Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
by Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
Reposted from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1015081120070411?src=041107_0926_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters&pageNumber=1
Thanks to Jason Gersh for sending this in.
PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."
NOT BY FAITH ALONE
Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close advisor, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the "intelligent design" view.
"Intelligent design" (ID) argues that some forms of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, as Charles Darwin proposed in his 1859 book "The Origin of Species." It says a higher intelligence must have done this but does not name it as God.
Scientists denounce this as a disguised form of creationism, the view that God created the world just as the Bible says. U.S. courts have ruled both creationism and ID are religious views that cannot be taught in public school science classes there.
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture," he remarked during the discussion held at the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
AGAINST ATHEISM
Schoenborn, who published his own book on evolution last month, has said he and the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin's theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.
That is a philosophical or ideological conclusion not supported by facts, they say, because science cannot prove who or what originally created the universe and life in it.
"Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that 'nature' or 'evolution' has done this or that," Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.
"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1015081120070411?src=041107_0926_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters&pageNumber=1
Thanks to Jason Gersh for sending this in.
PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."
NOT BY FAITH ALONE
Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close advisor, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the "intelligent design" view.
"Intelligent design" (ID) argues that some forms of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, as Charles Darwin proposed in his 1859 book "The Origin of Species." It says a higher intelligence must have done this but does not name it as God.
Scientists denounce this as a disguised form of creationism, the view that God created the world just as the Bible says. U.S. courts have ruled both creationism and ID are religious views that cannot be taught in public school science classes there.
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture," he remarked during the discussion held at the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
AGAINST ATHEISM
Schoenborn, who published his own book on evolution last month, has said he and the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin's theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.
That is a philosophical or ideological conclusion not supported by facts, they say, because science cannot prove who or what originally created the universe and life in it.
"Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that 'nature' or 'evolution' has done this or that," Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.
"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.
Comments 1 - 50 of 149 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #31262 by soarwing on April 11, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Sigh.... How many ways can the same mindless arguments for BIBLEGOD (other gods) be re-packaged?Where did Biblegod get his "rationality"? Surely the existence of Biblegod's "rationality" needs some heavy duty evidence or some magical and demonstrable SOURCE from which these rational powers ooze?
The GAPS are the ONLY places that the gods can exist! As the gaps shrink, so must the gods. Unfortunately for Yahweh, leprechauns and Vishnu need equal consideration when it comes to GAP real estate as well.... leaving little room for any one over the other.
Maybe the POPE needs to wake up and smell the excrement he's shoveling.
Other Comments by soarwing
3. Comment #31263 by js5535 on April 11, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Is it just me or are 'random' and 'selection' antonyms? Other Comments by js5535
4. Comment #31264 by denoir on April 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.
That thumping sound you are hearing are the world's biologists in despair banging their heads against the nearest wall or desk.
How difficult is it to understand?
mutation = random (bounded), creates variation
natural selection = not random, optimization
Other Comments by denoir
5. Comment #31265 by DavidJMH on April 11, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,The pope and others with this sort of reasoning are claiming evolution as being a rationally driven process which it is not, whilst trying to claim the theory of evolution is irrational simply because it cannot be entirely explained at present. The religious, no matter their flavour, are always incapable of putting aside their cherished, irrational beliefs for just a moment to see reason. I suppose they must have too much emotion, time and money invested in this fraud.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
6. Comment #31266 by Karl Christensen on April 11, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The Pope likes sophistry.Other Comments by Karl Christensen
7. Comment #31268 by dthuleen on April 11, 2007 at 8:00 pm
How is what he really said any more persuasive than this?"Both popular and scientific texts often say that 'gravity' or 'weather' has done this or that," Benedict said. "Just who is this 'gravity' or 'weather' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!"
Other Comments by dthuleen
8. Comment #31271 by Cregaune on April 11, 2007 at 8:12 pm
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps,"
Did he really say this? Really? Did the Roman Catholic pope of 2007 really say that God is 'too great' to fit into the gaps that the concept of the 'God of the Gaps' leaves open? Granted, it does sound good but it is of course logical nonsense.
I can almost feel the the lovely feeling of cringing Catholic theologians worldwide!
Other Comments by Cregaune
9. Comment #31272 by MIND_REBEL on April 11, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The Pope hates science and is just plaining stupid because he knows that rationial, logical people have awoken and he can't get away with his creationist crap like the other popes. It's a sign of weakness.
Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
10. Comment #31274 by jamesstephenbrown on April 11, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Everytime someone says to me, but you can't disprove that God created the universe I reply:"As you cannot disprove anything else created the universe. So when it comes to gambling on what created the universe I'm betting on ANYTHING ELSE"
"This makes my odds to yours about infinity to one."
To be clear this is an atheist stance, and I don't think these odds make my view an arrogant one, just a sensible one.
Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown
11. Comment #31275 by Astroboy on April 11, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
Sheesh. We don't have to prove evolution in the laboratory. The fossils that archeologists have dug up are enough proof.
Other Comments by Astroboy
12. Comment #31277 by Zappi on April 11, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Science can still be too narrow to explain everything, but we are working quite successfully on it. The problem with the Pope and his god is that they are too wide to explain anything at all. Other Comments by Zappi
13. Comment #31279 by toomanytribbles on April 11, 2007 at 9:37 pm
as time goes by, and science can explain more about our universe and ourselves, religion becomes all the more superfluous. this is just scrambling for non-existent crumbs. Other Comments by toomanytribbles
14. Comment #31283 by Bonzai on April 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm
>>Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain."The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God<<
So does he mean God makes a lot mistakes and blunders along the way?
It is pathetic to see religious people trying so desperately to attach their "God" to the coat tail
of science whenever (they think) they have a chance. It should be blatantly clear to anyone with a brain that "God" is in its last gasp as an explanation for the way the world works.
Other Comments by Bonzai
15. Comment #31289 by Stewart on April 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm
"The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory."But still doing a lot better than god, if both are held to the same standards of evidence (this would be the same god who can do anything except fit into the gaps science leaves, because they're so small not even god can fit in them).
Other Comments by Stewart
16. Comment #31290 by davyB on April 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Well what the hell does he know? He's just an ignorant old man. - Jeffrey LebowskiOther Comments by davyB
17. Comment #31293 by koldito on April 12, 2007 at 12:03 am
After reading this, I finally understand Dawkins' claim that religious moderates (whatever) are every bit as dangerous as fundies.Other Comments by koldito
18. Comment #31295 by Jolly Bloger on April 12, 2007 at 12:09 am
The church can go so far as to accept mathematics, Newtonian physics, chemistry, etc. as viable theories without demanding some active subject behind the scenes manipulating the puppet strings. I don't see what's so hard about evolution.To be fair though, the pope is FAR more progressive than the average American creationist. It is not unthinkable that with some patient teaching he could be shown the error in his arguments.
My complete comments on this article at my site
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2007/04/pope-speaks-on-evolution.html
Other Comments by Jolly Bloger
19. Comment #31296 by infidel_michael on April 12, 2007 at 12:36 am
Yes, science cannot answer all questions. But when it answers something, it does it with evidence and explanation. Theology answers everything, but without evidence and without explanation (or only with "it is a big mystery" explanation).I can make up hundreds of answers to deep philosophical questions, but without evidence all of them are useless.
People think that theology is something "more" than science, that theology begins where science ends. This is a big bullshit myth which must be destroyed. Provable claims are more valuable than philosophical climaxes without evidence and any possibility to test them.
Other Comments by infidel_michael
20. Comment #31297 by Philip1978 on April 12, 2007 at 12:46 am
There he goes again lying his head off, you can tell what he really wanted to say..."It wasn't not god, it was the DAAAARK SIIIIDE of the Force that created everything!"
Way to go Darth, keep up the bad work!
Other Comments by Philip1978
21. Comment #31298 by Veronique on April 12, 2007 at 1:17 am
Has Benedict thought that god may be too narrow to explain evolution?Ohio I love the argument from grammar. Priceless.
"The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory."
What I'd like to know is when Benedict is going to put creation and god into a laboratory and reproduce them.
This is a silly article, I grant, however as someone said, he's streaks ahead of the rad.right in the US and UK.
He has his life vested in his followers bowing and scraping to him. Hard to give up that power and just be a bloke, eh? Much easier and more profitable to be an apologist. I actually think that Benedict, if you could crack his head open, may be a more reasonable bloke. It is the 21st century, he's not stupid and he is expected (and took the role) to come down on the side of religion. Pity in a way. Without his indoctrination and the rest of the guff, he could well be an interesting fellow.
Ah well, we'll never know. Just wish he would stop the condom BS. We can blame him when the population reaches 9.1B in 2050 and we all croak from starvation and asthma and the multitude of other woes that will attend our demise.
Oops! JC didn't come back and waft us all into the clouds. So sad. Geocentricity does have its downside.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
22. Comment #31299 by HunterZolomon on April 12, 2007 at 1:20 am
Evolution is "purely random"? Science doesn't explain everything? Somehow I thought the Vatican could come up with better arguments than this.
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
23. Comment #31300 by Rtambree on April 12, 2007 at 1:22 am
This Pope is driving the Catholic Church into reverse.The Catholic Church was usually better than the Protestants in terms of compatibility with science, because there was less emphasis on the scripture. Each new successful Pope could update theology with the latest findings and apologise for the crimes of the last Popes.
But this idiot is heading backwards again.
Other Comments by Rtambree
24. Comment #31303 by TeapotTheist on April 12, 2007 at 1:31 am
I can't believe the Pope used the phrase "random selection" - it probably stemmed from Mr Henneghan's own ignorance of biology. However, if those are the Pope's original words, someone really should make a big issue out of it... Other Comments by TeapotTheist
25. Comment #31304 by BaronOchs on April 12, 2007 at 1:32 am
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture,"
best not to eh your holiness . . .
Other Comments by BaronOchs
26. Comment #31306 by z8000783 on April 12, 2007 at 1:35 am
It seems to me that the church has spent it's whole history on the back foot and has no intention of moving away from that position.Good news for us. All we need to do is keep bowling googlies.
John
Other Comments by z8000783
27. Comment #31307 by Feuerbach on April 12, 2007 at 1:36 am
St Benedict, patron saint of:against nettle rash; against poison; against witchcraft; agricultural workers; cavers; civil engineers; coppersmiths; dying people; erysipelas; Europe; farm workers; farmers; fever; gall stones; Heerdt, Germany; inflammatory diseases; Italian architects; kidney disease; monks; nettle rash; Norcia, Italy; people in religious orders; poison; schoolchildren; servants who have broken their master's belongings; speliologists; spelunkers; temptations; witchcraft;
I guess he sees biologists as witches.
Other Comments by Feuerbach
28. Comment #31308 by scottishgeologist on April 12, 2007 at 1:38 am
Infidel Michaels comment above is spot on and ver succinct. Good one!I remember reading somewhere that theology was once known as the "queen of the sciences" Mind you that was in medieval times...
Anyway, if you are familiar with the mathematician Eric Temple Bell, you know that mathematics is the queen of the sciences:
http://www.archive.org/details/queenofthescienc031537mbp
(and also its servant!)
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
29. Comment #31309 by epeeist on April 12, 2007 at 1:44 am
Comment #31306 by z8000783All we need to do is keep bowling googlies
The googly was invented a while back, he might actually have heard of it. Much better to send a doosra or two at him.
Hands up all you Americans that understand this ;-)
Other Comments by epeeist
30. Comment #31311 by Duff on April 12, 2007 at 1:49 am
We shouldn't discourage religious leaders from making comments about evolution. It puts them on record and makes it easy to trash them when they, like the popester, make utter fools of themselves.Other Comments by Duff
31. Comment #31314 by Rtambree on April 12, 2007 at 2:04 am
>Hands up all you Americans that understand thisI think they'll let that one go through to the keeper.
Other Comments by Rtambree
32. Comment #31315 by BaronOchs on April 12, 2007 at 2:11 am
dying people; erysipelas; Europe; farm workersIt's all the same lol
just like
Germany; inflammatory diseases; Italian architects; kidney disease; monks; nettle rash;
Other Comments by BaronOchs
33. Comment #31317 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 2:31 am
There is only one reason to listen to this old fool: he has influence over so many.However, even he seemingly cannot string together much when it comes to rationality; as someone else here has pointed out: 'random selection' is an oxymoron.
It seems the religious cannot at the same time represent Darwinism honestly and win. They have to misrepresent, pettifog or impose arbitrary boundries.
Catholics, do you really want to be influenced by a man who chose for himself the name Benedict? This man really thinks he's God's gift to Catholicism and all those cardinals think he's the best their hierachy has to offer. How foolish do people have to get before you abandon their leadership?
Other Comments by Ian
34. Comment #31318 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:33 am
Yeah, and the pope says that condoms don't prevent AIDS either!Oh yeah, previous popes on the authority of the bible believed in a flat geocentric universe - not the first time it has been wrong! At least science allows you to move on when you are wrong. The bible is always fixed though
Other Comments by BillySands
35. Comment #31319 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 2:35 am
Great post, Veronique. English royalty and the Pope both live in goldfish bowls, their ordinary lives are given so much more meaning than there actually is. I had thought that if Princess Diana really wanted to shake things up, she would take her boys and raised them up to be the ordinary people that they are--take them out of the inherited fishbowl . Maybe someday, these ordinary people thrust into these ridiculous roles of supposed significance, will just do that. Leave the goldfish bowl and live normal lives. If Benedict is intelligent as you surmised, then the chap is for all practical purposes, trapped. His trappings may be lush, but that is what they are. And the Catholic peeps are the ones to blame more than the Pope--they give him his power. Catholics need to go on strike, and put the Pope out of business. Other Comments by Logicel
36. Comment #31320 by simplemind on April 12, 2007 at 2:40 am
Comment #31290 Correction hes a RICH POWERFUL ignorant old man.
and is in most things money has a habbit of inhibiting as much as progressing.
Other Comments by simplemind
37. Comment #31321 by bruno_burned on April 12, 2007 at 2:47 am
theory of purely random selection
I cannot stand the 'random chance' misunderstanding anymore!
I'm going to start calling Darwinism: "Evolution by ITS NOT FRIGGIN CHANCE selection".
Other Comments by bruno_burned
38. Comment #31324 by ridelo on April 12, 2007 at 2:50 am
If only there weren't so much intelligent people whose job did depend on religion. Then it would be easier for them to accept atheism and evolution. 'Primum vivere, deinde philosophare!' still counts.
Other Comments by ridelo
39. Comment #31325 by WilliamP on April 12, 2007 at 2:51 am
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
WilliamP says Pope's mind is too narrow to understand evolution
Other Comments by WilliamP
40. Comment #31328 by Philip1978 on April 12, 2007 at 3:10 am
Logicel, I completely agree that my country's Royal Family do have a bit of a weird status, but as representatives of my country I would choose them over Darth/the Pope, any day of the week. At least Prince Philip, for example, when he says weird things at least they are funny plus the amazing work he does for the Duke of Edinburgh award actually does some sort of good. The Pope has done nothing good in this world asides from owning the worlds largest porn collection!! Other Comments by Philip1978
41. Comment #31329 by justme on April 12, 2007 at 3:17 am
Here's a rule of thumb that explains -- but does not forgive -- these absurd statements by someone that should know better.* All organizations exist to perpetuate the organization above all other roles.
In this case, the current Pope knows that evolution is such a powerful bit of evidence against many religions including Christian ones that have core creation myths. Evolution, as opposed to the holy book stories, is simple, elegant, and easy to test.
To protect the organization, he has to sow the seeds of doubt in his flock. If he doesn't, the organization suffers. That other suffering occurs because of this intentional misdirection is not important. Prince like, 'the ends justifies the means'.
Personally, I would rather have a bacteria as an ancestor than mud. (Not that what I prefer has any bearing on reality.)
Other Comments by justme
42. Comment #31330 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 3:20 am
very true, Philip1978, and since Great Britain is not a non-profit setup, it is very wise to use its royal traditions as tourist attractions. However, I still think it is asking a lot from just ordinary folks to force play the royal role. Other Comments by Logicel
43. Comment #31333 by Philip1978 on April 12, 2007 at 4:02 am
Logicel, again, I totally agree with you, it is asking a heck of a lot, esp the whole royalty bit. I suppose my reason for having any sort of time for them is that the royal family does change with the times, I feel they are adapting to the 21st century a lot better, yes the religion is still waffling around them and that's the side I don't like. I like the fact they bring an enormous amount of clout to charities or organisations that no other representative could do without looking like such a politician. Brace yourself and imagine the likes of Blair or Geeeoooorrrge Dubya doing it! Yiiikes, I think I need another cup of TEA, who else wants one? Other Comments by Philip1978
44. Comment #31335 by Hip_Priest on April 12, 2007 at 4:08 am
Reading some articles by religiosos on this site I often get seduced by claims that religion is actually about appreciating the grandeur of our awesome and mysterious universe. That churches are places of contemplation and meditation, hothouses of moral philosophy, installing in us a sense of ethical responsibility and love of out fellow man. That religious ceremony is is a uniting, not dividing experience. God is not the crude figure that writers like Dawkins describe, but merely a metaphor for the incomprehensible. Religious authority doesn't install dogmatic unquestioning belief in our young but rather hope, however futile, that there may just be a loving force in the universe and life everafter.Then the Pope, THE spokesman for christianity makes an announcement and my sanity is restored.
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
45. Comment #31336 by eccles on April 12, 2007 at 4:12 am
The trouble with Papst Ratslinger is that he believes in "God", is a Theologian and knows nothing about Science. What is Theology? Pure BULLSHIT. He should not stick his nose in something of which he knows nothing. I wonder how well he has read the "Holey Babble" without comments from BS Artists aka. theologians specializing in "babble-speak" and who try to interpret the "Holey Babble".In post #21 by Veronique it is stated "I actually think that Benedict, if you could crack his head open, may be a more reasonable bloke".
If you did that you would find the same contents as in Geo. Dubya's head: Nothing, a vacuum, something Nature abhors.
Benedict. The best thing St. Benedict did was found an order that produces a nice drop of plonk called Benedictine.
Every time I see a reference to "god" I ask "What god?"
Other Comments by eccles
46. Comment #31339 by Veronique on April 12, 2007 at 4:33 am
Logicel,Very difficult when you have to adhere to past representations. Queen, pope, family adherents. Thank god, the rest of us are relatively free. The problem is that we have little if any voice. This is the (not so)strange attraction to power.
I will be able to exert my power upon my subjects; I have been imbued with a suspertitious power that you, my subjects, have made a pact upon. I am supreme, and I will look after you so long as you accept my supremacy and my humility to a greater being.
Hard when you have millions of dollars/pounds at you disposal. How best to subvert - give them money and titles and land and serfs (or the modern equivalent, tenants) Call it
entrepreneurship (let's suck everyone in). We are indeed a very weird species. With a limited life span! Damn.
Have you changed your name yet Logicel? I hope you do!
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
47. Comment #31341 by pissinintothewind on April 12, 2007 at 4:45 am
To reclaim reason we have lost, we have to go back 6000 years to just before Eve took the bite from the apple. ( a joke ). I think the track record of the catholic church on reason or even reasonableness does not stand up to scrutiny ,as for dimensions of reason .... start the eerie music. Absolute bloody nonsenseOther Comments by pissinintothewind
48. Comment #31346 by jeepyjay on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am
jamesstephenbrown (post 10) says: Everytime someone says to me, but you can't disprove that God created the universe I reply: "As you cannot disprove anything else created the universe. So when it comes to gambling on what created the universe I'm betting on ANYTHING ELSE"I'm betting on Nothing Else. Who says the universe was "created" at all? What does it mean to say that there was something "before" the universe? What was it - a "Pre-Universe"? If so how did it differ from an extension of the Universe we know?
The whole idea of a "creation" makes no sense. We can probably say the universe "began", i.e. that there was a time zero, but there was nothing before that time, because time didn't exist. "Existence" didn't exist!
Other Comments by jeepyjay
49. Comment #31351 by MartinSGill on April 12, 2007 at 5:21 am
The Hitler Youth entry on his CV says it all to me
You're ignorance is astounding. While I doubt most would admit to it, almost every German of his generation will have that on his CV.
What most people don't realise is that the Hitler Youth was in effect an equivalence to the boy scouts, certainly in the views of German children.
Yes, Hitler abused it, and it certainly turned very evil towards the end of his reign of terror, but when the Hitler youth started it was truly nothing more sinister than the scouts.
What it does do is highlight just how dangerous hero worship can be, and just how easily people can be manipulated by their peers.
Many people might disagree with me about just how dangerous something like this is, but whenever I see school children in the US take their pledge of allegiance, in my mind, I see them all wearing the brown Hitler youth uniforms.
Other Comments by MartinSGill
50. Comment #31353 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 5:29 am
Hip_Priest, nice post, thanks. Other Comments by Logicel
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #31259 by OhioAtheist on April 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm
This reads like a parody of creationist propaganda. I've heard the Argument from Design, the Argument from Irreducible Complexity, and the Argument from Fine-Tuning... but never the Argument from Grammar.
I'm reminded of the recent article suggesting that Coulter is attempting to undermine intelligent design, and I wonder if the pope perhaps has a similar goal.
Perhaps the pope should learn something about evolutionary theory before drawing theological conclusions from it.
Other Comments by OhioAtheist