Pope Francis: The Big Bang and Evolution Are Real

[exchemist]

I think that article is pretty biased there spidergoat XD

Yes the level of argument leaves a lot to be desired, seeing as it is by an academic. He seems to be saying that the scientific theory of evolution requires atheism, which will come as a surprise to the numerous scientists around who have religious beliefs.

P.S. Just seen spidergoat's reply which is more thoughtful. Certainly the theory of evolution does not imply any teleology, nor does any theory of science. But plenty of religious people are able to superimpose the teleology of their religions on science without it affecting the theory in the least.

 

[Billy T]

Yes, the Catholic Church has been subtlety deceiving people on this issue for decades. They do not accept evolution, they accept something that looks superficially like evolution, but with divine intervention all along the way.

IMO, that is an accurate summary. They teach that the "Hand of God" has been guiding the "random" genetic changes for millions of years so humans would evolve. That POV is, for me, hard to reconcile with the fact this all loving, all knowing, god did not give Hitler a heart attack when he ended German democracy.

By comparison that tiny and quite natural appearing "intervention" by the "hand of God" is extremely minor interference with natural laws than the billion trillion prior interventions needed to guide evolution to the production of man.

 

[PhysBang]

Yes the level of argument leaves a lot to be desired, seeing as it is by an academic. He seems to be saying that the scientific theory of evolution requires atheism, which will come as a surprise to the numerous scientists around who have religious beliefs.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the theory of evolution requires that there was no divine intervention in the historical development of the organisms in the world today.

P.S. Just seen spidergoat's reply which is more thoughtful. Certainly the theory of evolution does not imply any teleology, nor does any theory of science. But plenty of religious people are able to superimpose the teleology of their religions on science without it affecting the theory in the least.

No, they do change the theory in order to impose their teleology. That's what imposing their teleology is.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That's fine, they can express their faith, but it's not the scientific theory we are talking about. They have created their own version of the theory and are pretending it's the same. Evolution is inherently adaptive and doesn't follow a plan.

There's a lot of truth in that statement, but it's not quite accurate, as regards the religious view.
The difference is subtle.
The Catholic church, as you might expect, keeps to the standard Christian view of a human being.
A human being comes into being by the will of God, and is formed in his image.
Squaring that with science is difficult, if not impossible, but while admitting the validity of the science, the Church insists on faith in the dogma.
To be fair, they are not presenting an alternative scientific theory, but asserting basic beliefs.
The church does not want that Galileo/Telescope episode all over again.

 

[exchemist]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the theory of evolution requires that there was no divine intervention in the historical development of the organisms in the world today.


No, they do change the theory in order to impose their teleology. That's what imposing their teleology is.

Ah OK thanks for clarifying your interpretation. But the whole point of difference between the mainstream and the Bible-Bashers, as I have always understood it, is that the former do NOT require belief in divine intervention in a natural process. The view they take, as I understand it, is that the natural processes themselves are intentionally created by God such as to give rise to our world. So there's teleology, without special intervention.

But I may be mistaken. Can we get hold of some actual words, to settle this?

 

[GeoffP]

If their position is that evolution has unfolded in order to create Man, then no, that wouldn't be correct.

Although one could then just argue: well, magic.

And this is the problem with trying to reconcile science and religion. A nodding peace is the best that can be expected. Science and religion have nothing explanatory to say to each other, and that's the way it should be. We have no evidence of their suppositions. Done.

 

[Yazata]

Ah OK thanks for clarifying your interpretation. But the whole point of difference between the mainstream and the Bible-Bashers, as I have always understood it, is that the former do NOT require belief in divine intervention in a natural process. The view they take, as I understand it, is that the natural processes themselves are intentionally created by God such as to give rise to our world. So there's teleology, without special intervention.

But I may be mistaken. Can we get hold of some actual words, to settle this?

"But it is important to note that according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nevertheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." (International Theological Commission July 2004)

 

[paddoboy]

Yes, the Catholic Church has been subtlety deceiving people on this issue for decades. They do not accept evolution, they accept something that looks superficially like evolution, but with divine intervention all along the way.

Of course the church in accepting the BB and Evolution, put both down to the work of this magical deity in the sky, realising that at this time, science are unable to explain the why's and how's of both.
So they eagerly grab onto those shortcomings of the two theories.

I have no doubt though that in the course of time and progress, science will push back even further this unscientific need for any deity at all.
I wonder then if the church again will modify its position in the face of the new evidence.

Although its Interesting to note, that even now, some think this need for a magical deity is redundant.
see......
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

[spidergoat]

"But it is important to note that according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nevertheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." (International Theological Commission July 2004)

That's some plan. How many extinction events were there? 6?

 

[Billy T]

... Although its Interesting to note, that even now, some think this need for a magical deity is redundant.
see...... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

I did not open your link as my objections to god as the creator is the common one - where did god come from?
I.e. that postulate does not explain the mystery of creation, but "sweeps it under the rug" so as not to be quite so obvious.

I am more inclined, if must have an answer, to the POV that on net, nothing has been created. That negative "dark energy" etc. keeps the total stuff and energy created to zero. Just a division of zero has occurred for unknown reason(s) perhaps just because it can. I.e. Start with 0 and it split into +1 and -1. etc.

 

[exchemist]

"But it is important to note that according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nevertheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." (International Theological Commission July 2004)

Thanks Yazata, that's what I thought.

 

[Trooper]

What’s the point of this thread? Are you just reposting headlines or are you trying to claim that religion and science are compatible?

 

[exchemist]

What’s the point of this thread? Are you just reposting headlines or are you trying to claim that religion and science are compatible?

Seems to me you are posing a false antithesis. Clearly the OP does not in any way claim the latter, and is not "just" doing the former, but expresses (a) surprise and (b) an opinion that the announcement may put the cat among the pigeons among the religious right.

I don't myself think it will, but it seems to me a perfectly reasonable post for KM to have made, on a forum such as this. And it has led to 2 pages of comment, so the topic does not seem to be not ipso facto totally dull.

Do you have a point to make?

 

[Trooper]

Why was he surprised? Pope Pius XII declared this in the 50's? Did he not realize that Georges Lemaître was catholic? He's re-posting ancient news. If there's no point or nothing new that he can add, it should be cesspooled.

 

[exchemist]

Why was he surprised? Pope Pius XII declared this in the 50's? Did he not realize that Georges Lemaître was catholic? He's re-posting ancient news. If there's no point or nothing new that he can add, it should be cesspooled.

Well you're about two pages late to the party, but indeed it was not really new.

However, as to cesspooling it, it seems to me there are likely to be plenty of people reading this forum who may be under similar misapprehensions to the OP. So this thread seems to me to fulfil a purpose, in that it informs readers, who may have been confused by newspaper headlines.

I think that's valuable.

 

[Trooper]

Well you're about two pages late to the party, but indeed it was not really new.

However, as to cesspooling it, it seems to me there are likely to be plenty of people reading this forum who may be under similar misapprehensions to the OP. So this thread seems to me to fulfil a purpose, in that it informs readers, who may have been confused by newspaper headlines.

I think that's valuable.

Fair enough. I'd like to point out then that faith has no place in science. As Walter Kaufmann once said, faith is an intense, usually confident belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person. Lemaitre himself thought that science should remain isolated from the religious realm.

It was Lemaitre’s firm belief that scientific endeavour should stand isolated from the religious realm. With specific regard to his Big Bang theory, he commented: 'As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.' Lemaître had always been careful to keep his parallel careers in cosmology and theology on separate tracks, in the belief that one led him to a clearer comprehension of the material world, while the other led to a greater understanding of the spiritual realm... ...Not surprisingly, he was frustrated and annoyed by the Pope's deliberate mixing of theology and cosmology. One student who saw Lemaître upon his return from hearing the Pope's address to the Academy recalled him 'storming into class...his usual jocularity entirely missing'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[exchemist]

Fair enough. I like to point out then that faith has no place in science. Lemaitre himself thought that science should remain isolated from the religious realm.

Absolutely agree.

In my experience, the only people who try to conflate the two are creationists, particularly the ID people.

 

[Yazata]

What’s the point of this thread?

Twofold, I guess. First, to report on what the pope had said, and second, Kittamaru was expressing his surprise that the pope had said it. Then several people including exchemist and myself wrote that what the pope said wasn't really all that surprising, since various theologians, including popes, have been saying similar things for many years. That led to some interesting and valuable discussion. This is a good thread in my opinion.

Are you just reposting headlines or are you trying to claim that religion and science are compatible?

I think that science and religion are compatible in principle.

It's interesting to observe Catholic theological thought gradually adapting itself to that view, which is basically what this thread is about.

 

[Trooper]

It's interesting to observe Catholic theological thought gradually adapting itself to that view, which is basically what this thread is about.

Gradually adapting to what view, Yazata, theistic evolution?

Well, I don't think that science and religion are compatible.

 

[Yazata]

Gradually adapting to what view, Yazata, theistic evolution?

To the view that religion and science can be compatible with one another.

Well, I don't think that science and religion are compatible.

Why not?

I should add that I don't think that all religious beliefs are compatible with all scientific beliefs. That's obviously not the case. But I do think that it's possible to simultaneously be a religious person and a scientist, without contradiction or cognitive dissonance.

I'd like to point out then that faith has no place in science. As Walter Kaufmann once said, faith is an intense, usually confident belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.

What about the problem of induction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction