Galileo Redux: The Catholic Church examines evolution in terms of dogma.

[NNadir]

"An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=3f9d26780e539272&ex=1121572800

The dark ages ended with the church's suppression of science and will probably resume with the church's suppression of science.

Can these creeps minds possibly get smaller?

[RPM]

1. yep - the church is so good at science...

i think they have missed the call on everthing science has offered in ~2000 years.

I'm at the point where if sciences says it might be true and the Vatican decries it, it must be true. its a virtually ironclad acid test...

[opihimoimoi]

2. This is Natures way of spreading life throughout the Universe.

Tiny forms of life on astroids/comets/meteors/ falling on planets with sustainable conditions, Once life takes hold...life evolves.

Kahuna sez....life evolves with clues for us to look for.

Ever notice life in general gives us a surplus?? Hint, coal, oil, gas, wood, etc.

Humans are not saving but using energy stored in an unsustainable rate

Where are the programs to reduce waste of this precious commodity called oil/gas/coal.???

[lostnfound]

3. OMG. My Catholic schools taught evolution & Christianity were compatible

Only literalists believe in the 7 days thing. We were free to accept evolution as the means by which God created the universe. In fact, our science classes 30 years ago taught evolution unabashedly.

If they are silly enough to change their position on this, it's likely to cause even more Catholics to wonder if their church has lost its way.

[TreasonousBastard]

40. And they most likely still will teach that.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. No need to get upset. The headline suggests

that Cardinal Schonborn has formulated a new teaching or policy for the Roman Catholic Church but that is not the case. For starters, he doesn't have the power to do so.

Instead, if you read his op ed -- as opposed to simply reading this article about his op ed-- he is giving his view of the meaning of Catholic teaching on evolution and backing it up with his interpretation of comments and writings by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Popes have the power to change Catholic doctrine but only when they speak ex cathedra, which neither has done here.

Cardinal Schonborn is making a statement in support of the immanence of God; a statement that there is more to life than mechanistic explanations. It's only an anti-scientific statement if you take the view that science must be atheistic.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Science is atheistic.

God belongs in church, not in science.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Science is not atheistic. Atheism is

the conviction that there is no God. Science cannot take the position that there is a God or that there is no God as there is no way to test either hypothesis without resorting to individual convictions.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Atheism is

having no belief in god or gods.

It cannot be defined, therefore, atheists do not recognize it.
There is no need to refute something that cannot be identified or defined.

Same with science, science does not recognize it and therefore will not refute it.

It is absent from science, ergo science is atheistic.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. Circular reasoning much?

I stand by what I said; science is neither theistic nor atheistic; it does not concern itself with the questions because it's an untestable hypothesis,

And in my training as a biologist, I was certainly never told that science requires atheism, that science is atheistic, that there is no God, etc.

If science were in fact atheistic, surely it would be stated in science textbooks, which it is not.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

42. "If science were in fact"

to refute santa claus and leprechauns, "surely it would be stated in science textbooks, which it is not".

So, again, by dismissing the issue of gods and goddesses, science is atheistic.

Unless, of course, you can show me the textbooks that state science's position on the others.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. What a hilarious irony!

Today, it s the secularist scientists who view themselves as the priestly caste, and like all intellectual and putatively intellectual establishments, fight tooth to suppress new truths which, in their fearful purblind eyes, would seem to undermine their very comfortable livelihood and personal status; instead of investigating the possibility of the next paradigm having emerged, to take empirical science to a higher level again, they have fought conceptual leaps with a scarcely believable viciousness.

Look at the Big bang theory! How secularist scientists tried to hold it back, until the evidence was incontrovertible. Kind of inconvenient. It may also be the case that the universe is anisotropic, according to two young scientists at an American unversity. Hee, hee. Another nail in secularism's coffin.

Einstein only dared show his theories to a small number of close friends, for fear others would think him mad. Indeed, arguably, he wasn't really a scientist, but a philosopher. His academic record at his Polytechnic was pretty indifferent, and when working on the formulation of his theories, had friends who were more able mathematicians do his calculations.

Still, in his conscious mind, at least, he appears to have missed the implication of Light's having an absolute speed, irrespective of the motion (at a constant speed) of an observer i.e. that Light belongs to a different and superior stand-alone order of reality to the universe of space-time, despite its interactions with it. Yet a subliminal appreciation of it would go a long way to explaining why he kept "bringing God into everything", to the great annoyance of Neils Bohr.

What is more, the discovery by an eminent neurosurgeon and his team of the apparent survival of the conscious mind and senses, after the apparently total shutdown of an individual's brain functions for many minutes, in a near-death experience, seems to me to be consistent with a spiritual light-physical light continuum, appropriate for making sense not only of a space-time/secular (switching a light on, though maybe the bulb's blown) knowledge-faith continuum, but of a continuum of the latter with (most fully) the Christian knowledge-faith continuum, supplied by the Holy Spirit (which co-ordinates the strands of the intelligence), and nourished by the Word of God in scripture, and ecclesial sacrament and tradition.

[Kraklen]

46. I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mr. Marx.

I myself am a secular scientist and have never sought to suppress a truth. I love the truth, and only seek to seperate the truth from the phony bullshit. The wheat from the chaff, as it were.

"Look at the Big bang theory! How secularist scientists tried to hold it back, until the evidence was incontrovertible. Kind of inconvenient."

Hardly. The modern Big Bang theory was hypothesized in 1929, theorized in the thirties and forties. And proven in the 1960s. Every hypothesis, theory, and evidence was welcomed by the scientific community, albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism and debate- just like the scientifi method dictates.

"Einstein only dared show his theories to a small number of close friends, for fear others would think him mad."

If by "small number of close friends" you mean the entire world-wide scientific community, you'd be correct. Einstein published his findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The only reason to worry about looking like a nut is if he claimed he had an amazing scientific theory but didn't want to show it to anybody- as many crackpots often do.

"His academic record at his Polytechnic was pretty indifferent, and when working on the formulation of his theories, had friends who were more able mathematicians do his calculations."

This is repetition of the urban myth that Einstein was a poor mathematician. This is a ridiculous myth and couldn't be further from the truth. Einstein was an amazing mathematician, he invented the entire field of tensor calculus, for pete's sake. Sure, Einstein had colleauges check his math, all good mathematicians do.

"Still, in his conscious mind, at least, he appears to have missed the implication of Light's having an absolute speed, irrespective of the motion (at a constant speed) of an observer..."

Well if the last statement wasn't ridiculous, this one sure is. Anybody who actually has read his papers, or even papers on his papers, will see that it's obvious that Einstein got the implication of the absolute velocity of light, relative to any reference frame. I mean, he did call it "relativity" for a damn good reason.

"Yet a subliminal appreciation of it would go a long way to explaining why he kept "bringing God into everything", to the great annoyance of Neils Bohr."

Einstein was an atheist. But I think you're referring to the statement "God does not play dice with the universe," Einstein's metaphor for his dislike of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. Regardless of Einstein's dislike of it, Heisenburg was right. God (as it were) does indeed play dice with the universe.

"What is more, the discovery by an eminent neurosurgeon and his team of the apparent survival of the conscious mind and senses, after the apparently total shutdown of an individual's brain functions for many minutes, in a near-death experience, seems to me to be consistent with a spiritual light-physical light continuum, appropriate for making sense not only of a space-time/secular (switching a light on, though maybe the bulb's blown) knowledge-faith continuum, but of a continuum of the latter with (most fully) the Christian knowledge-faith continuum, supplied by the Holy Spirit (which co-ordinates the strands of the intelligence), and nourished by the Word of God in scripture, and ecclesial sacrament and tradition."

Hmm. Pseudoscience nonsense. Notice, third parties, the appeal to the anonymous expert and the breakdown of clarity at the end of the paragraph. Brain activity = no conscious mind. At least as far as science has to say on the subject. Near death experiences, at best, the ICU equivalent of the dream where you're naked in class.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. "God (as it were) "... Nice one!

"Anybody who actually has read his papers, or even papers on his papers, will see that it's obvious that Einstein got the implication of the absolute velocity of light, relative to any reference frame. I mean, he did call it "relativity" for a damn good reason" - Kraklen.

O foolishness, thy name is Kraklen! It was the failure of Einstein or any of you other presumptuously self-styled scientists (science means knowledge, not just knowledge of the basest most rudimenary material aspect of creation), to accept that, far from the so-called "scientific method (nothing more than common-sense testing while maintaining a reductionist mind-set, actually helpful in the limited context in question), being the be-all and end-all (or leading thereto) of all knowledge and understanding worthy of the name, it is as far below the wisdom and understanding of the human of the heart and its proper subject, as the earth is below the heavens. Well, the metaphor is almost too precise to be a metaphor, isn't it? There are indeed more things in Heaven and earth than you ostriches dare to think about, never mind care to.

And no, as implicit in what I said about Neils Bohr's remark, I was not referring to a single instance of Einstein's preocupation with God's role in creation. Not only did Einstein patently believe in "intelligent design", but so did Darwin, a theology graduate, who later in life rued he had not spent more time studying his Christian faith. My, but how you people can fantasize!

Your dismissal of NDEs encourages me no end. It confirms, in a quite unabashed manner, the wilful myopia of the materialist.

[Kraklen]

48. Darwin died an agnostic.

He was quite a pious Christian in his youth, true, but he quietly "converted" to agnosticism, and was quite comfortable with it. He was by no means a believer in "intelligent design" and I suspect the reason for his "conversion" was because he recognized there was no need for an Intelligent Designer.

You've still failed to explain what it was that Einstein "failed to recognize" regarding the speed of light, or anything else. You seem to be suggesting that since the speed of light is a constant, therefore God exists. That's a bit like saying, because lava is molten rock therefore God exists. That's what we ostriches call a "non sequitor."

Your reaction surprises me to no end. I was quite sure you'd respond angrily with insults, blatant comma abuse, and without addressing any of the points that I brought up. Maybe you think I've got psychic powers, but no. I'm afraid I've just heard it all before.

[DemBones DemBones]

49. I'm not sure that Darwin was ever

comfortable with his loss of faith. It's been a long time since I've read either Darwin or his biographers but the way I remember it, Charles Darwin was dismayed by the anti-theistic implications of his theory. Dismayed because of the impact on his own faith and because of the grief it caused to the believers in his family. His wife, I believe, continued to attend church throughout her life, so that was a gap between them. I don't know that he had any inclination to believe in intelligent design, though. I'll look around and see if I can find my Darwin books.

FYI, when I was reading Darwin and biographies of the man, at least the first few times, I was in my atheist or agnostic years so I wasn't looking for anything to suggest Darwin was a believer or troubled by his own unbelief. But since it's being discussed here, I'd be interested to know the facts, as far as they can be found.

[Kraklen]

52. His theory had no anti-theistic implications.

But I don't know how he felt about people misinterpreting his theory. I suspect he didn't lose much sleep over it.

He had this to say about its implications over the literal interpretation of the Bible...

"Whilst on board the Beagle.. I was quite orthodox... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament... was no more to be trusted than the... beliefs of any barbarian."

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Yes, we are naturally prone

to edit what we read, take in what we consider of value and skim over the rest, and of course, it can be no more than the only practical way to proceed. As long as our "prejudices" are well founded. Still I find it almost inconceivable that anyone born in a more enlightened, less disoriented and bewildered age, could have believed in a multibillion year-old and still going strong, "coincidence snowball", to explain our universe.

Well, of course, a snowball actually makes sense, and scarcely deserves to dignify what must surely be the ultimate example of modern man's nescience. Not science, nescience. The French even call their scientists, sages.

It would be interesting to learn more on the subject of Darwin's beliefs. I believe I read in an edition of Brittanica that later in life, Darwin regretted not having devoted himself more to the study of his faith. If so, I shouldn't imagine it would be an uncommon regret. I personally have heard it from someone who, I think, realised (correctly) that she wasn't long for this life.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. And YOU complain about repetition of urban myths?????

Pot, meet kettle.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. "He was quite a pious Christian in his youth,

true, but he quietly "converted" to agnosticism, and was quite comfortable with it. He was by no means a believer in "intelligent design" and I suspect the reason for his "conversion" was because he recognized there was no need for an Intelligent Designer".

You should have put your apostrophes around "quietly", not "converted" (we won't blame you for the word's religious connotations). "He 'quietly' converted...?" Told his mum and dad and a few friends maybe? You seem to live in a very furtive world, old chap, with your "quietly", "converted" and "I suspect that blah, blah (if you'll pardon the expression in relation to such gratuitous, not to say extraordinarily presumptuous conjecture.... charity prompts me to pass over the vacuity of its purport).

"You've still failed to explain what it was that Einstein "failed to recognize" regarding the speed of light, or anything else. You seem to be suggesting that since the speed of light is a constant, therefore God exists. That's a bit like saying, because lava is molten rock therefore God exists. That's what we ostriches call a "non sequitor." (sequitUr, old chap)

If Light is a unique, stand-alone non-relative reality in an otherwise relative universe of space-time, then (unlike lava) it clearly belongs to a literally immeasurably (most apposite, what!) superior order of reality to that of the latter. If you are unable to grasp that, then this, I'm afraid, must be the end of our little colloquy on this matter.

[Joe Chi Minh]

59. "This is repetition of the urban myth

that Einstein was a poor mathematician. This is a ridiculous myth and couldn't be further from the truth. Einstein was an amazing mathematician, he invented the entire field of tensor calculus, for pete's sake. Sure, Einstein had colleauges check his math, all good mathematicians do". - Kraklen an' a wackaloon.


The Wikipedia experts need to consult him. Here's what they have to say:

"The notation was developed around 1890 by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro under the title absolute differential geometry, and made accessible to many mathematicians by the publication of Tullio Levi-Civita's classic text The Absolute Differential Calculus in 1900 (in Italian; translations followed). The tensor calculus achieved broader acceptance with the introduction of Einstein's theory of general relativity, around 1915. General Relativity is formulated completely in the language of tensors, which Einstein had learned from Levi-Civita himself with great difficulty. But tensors are used also within other fields such as continuum mechanics, for example the strain tensor, (see linear elasticity)".

Naughty, naughty. Trying to blind us with cod history of science! Poor Pete, if it was for his sake!

No, he didn't just get his friends to check his math. He got them to do it. He was a thinker for crying out loud, not a drudge! As for his degree in Physics as a young man, let me put it this way: Five students took the final exam at Zurich Polytechnic that year: Einstein came fourth.

Also, you confuse your own incomprehension for a putative "breakdown of clarity at the end of the paragraph".

[Emperor_Norton_II]

61. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'd just like to point out...

...that using Wikipedia as a primary source on anything, whether it's Einstein's biography or if the sun rises in the east, is a very bad idea. Wiki's "anybody can edit" policy makes it very easy for noise to creep into signal.

In summary, Wiki as primary source == bad. Everybody clear? Okay, good.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled ID flamewar, already in progress.

[DemBones DemBones]

63. The very idea that "anyone may edit" makes Wikipedia useless

as a resource, really. It always surprises me that people refer to it as if it were the Encyclopedia Brittanica. All references and texts, Brittanica included, have some errors and biases but Wikipedia will apparently 'print' anything.

Of course, the internet is more noise than signal, anyway. Bah, humbug. It's gotten to where it's difficult to find reputable sources with most search engines. I suppose Lexis-Nexis is still OK but I don't have it.

[Kraklen]

68. Well if you'd like to pick nits...

Calculus was invented by Leibnitz and Newton in the 17th century and the modern definition of "tensor" was developed by Voight in 1899.

But it remains that Einstein took the decidedly limited work of Ricci-Curbastro and turned it into tensor calculus, he expanded it, developed it, and popularized it into the highly concise tool that it is today.

It remains that Einstein was no dummie when it came to math.

There's a number of people that like the myth that Einstein wasn't good at math.

Some of them are students struggling with math themselves. If it helps inspire them, even if it's historically inaccurate, that's fine with me.

Then there's the crackpots. They think Einstein was bad at math because they think they're smarter than he was. Often they make the most grandiose claims that they understand Einstein's work better than he did. These people are beyond contempt. The good news about them is that they're easy to spot, and they instantly marginalize themselves.

[qazplm]

50. wrong

atheism is the active belief that gods do NOT exist.

agnosticism is the lack of belief in god or gods and not believing that it can be defined or identified.

theism is the belief in god or gods and the belief it can be defined and identified.

science should be agnostic.

[beam me up scottie]

51. No, you are wrong and this has been explained to you more than once.

Why do you keep trying to redefine atheism ?

I suggest you do some reading and stop telling others how to define themselves.

It's insulting and arrogant.

There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
***
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don’t focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they “deny the existence of God,” we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term “God” hasn’t been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

from Defining Atheism by Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/

[Zhade]

8. Atheism is NOT the conviction there are no gods.

It is the absence of belief in any gods due to the lack of convincing evidence they exist.

You'd get tired of people misrepresenting your beliefs as "worshiping Mary", right? So why the hell do you think you have the right to define the way atheists think?

And before you pull out a dictionary, let me remind you that Webster was not an atheist.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Split hairs much?

The difference between the definition I gave:

"the conviction that there is no God or gods"

and the one you gave:

"the absence of belief in any gods due to the lack of convincing evidence they exist"

is slight at best.


Atheists seem to have different definitions of atheism. Hardly suprising since you lack a creed. But you can hardly expect the rest of us to keep up with your varied explanations of what atheism is.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Little trouble with the definition again ?

Maybe this will help:

ATHEIST:

Afrikaans: ateïs
Arabic: كافر
Bulgarian: атеист
Chinese: � 神论者
Deutsch: atheïst, godloochenaar
English: atheist
Español: ateo
Français: athée
Greek: άθεοσ (godless), άθεος (pagan), αθεϊστήσ, αθεϊστής
Hebrew: אתאיסט, כופר
Italiano: atheist
Português: atheist
Russian: атеист
Vietnamese: người theo thuyết vô thần người vô thần





Merriam-Webster:
one who denies the existence of God

Encarta:
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Cambridge International:
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Compare agnostic.

Webster 1913:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. Syn. -- Infidel; unbeliever. See Infidel.


ATHEISM:

Deutsch: atheismus
English: atheism
Español: el ateismo
Français: athéisme
Greek: a?e?sµ??
Italiano: atheism
Português: atheism
Russian: ??????

Merriam-Webster:
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Encarta:
unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
< Late 16th century. Via French from, ultimately, Greek atheos "godless," from theos (ee theo- ). >

American Heritage:
1 a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
French athéisme , from athée , atheist, from Greek atheos , godless : a- , without; see a– 1 + theos , god;

Webster 1913:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. R. Hall.
Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. Shipley.
2. Godlessness.

Columbia Encyclopedia:
denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism , which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "godforsaken, abandoned by the gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing total lack of relations with the gods, that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transcribed atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme around 1587. The French word is derived from athée "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Due to the influence of atheism, deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.


non-believer synonyms

agnostic
atheist
bright
disbeliever
doubter
faithless
freethinker
godless
heretic
ill religious
infidel
materialist
nihilist
non-believer
non-religious
objectivist
rationalist
secularist
skeptic
unbeliever

From the Atheist Empire
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/index.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. The problem is that the accepted definition isn't evil enough.

Sorta like the abuse the word "liberal" gets.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Yes, it is the polar opposite of "christian"

which means everything good and pure.

[beam me up scottie]

30. "you can hardly expect the rest of us to keep up

with your varied explanations of what atheism is."

Yeah, kind of like all of the different religions:

Scientology, catholicism, satanism, raelian, jediism, heaven's gate, hare krishnas, and so on and so forth, it just never ends.

Who can keep them straight ?

[Zhade]

67. Sorry, you're wrong.

There is a big difference: to have conviction is to be fully convinced of something.

I am not fully convinced there is no way we might ever find out that gods exist. I just don't see evidence at this time for any.

So, you are incorrect.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. That's not entirely true...

there are several degrees of atheism, ranging from a mild agnostic feeling that whether or not there are gods they are irrelevant to our life on earth to the absolute statement that there are no gods.

When one claims to be an atheist, it can mean as much or as little as when one claims to be a Christian. By Christian, does one mean Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witness... Likewise, when one claims to be an atheist, does that mean that one simply has seen no evidence of God, or that one absolutely denies that there could be a god?

In most cases it makes little difference, but some confusion can pop up if terms are not properly defined at the outset.

[beam me up scottie]

43. So I have to use a believer's definition ?

I'd like to see a christian agree to have an atheist define them .

Hell, I'd be happy if we felt we were allowed to post our opinions regarding religion with impunity.

As it is now, anything a christian finds offensive is apt to be censored, including valid comparisons.

[NNadir]

31. As an atheist and a scientist, I agree with this statement.

Science takes no position on whether or not there is a god. It is difficult to prove a negative.

That said, my atheism derives, in part, from a complete lack of evidence for God. I've lived a long time and I've heard God invoked as the cause of all sorts of things - often by dear family members - but I have yet to hear of one that didn't have an alternate, rational explanation on further examination.

I note that science - good science anyway - usually evaluates situations because of evidence, not because of a lack of evidence. There are some exceptions of course - like relativity growing out of the lack of evidence for an ether as a medium of electromagnetic waves - but mostly science is an attempt to explain phenomenological evidence.

A complete lack of evidence does not necessarily prove non-existence, but it does at least strongly suggest it.

[beam me up scottie]

32. The broad definition of atheism takes no position on god(s) either.

So does that make science atheistic ?

IMO, yes.

Exactly as does an atheist, it neither denies nor accepts it.

Some believers insist atheism is an active disbelief in god because they forget that god cannot be defined.

My challenge to them: Let us know when you have proof of the supernatural, then I will be able to "not believe" in something that actually exists.

"The atheist does not say, "There is no God," but he says, "I know not what you mean by God; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation."" - Charles Bradlaugh

[DemBones DemBones]

34. And there you say "IMO" -- In My Opinion, but we all have opinions,

Subject: And there you say "IMO" (In My Opinion) but we all have opinions. . .
Message:


don't we? Just what makes your opinion right, the fact that you say it's right?



You attempted to demonstrate in a post above that atheism can be defined, with many, many definitions of atheism, translations of the word, etc.

Why is it that you believe atheism can be defined, but insist in the quote below that God cannot be defined?

<<Some believers insist atheism is an active disbelief in god because they forget that god cannot be defined.>>

I submit that if there were no commonly understood definition or concept of God, there could be no atheism.

Whatever would you doubt, deny, or disbelieve if you didn't have knowledge of what God is understood to be, of how God is defined?

[beam me up scottie]

37. Define god.

Once you've done that, I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it.

I'll wait.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Thank you. I don't know why others are

finding my statement so controversial, as I clearly said neither theism nor atheism could prove its case.

I had my atheist years (decades, really) so I do understand and empathize with atheists so long as they're rational and polite in debate. Your statements meet those criteria, even though you state that you see no evidence for God's existence. I feel no need to attempt to change your mind and you don't seem to wish to change mine.

About 1981, I heard Stephen Jay Gould speak and in the Q and A session someone asked him a question designed to pin him down as an atheist. He declined to answer, and continued declining even though the questioner badgered him about it, asking several more questions and finally claiming that he had heard Carl Sagan say publicly that he (Sagan) was an atheist. As I recall, Gould's major reason for declining to answer the question was that it had nothing to do with science. I agreed with him then, though I was an atheist at the time myself, and I agree with him now.

(Another example of Gould's insistence on setting limits: he also refused to sign a program for his lecture that night when someone asked him to. She was taken aback when Gould said "No, I didn't write the program." I was surprised, too, as this was just after he had signed my copy of "Ever Since Darwin" and we'd talked for a couple of minutes. But I saw his point about the program and he didn't have to sign too many autographs that night as few people brought in one of his books.)

[beam me up scottie]

38. I'm still waiting for those science textbooks

stating that santa doesn't exist.

[onager]

9. Reminds me of Magellan's famous quote...

"The Church says the earth is flat, but I know it is round for I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon.

And I have more faith in a shadow than I do in the Church."

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Eh? I don't see the relationship between

Magellan's quote and what I said.

Many people, bishops included, knew that Galileo was correct at the time. Church leaders were mistaken to deny it but I suppose it would have come as an enormous shock to the people of the time, just as Darwin's writings set off shockwaves that are still in motion. The Church of Galileo's time tried to slow the shockwaves that were bound to come when people realized Earth is not the center of our universe. Perhaps that was better for humanity, if not for science. Think how many people today depend on the Bible as a source of their knowledge about the world, which it should not be used as, and then imagine how much greater that dependence was in the time of Galileo. The concept of "Future Shock" has been with humankind for centuries.

[BurtWorm]

17. If the cardinal suggested that it's "unscientific" to ignore the argument

from design, he's sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong and speaking, not only ex cathedra, but out of school.

And the Cardinal does suggest that:

"Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

How dare he! What if we said, "Catholic doctrine that tries to explain away the legitimacy of science that leaves aside any question of God is not Catholic at all"?

[DemBones DemBones]

20. It's only when a Pope speaks

ex cathedra that what is said becomes Catholic doctrine. (I may have already said this; forgive me if I'm repeating myself.) So Cardinal Schonborn's words don't change doctrine a bit.

Some of what the cardinal said is wrong.

But I'll defend anyone's right to free speech, even if they're wrong, won't you?

[BurtWorm]

28. I'll defend anyone's right to criticize anyone else's free speech.

Won't you? ;)

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Yes, if they

do it fairly and as politely as the speech called for! ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

10. He also wrote this:

"Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

So basically, he's saying that scientific theory exists to refute god?

And that if science does not recognize intelligent design, it's not really science?

What a pompous ignorant boob.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. the dark ages

I'm not sure the dark ages would resume if that church decided to change its position on evolution. Unlike 1000 years ago, there is a strong body of researchers today who don't really care what any particular church thinks about their work.

The fundies have been fighting evolution for 150 years, but the research still goes on, and said fundies still line up to get the new flu vaccine every year, since evolution makes the old one ineffective.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. I doubt very seriously that the Roman Catholic Church

will change its position on evolution. And, as you say, the Church no longer rules the Western world, nor have the Protestant fundamentalists succeeded in convincing everyone that evolution is false. Having taught biology at high school as well as college levels, I'm convinced that most people do understand and accept basics of evolution, such as the evolution of viruses and bacteria. They don't accept that one organism can evolve into a very different organism and refuse to accept that human beings were not created especially by God. Humanity still wants to be the center of the universe, even though it now scoffs at people once believing the world was flat.

[htuttle]

21. People expect more out of life nowdays...

...than a bowl of wheat gruel, burlap clothing and getting holes drilled in their heads when they have a headache.

Without science, you don't have technology. Even if the US tries to turn back the clock on science, Americans will end up lusting after the stuff that they have overseas, and want it themselves. Recent 'christian' trends to return to more intellectually rustic time period are incompatible with the rampant consumerism Americans have been programmed with.

If you're talking about 'iPods vs God', I bet iPods win out every time. They might give 'God' the lip service, but they'll still want the iPods...

Wasn't there recently a case of a fundy activist that went overseas for stem cell treatments, for example?

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Sure, but the churches in London were packed on Sunday.

Many people think they don't need religion, don't need God, just want their iPod, until bad times come along. Religion has always had a role to play in people's lives and will continue to do so, as will science.

Technology may fall behind when we start running low on oil because we haven't fixed that yet. And there are Christians, such as the Amish, who live very rustic, low-tech lives quite happily, with others choosing to emulate them and turn away from consumerism. Who'll be better off when the energy crunch hits?

[beam me up scottie]

24. Who'll be better off ?

Why, the ones who put their trust in science, not religion, of course.

Unless the deities can open Esso stations at each church.

[htuttle]

27. Attempting to provide spiritual comfort is one thing...

...telling them that they have to believe the Earth is flat and give up the benefits of modern technology or they'll go to hell is another proposition entirely.

It seems to me it's the Church that's been pushing the issue here. Lots of Christians have found that their faith is compatible with all fields of modern science. So it's not science that's causing the conflict except by the nature of it's existence -- it's religious powers who are attempting to move us via social engineering back to a time when they were more powerful. Same as it ever was back to Galileo.

And that has nothing to do with providing spiritual comfort, feeding the poor and downtrodden, or anything else mentioned in the Beatitudes. It's about power. And it's about how important the church as an institution is or is not to modern people. If that church in London had requested that people give up their technological lives in order to enter to get solace, I think you'd have found a crowd on the sidewalk outside the church comforting each other, instead of getting comfort from a priest inside the church. From what I've read, Jesus would probably like that better anyway.

And the Amish don't choose their lifestyles any more than people in South Central or Appalachia do. They were born and raised there. Not saying they can't be happy, they just didn't choose how they were born and raised any more than the rest of us.

I'm all for getting back to the land, but I don't think we should get there through ignorance. I don't think that would work anyway. There's simply too many mouths to feed nowdays. Billions of us WILL be screwed (dead) if we run out of oil without alternatives and without science to find new ones.

If Christianity pushes people to choose between obeying their religious dictates and the benefits of science, I still think they will choose science and it's bounties.

[BurtWorm]

18. "His op-ed is no direct threat to biological science."

http://pharyngula.org/


"His op-ed is no direct threat to biological science. It's laughably vacuous, built on a tissue of self-referential readings of dicta by church officials, and represents the kind of doctrinal masturbation that suggests a celibate priesthood is a really bad idea."

:spray:

[DemBones DemBones]

22. I submit that his being wrong

has nothing to do with his celibacy or his priesthood. It has to do with the conflict between his religious beliefs and his understanding of science, certainly, but some rather important scientific thinkers have also believed in the Christian faith, and often were faithful Catholics.

[BurtWorm]

29. This cardinal, however, is not a scientist.

Or a scientific thinker. Clearly.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. I know little about him except that he

was considered a "papabile" after John Paul II died. People would really have their Hanes in a knot if he'd been elected Pope! Some atheists might even consider praying for Benedict to have a long, long life to keep Schonborn from the papacy.

;-)

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Actually, this is a perfectly reasonable statement...

for a church that few should have to take issue with.

Science ignores the question of gods because science cannot prove or disprove them, but religion cannot ignore science.

This statement by the cardinal is merely a clarification of existing Catholic teachings-- that evolution absolutely exists, but it is not a completely random process. It does seem to approach the wackiness of ID, but there are several key differences.

For one thing, this is merely a Catholic religious teaching, and does not necessarily affect science curricula. It merely says that randomization is not the ONLY method for evolution, but does not insist on any particular method for God to guide it. God could very well include randomization in its plan, and the visible effects would fit in quite well with established observations and working theory.

It also does not demand that present science curricula be revised to include ID as an alternative theory, as the wingnuts are trying to do. This is a religious teaching only, and is not intended to affect scientific teaching or research. There is no plan to revise Catholic science textbooks or insist that non-Catholic schools teach in this way.

The advice was meant primarily for the Catholic clergy who have often ignored the intent of God in their understanding of evolution. So, if you are not a Catholic, or in the clergy, this really means very little.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. I think he's saying randomization can never be the method for evolution

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

He's not saying that bits of evolution must have been guided - he's saying the whole thing is. Which seems to mean that AIDS viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the malaria parasite. And he's trying to redefine science - he's claiming that you have to accept 'intelligent design'.

Now, I accept that this is just one cardinal, who seems to be trying in the article to spin other Catholic's words to his own liking (and his links with the Discovery Institute are worrying; I find it strange that an Austrian archbishop is writing articles for the New York Times). I think we dodged a bullet when this guy wasn't elected Pope. But I'd urge Catholics who do have respect for what 'science' means to fight aginst this attempt to insert faith into science.

[DemBones DemBones]

53. It seems to me that, if we accept that there is or may be

a God, then it's no problem to accept the possibility that He/She designed this whole experiment and allowed it to proceed as it has, AIDS, malaria and all. I agree with you that this is essentially what Cardinal Schonborn said, that all of evolution is guided. If I recall correctly, though, the article suggests that he could accept that there is a God who set everything in motion or a God who micromanages, as it were. So-called 'intelligent design' could be either, or both (God set things in motion and mostly went on holiday, but sometimes checks in and makes adjustments in the experiment.)

I don't agree that Schonborn is

"trying to redefine science - he's claiming that you have to accept 'intelligent design'."

Instead, I read the article as him saying

"Don't discount the possibility of God and the possibility of intelligent design."

Science does not depend on there being no God anymore than it depends on God's existence.

[Kraklen]

54. Evolution depends on random changes.

Completely random. Like flipping a coin. That could mean that God guided evolution. It also means that God guides the "random" flip of a coin. And that has theological implications for the nature of free will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. That sentence I quoted is where I think he's trying to redefine science

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

That says: "If you don't accept intelligent design, what you are doing is ideology, not science". Even 'seeking to explain it away' stops it from being science.

[DemBones DemBones]

64. There is a great deal of ideology in science, though.

Some scientists don't like to admit it but it's there nonetheless. It's no worse to ask that the possibility of intelligent design be considered than to insist that science must refute the possibility of intelligent design.

[NNadir]

62. In my opinion accepting the "possibility" of ID is a waste of time.

While it is true that science does not depend on the non-existence of God, science does not need to serious evaluate all possibilities for which there is no evidence simply because some people with non-scientific sensibilities believe in them.

For instance, there is no reason for science to "accept the possibility" that Voldemort is the root of all evil. It is very clear that Voldemort is fiction. It is also readily apparent that the Bible is fiction. Science doesn't examine the possibility that people's love lives are determined by the positions of the planets, even though many, many, many people read their horoscopes daily with great seriousness and devotion. There is zero evidence for the claim about the planets' effect on love, therefore it is not the provence of scientific inquiry.

There is no evidence for "intelligent design" (or alternatively a completely deterministic universe) other than the wishful thinking of the retarded cardinal and other religious dolts. Should some measurable phenomenon come to exist that suggests that only intelligent design accounts for the existence of the universe, it will be worth examining the proposition.

But no such evidence exists.

It is not science's role to negate religion, but neither is it science's role to take superstition seriously. The onus for proof of religion is - in spite of what mindless twits in tall funny hats want to tell you - on religion, not on science.

The idiot cardinal should focus on subjects on which he has some semblance of credentials: Mysticism. He clearly knows zero about the subject of science.

[DemBones DemBones]

65. When you refer to "the retarded cardinal and other religious dolts,"

"mindless twits in tall funny hats," and "the idiot cardinal," all in one post it indicates that you lack scientific objectivity in regard to the matter of religion.

I don't think that you can conclusively demonstrate that the possibility of intelligent design is entirely false anymore than I think anyone can conclusively demonstrate that it is entirely true. That makes it different from astrology or from stories that are known to be fiction, having been invented as such.

Since neither side can prove their assertions, why not a truce? An admisiion that we don't know everything, cannot prove everything? Science doesn't have to agree with religion but it doesn't have to push pure determinism, either, does it?

[NNadir]

66. You're misreading me.

I simply say there is no reason whatsoever to consider intelligent design whatsoever. I am no more interested in disproving it than I am interested in disproving Voldemort.

I can't see any difference whatsoever between intelligent design, Voldemort, or astrology.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Therefore it is not a subject for scientific inquiry.

Science only "pushes" things for which there is evidence, for which there is phenomenological import beyond individual faith.

The problem is that religious people wish to assert that science must examine - or hold opinions - on their views mostly because science has more credibility than religion. If that is so, it's religion's problem, not that of science.

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. A very insightful and concise

summation, TreasonousBastard.

[Igel]

55. I don't see why this matters.

They're not saying that before a mutation happens we can predict it; from our point of view, it's random. They're not saying in other fields where the outcome is predictable (in a probabilistic manner) that we can't. Or that we shouldn't look for mechanistic or probabilistic causes.

They're engaging in a post hoc rationalization. Evolution has the mutations being random, with survival of offspring favoring the retention or elimination of the mutation. It insists that we view the mutations as random, at least to a first approximation. And so they are: we can't predict them.