.
Looking back on those days seems weird.
Seth Enosh
Member
You're ignorant about what transubstantiation is/means if you think science can contradict it.
It's a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one; the physical attributes and properties of the Eucharist are the "accidents" that are said to not change.
Also this thread is funny. Catholics invented the Big Bang and have never been anti evolution either. We only messed up on one thing (Galileo) and even then catholic schools still taught it as a "hypothesis" rather than truth for the next couple centuries.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
No, they almost act like it's the worst thing since unsliced bread which is even worse. Apparently most are unwilling to do a little research into what all the Vatican and church actually do.
weremichael
Member
The official word on transubstantiation was established in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. They clearly stated that it is not an "accident." It is viewed as a mystery. The language of "accidents" falls inline with the schism with the protestants.
DrROBschiz
Member
What if
God and Big bang are one in the same
We might have to throw out the whole "made in his image thing" unless we are gonna go with the whole "we are made of stardust" argument
God and Big bang are one in the same
We might have to throw out the whole "made in his image thing" unless we are gonna go with the whole "we are made of stardust" argument
Someone needs to tell my aunt Teresa, who is super Catholic. Last summer she was saying that black holes don't really exist and that they were made up by scientists to keep people from going to church.
Please tell me your joking. That doesn't even make sense.
To be fair, the Catholic Church and the Vatican still do some awful stuff.
This is just going to make American evangelicals hate Catholics and condemn them to hell even further. The non-religious will likely not benefit from this. Actually, I feel like this doesn't come near to the most significant of Pope Franky's socially moderate swanky power moves.
The extreme anti-intellectualism seen in the Christian faith is pretty specific to the mainstream evangelicalism we see here in the states. Catholics are on top of their shit when it comes to science.
And they're not alone: many other mainline denominations (Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, several others) in the west institutionally affirm the Big Bang, and the importance of science in general.
Mainstream evangelicals are loud and have crowds, but they certainly should not represent Christianity on this (or any) issue - because they are embarrassing.
And they're not alone: many other mainline denominations (Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, several others) in the west institutionally affirm the Big Bang, and the importance of science in general.
Mainstream evangelicals are loud and have crowds, but they certainly should not represent Christianity on this (or any) issue - because they are embarrassing.
Seth Enosh
Member
Nah, you're completely incorrect. Check out the catholic encyclopedia entry (bold is mine) : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another the accidents remaining the same just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
[...]
Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."
[...]
Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."
The accidents vs substance language is how the doctrine is and has been typically explained for over 800 years; Trent doesn't say it precisely that way because they were trying to avoid writing Aristotle/Thomas Aquinas' philosophy into dogma.
The doctrine is completely non-falsifiable by science as the bread remains tasting exactly like bread, behaving physically exactly like bread, etc. There is no scientific or experimental test, according to the doctrine, which could determine it to be anything other than bread. So this really has nothing to do with science at all.
CrunchyFrog
Member
ITT people confuse Catholics for religious fundamentalists. The Catholic Church has been very much pro-science from the outset, the brief unfortunate and more politically motivated spat with Galileo notwithstanding. This is not at all new, though perhaps a renewed emphasis on the fact that Catholicism does differ greatly from a lot of religions in this area.
AlexFlame116
Member
It's amazing to see just how much GAF hates religion in general. Like apparently it's impossible to be a good person and practice religion at the same time. And if any good instance of religion is brought up it gets dwarfed by all the many many bad things that it has done (which is a lot to be fair but there's also been some good). Even though not all religious people are a-holes that only want to kill or oppress others who aren't them.
Oh well. I'll be leaving this thread. It's really cool for the Pope to do this (I'm not Catholic so I don't know if former Popes have done this) and I hope good can come out of it. But any moment now this thread will go off the deep end. So, abandon thread!
Oh well. I'll be leaving this thread. It's really cool for the Pope to do this (I'm not Catholic so I don't know if former Popes have done this) and I hope good can come out of it. But any moment now this thread will go off the deep end. So, abandon thread!
Wasn't that due to the confusion that Heliocentric astronomy could be construed for solar worship?
It were worshippers of Sol Invictus who crucified St. Peter and fed his followers to the lions.
I wish I were joking.
MrChocolate
Member
That sentence could also apply to certain 1st world countries. The point is that people shouldn't just say "church is anti science" when it actually isn't.
gutter_trash
Banned
some 1st world countries elected Anti-Science governments and heads of states
chrisPjelly
Member
Almost all of flat earth conspiracies have some weird religious roots.
Exactly, how the absurd position of the church about contraceptives could be considered scientifically sound.
King Gilga
Member
Is it wrong that at first read I was confused on why the pope would invite scientists to talk about a tv show?
Fixed for accuracy.
As a latin American kid who was raised catholic, went to a school with religious values and to a catholic university, I was always taught that the bible is not meant to be read literally, that we need to work to solve the mysteries of this world, that we need to adopt science but without forgetting about the bigger force called God and that is up to us to find that middle ground where facts and religion can work as one.
There is always crazy nuts that take religion too far, but this are more often the people that read the bible in a literal way, also, it is true that the church has done some terrible things, and still does some questionable stuff but some people talk as if the scientist are today's saints and that they can do no wrong, we are only human after all.
The thing here is the Vatican has no interest in creating interest or furthering the discovery of science.
They want to preach that the Big Bang, which has been proven by humans, is a wondrous tool of God used to shape the universe. They want to take an established fact and warp it to fit their impossible to prove world view. That's not a pro-Science stance.
Let's not conflate the unavoidable moral ambiguity of real countries in war and diplomacy with the moral failings of the Vatican.
They want to preach that the Big Bang, which has been proven by humans, is a wondrous tool of God used to shape the universe. They want to take an established fact and warp it to fit their impossible to prove world view. That's not a pro-Science stance.
Let's not conflate the unavoidable moral ambiguity of real countries in war and diplomacy with the moral failings of the Vatican.
Seth Enosh
Member
How does science have anything to say about whether something is moral or not?
Alex_Mexico
Member
Preach!
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well, it was complicated. For a start, IIRC, the telescopes of the time weren't actually good enough to demonstrate the parallax of the Earth going around the Sun; so Galileo was going against then scientific consensus without irrefutable proof to back him up. And yes, there were religious issues surrounding the whole idea of Earth not being the literal centre of the universe. I believe as well that the Pope tried to give Galileo an out by proposing that he suggest it more as a hypothesis or conjecture, but Galileo took the opportunity to write an extended metaphor where the Pope and others were depicted as idiots for not seeing his side of the argument. So having pissed off the one friend who could protect him from the Inquisition, he was tried for heresy and placed under house arrest.
Of course, telescopes improved, and Galileo was proven right all along. We still took way too long to formally apologise for it though.
MrChocolate
Member
:lol Couldn't agree more.
The treatment of the minorities in USA isn't quite morally right.
If we just go back to the last 200 years, the Vatican is like a toddler when compared against USA, Russia, Germany or China. And that is keeping in mind the fact that war or diplomacy are out of the discussion.
If we add war, USA, Russia and Germany are the biggest offenders.
You're not thinking about any of this.
Ending prejudice and fixing the social and economic inequality of minorities in a nation is immensely more difficult and complex than, say, not preaching about the evils of contraceptives to AIDS ravaged Africa or covering up 15,000+ cases of child rape.
There is nothing complicated about the moral failings of the Vatican. They can be better by simply not being cunts.
And as an aside, you really don't want to talk about Germany and War in a post defending the Vatican. That's not a good look for the Catholic Church.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Think about this: the head of the Catholic Church has a more pro science leader than the elected President of the most powerful nation in the world!
Being less bad doesn't make you good.
Neither are pro-Science and neither deserve your respect for being pro-Science.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
This is surprising to people?
Can you make me a list? I'd like to know who deserves my respect. I can't think for myself so hearing it from some pseudo intellectual on gaf would really set me straight.
well the catholic church is not saying they don't work, in a really brief summary, the opposition comes from the point of view that you are denying life and that contraceptives are used as a means to search for pleasure instead of working towards the goal of creating a family with an stable partner for life, and I dont think that this is an absurd notion that contradicts science, its more of a moral thing.
he didn't try to make it into a religious thing though.
The Albatross
Member
Nah, Catholic Church is open to the big bang just as much as a community of scientists is... That is to say, it could be a plausible theory for the creation of our universe.
I think the Church would probably struggle with multi-verse or many-verse theories, though. I'm not sure if that could be consistent with Catholic ideas around free will or, at base, the primacy of the soul.
The Church is open to scientific theories insofar as they don't contradict the Catechism of the Church. The Catechism of the Church is primary to the Church, which is a completely reasonable position. The Church being against contraceptives is internally consistent with the theology of the Church. Beyond that, though, I don't think that science has some position on how morally sound contraceptives are... It's not the realm of science. I'd imagine the scientific position on contraceptives would be, "Contraceptives exist. They work at preventing conception. End chapter," and the Church would have the same position, except the Church has a moral disposition against contraceptives for reasons that Science is not interested in.
Stormhammer
Member
i dunno the japanese were pretty rough in china
That's not how scientists view the Big Bang.
Yeah, it's kind of weird that people seem to conflate American evangelical belief with Catholicism.
As for being "anti-science", all you can say is the Catholic Church has moral teachings that disagree with some liberal tenets. That doesn't make them anti-science (they accept evolution, birth control isn't imaginary), it makes them opponents of political pragmatism.
EDIT: Albatross said it better.
There's still plenty of reasons to find fault with the church based on those moral teachings, gay rights, role of women in the church, general trend towards not adequately dealing with abusive priests, etc. but pinning them with the "anti-science" label is just showing that you're an idiot.
The Albatross
Member
Oh, cool? My point isn't what scientists do or don't think is the leading theory for the creation of the universe, or our solar system, or whatever else (that's all great and I trust whatever some group of brilliant physicists think is most sound), it's that whatever that is, the Church is probably as open to it as anybody else is.
Airola
Member
Considering that it was religious people who first were for something starting from nothing and it was a Jesuit who were one of the first who entertained the thought of it happening with an "explosion", and considering that atheists were at first against this idea of something starting from nothing because they thought everything has always been there and that something coming from nothing would be for theism rather than for atheism, it's very unlikely the Pope would say it's a lie.
Red Liquorice
Member
Why would scientists care what he thinks, unless they want funding or the 'thrill' of saying the met him.
The Albatross
Member
And especially this Pope, who was a Chemist before he joined the Church.
Most scientists might view it as an opportunity to help educate a world leader and arguably one of the most influencial people in the world. Not so much "What can I take away from this scientifically," but "what can I provide scientifically." Beyond that, most scientists might very fairly recognize that Pope Francis is a smart person who is worth listening to... Maybe not on issues of science, as he's no scientist, but perhaps on some aspect of the human condition that they haven't otherwise considered.
Keep in mind, also, that Pope Francis is probably the most powerful person in the world who is passionate about climate change, and has some influence on about 1 billion people worldwide.
JonnyDBrit
Member
The meeting is likely less for them as it is projecting an image to creationists and other anti-science folk, especially any who espouse themselves to be Catholics.
Majukun
Member
and that has nothing to do with science. they are not denying contraceptives work, they are saying that is against the word of God to 'waste your seed'.
it's a moral and religious matter, not a scientific one.
still wrong on many levels, but nothing to do with the position of the Catholic Church on science.
because there are scientist that can also be religious? at least that has been the notion with the church for years or at least for my time, as I told early, I was taught that science and the catholic church can coexist, but some people have a really big bias telling that both can't work together.
Anyways,this is not the first time the catholic church has talked about the possibility of the big bang being the reason why the universe was created, here is some interesting article with links to some statements/documents that were made before
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/31/pope-franciss-comments-on-the-big-bang-are-not-revolutionary-catholic-teaching-has-long-professed-the-likelihood-of-human-evolution/
The Albatross
Member
Yep, this, and I'd like to expand... The Church is less interested, morally, in the 'wasting your seed' concept than it is sexual abuse. Of course, what the Church sees as sexual abuse is very different than what a modern, Western liberal society would see as sexual abuse (and obviously the Church has lost a lot of moral standing when it comes to sexual abuse because of the decades (or centuries...) long sex abuse scandal within the Church). The church doesn't really put that much special emphasis on 'your seed,' as it did, say, 500 years ago back before people understood human biology as well as they do today. Sex cells, semen, or what have you, is about as important to the Church today as hair cells, skin cells, or the cells that make up your fingernails are. I say "about as," relatively here... They're more important on a relative scale, but there isn't some 'seed worship.'
The Church maintains that sex should always be ultimately open to procreation, and so contraceptives are, at base, a rejection of the moral imperative of sex to procreate. Likewise, sex acts that don't ultimately have some end in procreation are considered in the same light (which is why oral sex and other sexual acts can be okay as long as they're sort of there to ... warm up the engine, so to speak). There are other aspects of this as well, like how sex can often lead to abuse, hurt feelings, feelings of self-worthlessness, anxiety, and other personal issues. I'm not religious (I'm an atheist), but I think that the Church is touching on a perspective that a lot of sexual awareness advocates also touch on, that sex bares a lot of responsibility. Over the last 5-10 years, you've seen a lot more social awareness about what's appropriate when it comes to sex, that not all sex is good sex, and that consent is not always simple, clear concept that we pretended it was for 3 decades. Going back to the point of sex cells being about as morally important as your skin cells, this might not seem like the case because, well, isn't the Church technically against masturbation? It sure is (though, often this is something that modern Catholic sexual moralists would kinda shrug at), but not from the perspective of 'wasting seed,' but from the perspective that masturbation is usually also accompanied by some misuse of the act of sex... maybe thinking of someone in a way that doesn't respect who they are as a person, thinking of someone as a sexual object, pornography, or maybe if you are married, it's a slight to your partner if you're thinking outside of your relationship.
Bringing this back to the original point that other poster made, I don't think that science -- at least, biological, chemical, atomic, physical, (etc) science -- is really very concerned with any of that. So, I don't think the Church has an 'anti-scientific' perspective on contraceptive, it's got an extra-scientific perspective on contraception. Scientifically, the Church agrees, contraception works at preventing conception, and anything beyond that science isn't really concerned, but the Church is.
At least.. theologically.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked