Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock
- Thread starter ClubMan
- Start date
I'm not so sure about this characterisation.
The surge in atheism books over past few years followed the surge in of God/Angels/spirituality books over the previous few years. A lot of the current brouhaha could well be part of the current publishing marketing cycle. They do tend to copy each other and market to transcient reading fashions.
It's possibly even linked to 911 when radical Islam gave opponents of religion a weapon to attack all religion.
However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.
Even just looking at the titles/subtitles of these books -
God Delusion
God Poisons everything
God is not Great
etc.
One is struck by a strange sense of defensiveness about them. Desperation maybe? but certainly not victory.
Gallup conducted surveys in the US asking people "do you believe extraterrestrials have visited the Earth?" - only 51% said no, indicating that a possible 150 million or so people living in America believe aliens have visited the Earth at some stage. One quarter of Americans believe that astrology has some basis in fact, and 37% of Americans believe that houses can be "haunted". Similar results have been obtained for polls in Canada and Britain. Only 40% of Americans believe in evolution as fact (in most developed nations this is much higher at 80% or so), and a staggering 20% believe that it is the sun that rotates around the Earth and not the other way round.
This is before we consider the astoundingly high number of people who believe that NASA faked the moon landings and that George Bush had a hand in organising the 9/11 tragedy. I personally know people who tell me they believe in the concept of a guardian angel and yet also believe this to be tied to their own Catholic-faith despite it being a pagan belief.
Popular delusion is just that, popular delusion. It is evidence of nothing.
Be interesting if the link between this and science could ever be explored. Copernican Principle, the idea that we do not have a special position in the universe might have been the first step.
Darwinists also led people to believe that life routinely develops under favorable conditions.
In our own lifetimes, scientists may also be fueling it:
"I think that mankind is on the threshold of entering a larger, cosmic community,"
Astronomer Robert Jastrow
"I used to rather enjoy thinking that the early civilizations would have set up an intercommunicating system Maybe laser beams or something full of information about all the other civilizations in the past history of the galaxy, and that this is all circulating . . . from star to star around the galaxy, and all we have to do is tap into it."
Astronomer Eric Carlson
Similiar pronouncments even had one christian write:
Who can tell what other cradle,
High above the Milky Way,
Still may rock the King of Heaven
On another Christmas Day?
And who could forget Carl Sagan with his billions and billions of stars and millions of habitable planets within our own galaxy.
And yet after nearly 50 years of searching for intelligence in radio signals from space, the universe remains silent and the human race would seem not as insignificant as Stephen Hawking et al would have us believe.
I think it’s an excellent point.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
The tolerance of multiple faiths can only happen in a country that is secular in structure. Religion in general and Catholicism in particular, is fundamentally undemocratic (even though Islam has traditionally been very egalitarian within it’s male dominated confines).
This does not mean that those who rule and run the country must or should be agnostic or atheist.
I don’t understand where you are going with this sort of emotive triumphalist rhetoric. This is not a battle or a war, it is a discussion, nothing more.
By the way quoting John Neuhaus, a right wing Catholic priest and the chaplain to the neo-con movement in the USA (George W just cdalls him “Father John”), hardly adds balance to your arguments.
As a committed 'don't know-er' (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) I'm following this thread with very close attention and find it very interesting.
In my opinion the presence or absence of so-called 'aliens' is irrelevant to this debate other than attempting to use the belief in such as an example.
If there be a Divine Creator he/she/it could have chosen to populate the Universe with ourselves only, although God only knows why(!), or created other species, similar to or unimaginably different to ourselves. That we haven't heard from them is of no relevance either. It signifies nothing.
I'm in fact of that school of thought which proposes that the existence of Man is evidence against the existence of God (MOB's point about the precise use of language is noted). What supposedely omnipotent Being could have made a mistake of such magnitude and created a supposedly intelligent species which is determined to bring about its own, premature destruction and which is doomed to extinction anyway in the relatively near future (in cosmic terms) when Earth is swallowed up by a dying Sun? The Being then subjected itself to an agonising and awful death to compensate for the supposed 'crimes' it's creation had committed. [Please excuse me if I sound cynical. It's undoubtedly due to the harsh treatment I experienced from the 'Christian' Brothers in my young days!].
I find it funny that logic is used by religion to discount the possibility of life existing on other planets.
Those who use the lack of success of the SETI project to support their argument that we are alone in the universe (as the Catholic Church teaches) fail utterly to comprehend the size of the universe. Our galaxy is 100’000 light years across (or if the sun was 16.5cm in diameter the Galaxy would be 112 million Km across.
If you plot distance on one axis of a graph you have to plot time on the other axis. This is a much bigger factor. Imagine the axis is a few Km long and a million years is 1 cm.
Now imagine intelligent life to develops on a planet close to us, they develop radio communications and the signal from those communications are sent into space.
Even if that world sends signals for a million years we have to be able to pick them up as they pass us. They could have passed us a billion years ago or could do so a billion years in the future.
I accept that it is possible, indeed probably that there is/was or will be life on other planets. I also think that it is incredibly improbable that we will ever have any contact with it.
It's often assumed that "contact" would be bad news for the Church but if it ever did happen that would really depend on what the aliens tell us about God.
Lots of pure speculation and leaps of faith in this whole area of ETI of course.
But what if they believe in a creator - and they could even answer some of the mysteries around that faith. What a time that would be!
Been there! I find this very sad that some corrupt individuals have managed to deprive many people of something so important. It sometimes seems to me that Ireland resembles more the liberated lost than a society of rational skeptics. But heck it's Friday - I'm cheered up already !
Lots of pure speculation and leaps of faith in this whole area of ETI of course.
But what if they believe in a creator - and they could even answer some of the mysteries around that faith. What a time that would be!
Been there! I find this very sad that some corrupt individuals have managed to deprive many people of something so important. It sometimes seems to me that Ireland resembles more the liberated lost than a society of rational skeptics. But heck it's Friday - I'm cheered up already !
The same thing occured to me and I liked the examples. I think there are many other good ones though.
I find the subject of great scientific blunders to be quite interesting. I've even thought of pulling together examples into a small book. (perhaps it's been written already!)
As you mentioned, the subject has its tragic side but it can also have comical elements - especially when you have some pompous prognosticators declaring something to be fact that later turns out to be quite a bit less than that!
There would also be a chapter related to that great bewhiskered dreamer - Charles Darwin. Not all the concepts of evolution have made it down to our time. Some of the notions have turned out to be, well, frankly, full of cr*p.
Indeed there are and further scientific research based on reason and empirical evidence has shown them to be false, incomplete or inaccurate. This is one of the great strengths of science. Religion on the other hand requires that it's version of events is never questioned.
While you are correct that some of what he wrote has been shown to be incorrect the basic concept has been shown to be correct and the examination of his theories and the subsequent work that has been carried out by other scientists has given us a greater understanding of where we come from.
The Catholic church rejects such science, this pope rowing back on the small concessions to enlightenment made by JP the second.
Tell me Remix, do you accept the Catholic Church's teachings on where we came from or do you accept that Darwin was closer to the mark?
The theory of evolution remains one of the great pieces of human thought of all time - mistakes in specific examples notwithstanding.
The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers. Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.
I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.
The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers. Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.
I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.
The theory of evolution remains one of the great pieces of human thought of all time - mistakes in specific examples notwithstanding.
The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers. Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.
I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.
The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers. Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.
I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.
That appears to be a false choice to me?
But church teaching appears reasonable. At least if my understanding of what that teaching is is correct.
Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed. I Agree with this.
There are obvious difficulties with attempts to entangle atheistic philosophy in the matter.
So they appear not to have an issue with the science but issues with the atheism. And there should be no surprise in the latter
By the way, if your prime interest is simply religion bashing well that's one thing. But if do have questions in good faith then there are, of course,
better resources on the web then me where you can pose them.
I find this posturing a little incredulous. Are you telling me that if there was several books on Catholicism in the best-seller list (God is not a delusion, God is great, God doesn't poison anything) you would accept me citing this as proof of the imminent demise of Catholicism on the basis that the titles sounded defensive?
Despite an inherent bias in the way the religious question is phrased in the census, you'll find that the greatest bull market in the last decade has been in those declining to subscribe to any faith.
The only way all religions can remain in a bull market is if, as Purple has pointed out, we have a secular society.
I accept this is the case but it’s just a cop-out. My understanding is that the Catholic Church has never stated that the creation story in the book of Genesis is not correct. No priest I have ever talked to has ever seen it as other than a metaphor but I see this as another example of where the Church ignores its own past teachings when they have been shown to be conclusively untrue.
God cannot be part of the equation in any scientific formula. This is not about any atheistic philosophy, it’s about offering something that cannot be quantified or understood (i.e. God) as the answer to a scientific question. The two are utterly incompatible.There are obvious difficulties with attempts to entangle atheistic philosophy in the matter.
So they appear not to have an issue with the science but issues with the atheism. And there should be no surprise in the latter
I am not bashing religion, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who use religion to plug the gaps in science but at the same time refuse to apply scientific analysis to religion.
I am also aware that there are better places to get hard info on this but this discussion is fun and it’s interesting to debate with will informed people you disagree with.
"Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed"
I think it's the right approach as it allows a Christian the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads but at no point does it impose any kind of scientific orthodoxy. Science by it's very nature is tentative.
As Chesterton said:
“The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.”
Referring to your comments on creation. Not very long ago the prevailing scientific theory on the universe was that it was perpetual and had no beginning. Just about every world religion held that the universe had a beginning but science took the opposing view - with considerable scientific reasoning on their side.
The term 'big bang' was coined derisively to ridicule the notion that the universe had a beginning.
As evidence for the big bang mounted, many people including many scientists, thought that it had theological implications that they did not like. Some thought it posed a threat to the very foundations of science.
The passage of time since then lessens the utter shock it was for many scientists to realise the universe had a time "t=0". (Actually t=0 still boggles the scientific mind!)
My point is that it would have been folly for the Church to reject the concept of creation and impose the prevailing and erroneous view of science at that time. Things turned out to be somewhat more complex and mysterious.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--Hamlet
I think it's the right approach as it allows a Christian the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads but at no point does it impose any kind of scientific orthodoxy. Science by it's very nature is tentative.
As Chesterton said:
“The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.”
Referring to your comments on creation. Not very long ago the prevailing scientific theory on the universe was that it was perpetual and had no beginning. Just about every world religion held that the universe had a beginning but science took the opposing view - with considerable scientific reasoning on their side.
The term 'big bang' was coined derisively to ridicule the notion that the universe had a beginning.
As evidence for the big bang mounted, many people including many scientists, thought that it had theological implications that they did not like. Some thought it posed a threat to the very foundations of science.
The passage of time since then lessens the utter shock it was for many scientists to realise the universe had a time "t=0". (Actually t=0 still boggles the scientific mind!)
My point is that it would have been folly for the Church to reject the concept of creation and impose the prevailing and erroneous view of science at that time. Things turned out to be somewhat more complex and mysterious.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--Hamlet