here is an interesting news article today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor ... rss&feed=1
What do you think the ramifications of this new stance will be?
Is the Pope about to support ID?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Sleepy
Effects, ???
But:
1. It would be a step back toward pre-Gallilean attitudes dictated by the supposedly infallable Pope.
2. Was John-Paul not also infallable? If so how do Catholics deal with the cognitive dissonance of two infallible but inconsistent proclimations?
3. It confirms MY view that religion rarely has anything constructive(or accurate) to say about science and should leave that to the researchers. Scientists, after all, leave the care of souls to the religious.
4. It will just promote more exodus from the church as it will just disillusion the freer thinkers among the flock. Science does not have the goal of the elimination of religion, but religions blindness and resistance to scientific "truths" is in large part responsible for their own decline(historicly speaking). This has caused a "distillation" of believers, leading to an apparent rise in "Fundamentalists" who take a Ludite, know nothing stance on any science which disagrees with THEIR interpretation of scripture.
5. Anything which reduces our scientific literacy is a dangerous thing in a world which already depends on science to susstain the population. Ultimately this can lead to famine and death. So could this action actually be "Evil" in the long run? We shall see, sooner than we think.
6. As a belief ID may be perfectly acceptable, as science it is entirely bogus. As a stopped clock is right twice a day, occasionally ID proponents do have a point, but just as a stopped clock is useless(how do you tell when it is right?) the rare gems of "truth" IDers come up with are lost in the mud that the rest of ID is.
Haven't the Catholics learned ANYTHING from history? Are we doomed to repeat such fiascos as Gallileo, the Inquisitions and the abyssmal ignorance of the Dark Ages??? I hope not, but the signs aren't good!!!
Grumpy
Effects, ???
But:
1. It would be a step back toward pre-Gallilean attitudes dictated by the supposedly infallable Pope.
2. Was John-Paul not also infallable? If so how do Catholics deal with the cognitive dissonance of two infallible but inconsistent proclimations?
3. It confirms MY view that religion rarely has anything constructive(or accurate) to say about science and should leave that to the researchers. Scientists, after all, leave the care of souls to the religious.
4. It will just promote more exodus from the church as it will just disillusion the freer thinkers among the flock. Science does not have the goal of the elimination of religion, but religions blindness and resistance to scientific "truths" is in large part responsible for their own decline(historicly speaking). This has caused a "distillation" of believers, leading to an apparent rise in "Fundamentalists" who take a Ludite, know nothing stance on any science which disagrees with THEIR interpretation of scripture.
5. Anything which reduces our scientific literacy is a dangerous thing in a world which already depends on science to susstain the population. Ultimately this can lead to famine and death. So could this action actually be "Evil" in the long run? We shall see, sooner than we think.
6. As a belief ID may be perfectly acceptable, as science it is entirely bogus. As a stopped clock is right twice a day, occasionally ID proponents do have a point, but just as a stopped clock is useless(how do you tell when it is right?) the rare gems of "truth" IDers come up with are lost in the mud that the rest of ID is.
Haven't the Catholics learned ANYTHING from history? Are we doomed to repeat such fiascos as Gallileo, the Inquisitions and the abyssmal ignorance of the Dark Ages??? I hope not, but the signs aren't good!!!
Grumpy
Post #3
One thing I know is that as in the past the church should not commit rigidly to a particular scientific world view without good supporting evidence. I echo your sentiment of concern but am happy to wait to see what the outcome of this event will be.
The only reason I can see for the Catholic Church joining the ID stance now is if it actually has convincing evidence. Something both you and I will be looking at closely, although given my worldview I will have to be aware of my bias to find design evidence convincing before closing the doors on the alternatives.
If ID was adopted as the position of the Pope it will be interesting to see what kind of ripple effect this has on the Catholic world. As you point out it may drive a wedge in 'free thinking' the alternative is that it may bring more skeptics of evolution out of the world of science than were previously known about.
Either way, my reason for posting this here is because it is a current event that may have larger implications than first expected.
The only reason I can see for the Catholic Church joining the ID stance now is if it actually has convincing evidence. Something both you and I will be looking at closely, although given my worldview I will have to be aware of my bias to find design evidence convincing before closing the doors on the alternatives.
If ID was adopted as the position of the Pope it will be interesting to see what kind of ripple effect this has on the Catholic world. As you point out it may drive a wedge in 'free thinking' the alternative is that it may bring more skeptics of evolution out of the world of science than were previously known about.
Either way, my reason for posting this here is because it is a current event that may have larger implications than first expected.
Post #4
http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/39 ... BLIQPKAC05
Apparently, the meeting had nothing to do with ID.
The Church was not the main cause of Galileo's demise as was Galileo's own personality and competing scientists. Remember, Galileo could not overthrow the main argument for the Aristotilean view, the parralex of the stars argument.
Aristotle was considered the Einstein of his time and it wouldn't be easy to convinve anyone of contrary theories.
Apparently, the meeting had nothing to do with ID.
The Church was not the main cause of Galileo's demise as was Galileo's own personality and competing scientists. Remember, Galileo could not overthrow the main argument for the Aristotilean view, the parralex of the stars argument.
Aristotle was considered the Einstein of his time and it wouldn't be easy to convinve anyone of contrary theories.
Post #5
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/39 ... BLIQPKAC05
Apparently, the meeting had nothing to do with ID.
The Church was not the main cause of Galileo's demise as was Galileo's own personality and competing scientists. Remember, Galileo could not overthrow the main argument for the Aristotilean view, the parralex of the stars argument.
Aristotle was considered the Einstein of his time and it wouldn't be easy to convinve anyone of contrary theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/39 ... BLIQPKAC05
Apparently, the meeting had nothing to do with ID.
The Church was not the main cause of Galileo's demise as was Galileo's own personality and competing scientists. Remember, Galileo could not overthrow the main argument for the Aristotilean view, the parralex of the stars argument.
Aristotle was considered the Einstein of his time and it wouldn't be easy to convinve anyone of contrary theories.
