Pope Warns of Seductive Science

[Canuckster1127]

Article in the Globe and Mail. What do you think about this?

Pope warns of 'seductive' science
Reuters

January 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM EST

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict warned Monday of the "seductive" powers of science that overpower man's spirituality, reviving the science-versus-religion debate which recently forced him to cancel a speech after student protests.

"In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criterion for goodness," he told scientists.

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going", the Pope said.

"Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions," he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since his election in 2005, for mankind to be "respected as the centre of creation" and not relegated by more short-term interests.

The conservative German-born Pope's public stand on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research has led critics to accuse him of holding antiquated views on science.

Students and teachers at Rome's La Sapienza university — which was founded by a pope more than 700 years ago — cited such views when they protested so loudly during a papal speech scheduled for Jan. 17 that it had to be cancelled.

In particular, they criticized his views on science, saying a speech he gave in 1990 showed he would have favoured the church's 17th-century heresy trial against Galileo.

The Vatican said the protesters misunderstood that speech, made about 17 years ago when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

[frankbaginski]

It is about time the Pope stood up and said something. I am not into his church but as a man of God (the Pope)I would support him saying what he did.

Religion is not stepping on the toes of science, it is the other way around. A theory should not be taught as fact and when it is then science is telling the world that science is the new religion.

It used to be that people of faith had pagans and atheist to deal with. Now with science passing themselves off as the ultimate truth we have another group to contend with.

Depending on the atitude of the atheist I talk to and how they relate to science I start with:

"So you believe that when you fade to black and your body decays your essence is gone? No more thoughts of any kind? What makes you so sure that you cease to exist? So your faith is in a man made idea, the idea that you are in blackness forever? Does your faith in nothingness ever change with new developments in science? Just what part of science makes you feel so secure that you won't spend the time to think about what might happen after death? Is the idea of a God upset you? Do you feel control over your life because you now have faith in nothingness? Are you not investigating God because you think you may lose yourself? What if in that investigation you actually found yourself?"

I give the Pope a gold star. Let's start the discussion. I am ready.

[zoegirl]

I think it's always wise to understand to limitations of science, as much as I love it, it cannot answer certain questions. WHle it can address mechanically why we may behave the way we do, it cannot address whether or not we should do so.

[frankbaginski]

I do not believe science knows enough to describe mechanisticaly the behavior of anybody. To say it does implies that it can predict behavior. To predict behavior implies 100% control by a mechanistic system. This implies no free will. This is the argument of science and it is false.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Way to go, Benedict XVI...! Three cheers for the Pope!

FL

[frankbaginski]

I love Christ, I use science. Science is a tool of man and as such it should not be placed above God's creation in any form. There are way too many people who compromise God for the things of man. Draw the line in the sand and let nothing of man cross over to you.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So now we have studied the fish, and studied the fowl, and studied the cattle, and some have given the study power over man. Some have given power to the fowl, and the cattle, and the fish, to make man their slaves. I for one cast off the yoke of this world. Do not let the chains of science attach themselves to your feet.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Man says you can't build here because of a mudskipper, you must drain your lakes because of a clam, you can't drill for oil because it may upset the view of the deer. Yes, we must not trash the place but some are lowering man and raising the animals.

[zoegirl]

I do not believe science knows enough to describe mechanisticaly the behavior of anybody. To say it does implies that it can predict behavior. To predict behavior implies 100% control by a mechanistic system. This implies no free will. This is the argument of science and it is false.

Not meaning my statments to this extreme....for example, simply meant that while science can address to a large extent why we get angry and the mechanisms in this anger, the brain activity, the neurotransmitters, it cannot address the morality....and we should always remember that it is limited in this regard.


In what way is concern for an ecosystem and Gods creation raising the creation above MAn? Are we not to be wise stewards of His creation? We are placed in this position to guard and to use wisely. Is refraining from drilling to study the effects of the drilling raising the deer above men? OR is it simply good stewardship to understand the ecology and our resources?

Many a country has been devastated by thoughtless introduction of animals and plants to an ecosystem which was not designed for those animals and plants. We reveal out sinful nature not only through the thoughlessness in our relationships but in the thoughtlessness in what is under our care. And God gave us the creation under our supervision. To care for it does not imply that we regard it superior.

[frankbaginski]

I understand your feelings about man's soul and spirit. Just show me a college level Biology text thats says that the control over the subsystems of man is controlled by the soul or the spirit of man. Just show me a text that says that science does not know how decisions are made and those things are beyond science. You will not find this. The unknown is always placed in context that man will know one day. This is saying man will know all. This is saying science will know all. It is false.

Until science is viewed as a tool and not the answer to all of the worlds questions we will have the religion of science. We send our kids to schools to be indoctrinated with the religion of science just like the muslims send their kids to a madrasa.

[Gman]

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going", the Pope said.

"Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions," he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

I really think statements like this solidifies his stance as the "no-nonsense" Pope. He isn't out there to appease the masses.. He is willing to risk his reputation on issues that he feels important for the cause of Christ... I think he hit it on the nail saying that "no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going." That is a very bold and truthful statement that will probably land him in some trouble... I would commend him for his actions.

[Byblos]

I really think statements like this solidifies his stance as the "no-nonsense" Pope. He isn't out there to appease the masses.. He is willing to risk his reputation on issues that he feels important for the cause of Christ... I think he hit it on the nail saying that "no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going." That is a very bold and truthful statement that will probably land him in some trouble... I would commend him for his actions.

I see a steady march away from theistic evolution towards ID. I think this will be the hallmark of his papacy.

[Himantolophus]

"So you believe that when you fade to black and your body decays your essence is gone? No more thoughts of any kind? What makes you so sure that you cease to exist? So your faith is in a man made idea, the idea that you are in blackness forever? Does your faith in nothingness ever change with new developments in science? Just what part of science makes you feel so secure that you won't spend the time to think about what might happen after death? Is the idea of a God upset you? Do you feel control over your life because you now have faith in nothingness? Are you not investigating God because you think you may lose yourself? What if in that investigation you actually found yourself?"

I agree. I never understood how an atheist can go through his/her life with such a bleak outlook on the afterlife (there being none). But this is another discussion alltogether. I don't know why they feel that there is no God? Do they somehow feel "above" a God or believe that they don't have a soul?

Religion is not stepping on the toes of science, it is the other way around. A theory should not be taught as fact and when it is then science is telling the world that science is the new religion.

well, you know already that I disagree. If it wasn't for the creation story, there would be no overlap or conflict between the Bible and science. I think they are completely separate from each other... the Bible as a spiritual and moral guide for Man and science as a way to find out how the Earth and it's life works. Yes, God must have some part in the creation of the Universe, but no one can prove how He did it or how long ago.

I think it's always wise to understand to limitations of science, as much as I love it, it cannot answer certain questions. WHle it can address mechanically why we may behave the way we do, it cannot address whether or not we should do so.

we are only in the year 2008 here... look how much we've discovered in the last 200 years, or better yet, the last 50 years! We discover new things every day. Is anything that science "cannot" accomplish? That's not a question I'd answer "no" to. Maybe not prove or disprove God, but who knows what we'll be capable of in 100 years.

I love Christ, I use science. Science is a tool of man and as such it should not be placed above God's creation in any form. There are way too many people who compromise God for the things of man. Draw the line in the sand and let nothing of man cross over to you.

the Bible isn't meant to be used as a science textbook. Genesis does not give us detailed descriptions of anything, just a brief overview. If God wanted us to use Genesis as the Truth of our origins, then He would have made it a bit more detailed and a lot more lengthy!
And again I bring up the thousands of creation myths all over the world. All different yet all believed by their believers as the Truth. At least if Science is a "religion", it is consistent.

Man says you can't build here because of a mudskipper, you must drain your lakes because of a clam, you can't drill for oil because it may upset the view of the deer. Yes, we must not trash the place but some are lowering man and raising the animals.

I wrote a post over in another forum on Conservation. Elaborate on what you mean here... so you say that Man should be able to kill off other animals as long as it is for Man's benefit? I say that mudskipper, clam, and deer has as much of a right to be here as us.

I understand your feelings about man's soul and spirit. Just show me a college level Biology text thats says that the control over the subsystems of man is controlled by the soul or the spirit of man. Just show me a text that says that science does not know how decisions are made and those things are beyond science. You will not find this. The unknown is always placed in context that man will know one day. This is saying man will know all. This is saying science will know all. It is false.

well, you don't see that because supernatural beings and naturalism are separate. Belief in a God as a creator (in whatever sense) is a personal decision. Why make schools teach it when you can believe whatever you want? Do you actually think teaching of design will change anything? You will still have all the evidence and all of the literature pointing to evolution. Most people practice religion outside of science. Many people practive secular science and go to Church on Sunday. Why push religion on others when they can make the decision for themselves? The same goes for science... keep science in school and religion in the Church.

I T.A. biology for my graduate studies and I taught a lesson on evolution. I told the kids about evolution and mutation and selection and went through the lesson as I planned. I didn't force my beliefs on them or tell them creation is stupid. I didn't talk about design even I'm sure there were a few people in there who knew about it. I just did my lesson, let the class go, and that's it. No "brainwashing" or "Bible bashing" involved. I just told them what we know about evolution and I'll leave it up to them to make their decision. Why not keep it that way? Science isn't actively seeking to disprove creationism, it just so happens that the evidence does that. And the creationists (especially the YEC's) are up in an uproar because their beliefs are threatened. So they twist it around to say "science is attacking me". Please...

You seem to place limits on science... I'm willing to bet if you check back in 50 years, we will have answers to many of the questions you ask. And then what? I wouldn't underestimate science and the human brain.

Until science is viewed as a tool and not the answer to all of the worlds questions we will have the religion of science.

So we shouldn't bother to try to answer those questions? We should all sit in our houses and believe in creationism? And just ignore any evidence to the contrary? Kind of like putting your fingers in your ear and saying "lalalalalalalalalala" while staying in denial...

I see a steady march away from theistic evolution towards ID. I think this will be the hallmark of his papacy.

why abandon theistic evolution? What was the problem with it. I thought that is combined science AND God?

[Himantolophus]

On topic here, I think the Pope is making a huge blunder. Instead of keeping an open mind and allowing for progress, he has taken a step back into the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church has always kept God AND science by using a form a theistic evolution, I would want to know what problem the pope has with it?

[ARWallace]

I see a steady march away from theistic evolution towards ID. I think this will be the hallmark of his papacy.

What is the difference between theistic evolution and ID? Just curious. They seem synonymous except, perhaps, in some small details.

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus ,

The problem with some atheist is they are not godless they are antigod. They have faith, it is just misguided. The world has taken them over and the creation is rebelling against the Creator. A common tactic of evil. These people have no idea that their strings are being pulled. They can be saved I believe easier than the godless. Remember that Christ cast aside the lukewarm but could work with the hot or cold.

I go on websites filled with atheist and fight over the silliest of ideas. I hope that one post, one day will lead just one of them to question eternity.

From your post you seem to feel that science will have answers to all questions in the future. This is what I reject. I reject it for two reasons. One being from ID where I think science will hit the wall, the other from scripture that calls on us to place the things from man in proper order.

The knowledge we gather from science should be used by man to allow us to live safer and longer. This information is the detail of the creation and we should be amazed at the complexity. To form theories from the data that cast out the Creator is being foolish.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

So observing the things that are made we are to know that there is a God and He made them. We are without excuse. I fail to see wiggle room here.

[Canuckster1127]

I see a steady march away from theistic evolution towards ID. I think this will be the hallmark of his papacy.

What is the difference between theistic evolution and ID? Just curious. They seem synonymous except, perhaps, in some small details.

Intelligent Design argues for irreducible complexity of certain biological elements which cannot be explained by natural selection alone, thus pointing to an intelligent designer. Natural Selection alone is seen as insufficient. The system as such is rigged to wind up with humans and the diversity of life observed because no amount of time and chance can be reasonably expected to have resulted in what we in fact see. God either stepped in to guide the process to overcome the odds or God deliberately bypassed the system in progressively creative acts and evolution as a process still works on a smaller scale to explain diversity but not as the primary means of the creative process.

Theistic Evolution sees God as the designer of the system that gave rise to life through evolution and that the evolutionary process alone is sufficient to explain the diversity. Natural Selection is seen as God's tool in the process and is sufficient to explain everything we observe at present.

The key would be the role and sufficiency of Natural Selection alone I think.

Probably too simple an explanation, but that's my stab in a nutshell.

Intelligent Design is primarily an extension of Old Earth Creationism (ie Progressive Creationism) which many YEC proponents have bought into in terms of an expedient means to practically oppose evolution given that their efforts have heretofor not been effective.

Theistic Evolution sees evolution as God's creative process but rejects the positivist or materialist philosophy that seeks to explain away God or reduce God to a prime cause who then just walked away from His creation.

So there can be a lot of common ground, but I think the key concept for differentiation would be the role of Natural Selection.