4 ms·

“A third unwarranted statement is that the Pope or the Church is against Science [sic]” — Faith is by definition the opposite of science. One starts with “truth

by alanh 14y ago

“A third unwarranted statement is that the Pope or the Church is against Science [sic]” — Faith is by definition the opposite of science. One starts with “truth” and defies anything changing that “truth” (the Church’s eventual acceptance of heliocentrism notwithstanding). The other is a process to continually obtain a more accurate truth. The two processes are mutually exclusive. This is obvious. It is neither “unwarranted” nor untrue. Edit in response: I’m ex-Catholic and aware of the so-called nuances here. It truly is fascinating how the Vatican does actually sponsor science in domains like astronomy, and yet claim dominion over totally unprovable, unsupported, and thus, yes, unscientific concepts like the eternal soul. One will note that not just Adam and Eve is discredited by evolution, but also the very notion of a divine soul (at which point was evolution paused so some godhead could insert the ethereal?). The concept of “non-overlapping magisteria” (science for the real world, religion for the imaginary) has been thoroughly thumped by those daring enough to ask the relevant questions. For those with any remnant of doubt in this area, a thought experiment. Hell, an actual experiment: Go to Mass next Sunday, but do not set in a pew; do not kneel; do not genuflect. Instead, stand in a corner wearing a lab coat and holding a notepad. Note the intense discomfort you both feel and cause. Then come back and tell me, with a straight face, science and religion are fully compatible. For bonus points, name a scenario in which the lab coat is more out of place.

Volpe 14y ago
The relationship between science and the church is a lot more complicated than you have illustrated. It is far from an 'obvious' position.
phillmv 14y ago
As a strict atheist, I have to disagree with that. There's nothing fundamentally incompatible with believing in the Judeo-Christian god and also believing in a systematic pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, many scientists over time have explicitly pointed out how they thought it was their mission to uncover the beauty of god's creation, blah blah. More down to the point, religion is an extra-rational experience. It's totally perceived on the emotional plane. Few christians actually believe that a dude named Noah actually ferried two of every animal in the word for forty days. The bible is full of allegory and you have to pick and choose. For instance, the Catholic church came out for evolution back in '96 if I remember correctly. I don't know how you can reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve without accepting that it's probably just a story. Yes, it is complicated and inconsistent but… scientists are unlikely to be strict literalists. Feeling a spiritual connection related to the teachings of Jesus doesn't prevent you from having an open mind.
learc83 14y ago
>For those with any remnant of doubt in this area, a thought experiment. Hell, an actual experiment: Go to Mass next Sunday, but do not set in a pew; do not kneel; do not genuflect. Instead, stand in a corner wearing a lab coat and holding a notepad. Note the intense discomfort you both feel and cause. Then come back and tell me, with a straight face, science and religion are fully compatible. That is without doubt the single stupidest argument for the incompatibility of science and religion I have ever heard. >For bonus points, name a scenario in which the lab coat is more out of place. A (non religious) funeral.
- alanh 14y ago
  > That is without doubt the single stupidest argument for the incompatibility of science and religion I have ever heard. Sorry you think so. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The purpose of this thought/actual experiment was to highlight the drastic difference between the official sort-of-maybe-mostly-okay-with-science line of the Vatican elite with the everyday reality of Catholicism and of the Catholic parishners. For example, while, as noted in this thread, evolution has been OK with Catholic leaders since 1996 (what pioneers! — pardon, that was rhetoric) — ahem, since 1996, my sister, born in that year, was skeptical that dinosaurs were not a hoax of museums since they were obviously incompatible with her strict Catholic upbringing. (And good on her: she should doubt anything fanciful, though obviously in this case the facts are on the side of, you know, dinosaurs.) Never does a Catholic priest remind his congregation that Adam & Eve (and thus original sin, as known to laity) is a myth. Never does he encourage them to think critically. What he does do is expect them to act as one entity playing their part in perhaps the most extensive hierarchy ever created. Hierarchy is another antithesis to science. Can I stop arguing yet?
  - lief79 14y ago
    I'll readily agree that there are Catholics who are opposed to science, and that these individuals are unfortunately more likely to end up in the roles of priests or religious teachers. These are often the same individuals who know the book knowledge perfectly, but have no clue how to practice it with compassion. I'm sorry you've been stuck dealing with them. The trick with myths is that they still teach a story. In this case, the trick with Adam and Eve is that the Church still believes in original sin, and considers it a heresy to teach against this. You can look up Pelagianism, if you are curious. The only point I'll really disagree with is: Never does he encourage them to think critically. The best priests will do this, and I've seen it done often. You can think critically constructively or destructively. I've seen numerous priests properly encourage people to look up what the church actually teaches, and to take the time to understand why. I'm Catholic despite my Catholic education, because I took the time to look at the morality text book and tried to argue against all the teachings. I discovered I personally agreed with most of them. Finally, I like a number of individuals in the church, but I can't stand the hierarchy. They are humans and far too often lack the humility required in proper Christian leadership. Additionally, far too many of them DO push blind obedience, which is probably one of many reasons why church attendance has been dropping. tldr(or possibly a Summary): There are many things to disagree with the Catholic church on, but claiming they deem religion and science as incompatible is mistaken. There are even more reasons to disagree with individual members of the hierarchy in what they say and do, but don't mistake individual human flaws with the institution, and don't mistake the current form of the institution with the full beliefs of the religion.
Confusion 14y ago
The two processes are mutually exclusive. Only if they both claim to explain the exact same observation. They usually don't.

by alanh 14y ago

Volpe 14y ago

The relationship between science and the church is a lot more complicated than you have illustrated. It is far from an 'obvious' position.

phillmv 14y ago

As a strict atheist, I have to disagree with that. There's nothing fundamentally incompatible with believing in the Judeo-Christian god and also believing in a systematic pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, many scientists over time have explicitly pointed out how they thought it was their mission to uncover the beauty of god's creation, blah blah. More down to the point, religion is an extra-rational experience. It's totally perceived on the emotional plane. Few christians actually believe that a dude named Noah actually ferried two of every animal in the word for forty days. The bible is full of allegory and you have to pick and choose. For instance, the Catholic church came out for evolution back in '96 if I remember correctly. I don't know how you can reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve without accepting that it's probably just a story. Yes, it is complicated and inconsistent but… scientists are unlikely to be strict literalists. Feeling a spiritual connection related to the teachings of Jesus doesn't prevent you from having an open mind.

learc83 14y ago

>For those with any remnant of doubt in this area, a thought experiment. Hell, an actual experiment: Go to Mass next Sunday, but do not set in a pew; do not kneel; do not genuflect. Instead, stand in a corner wearing a lab coat and holding a notepad. Note the intense discomfort you both feel and cause. Then come back and tell me, with a straight face, science and religion are fully compatible. That is without doubt the single stupidest argument for the incompatibility of science and religion I have ever heard. >For bonus points, name a scenario in which the lab coat is more out of place. A (non religious) funeral.

alanh 14y ago
> That is without doubt the single stupidest argument for the incompatibility of science and religion I have ever heard. Sorry you think so. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The purpose of this thought/actual experiment was to highlight the drastic difference between the official sort-of-maybe-mostly-okay-with-science line of the Vatican elite with the everyday reality of Catholicism and of the Catholic parishners. For example, while, as noted in this thread, evolution has been OK with Catholic leaders since 1996 (what pioneers! — pardon, that was rhetoric) — ahem, since 1996, my sister, born in that year, was skeptical that dinosaurs were not a hoax of museums since they were obviously incompatible with her strict Catholic upbringing. (And good on her: she should doubt anything fanciful, though obviously in this case the facts are on the side of, you know, dinosaurs.) Never does a Catholic priest remind his congregation that Adam & Eve (and thus original sin, as known to laity) is a myth. Never does he encourage them to think critically. What he does do is expect them to act as one entity playing their part in perhaps the most extensive hierarchy ever created. Hierarchy is another antithesis to science. Can I stop arguing yet?
- lief79 14y ago
  I'll readily agree that there are Catholics who are opposed to science, and that these individuals are unfortunately more likely to end up in the roles of priests or religious teachers. These are often the same individuals who know the book knowledge perfectly, but have no clue how to practice it with compassion. I'm sorry you've been stuck dealing with them. The trick with myths is that they still teach a story. In this case, the trick with Adam and Eve is that the Church still believes in original sin, and considers it a heresy to teach against this. You can look up Pelagianism, if you are curious. The only point I'll really disagree with is: Never does he encourage them to think critically. The best priests will do this, and I've seen it done often. You can think critically constructively or destructively. I've seen numerous priests properly encourage people to look up what the church actually teaches, and to take the time to understand why. I'm Catholic despite my Catholic education, because I took the time to look at the morality text book and tried to argue against all the teachings. I discovered I personally agreed with most of them. Finally, I like a number of individuals in the church, but I can't stand the hierarchy. They are humans and far too often lack the humility required in proper Christian leadership. Additionally, far too many of them DO push blind obedience, which is probably one of many reasons why church attendance has been dropping. tldr(or possibly a Summary): There are many things to disagree with the Catholic church on, but claiming they deem religion and science as incompatible is mistaken. There are even more reasons to disagree with individual members of the hierarchy in what they say and do, but don't mistake individual human flaws with the institution, and don't mistake the current form of the institution with the full beliefs of the religion.

Confusion 14y ago

The two processes are mutually exclusive. Only if they both claim to explain the exact same observation. They usually don't.