‘God is not a magician’: Pope says Christians should believe in evolution and Big Bang

[kpete]

The earth’s origins were not chaotic, the pontiff said, but were created from a principle of love, reported Religion News Service.

“He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality, and so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things,” the pope said.

Pope Francis said the theory of evolution did not contradict the Bible or church teachings, as creationists claim.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/god-is-not-a-magician-pope-says-christians-should-believe-in-evolution-and-big-bang/

[dembotoz]

1. heads explode

[lark]

132. Nah, Faux Snooze will totally ignore this so the cretins will not know about it.

[loudsue]

240. "because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Fox viewers don't evolve.

They wouldn't know a damned thing about it...every one of them know just as much as they did when they were six years old.

[olegramps]

136. "God created man...

"God created man in his image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."

Jean Jacques Rousseau

[aggiesal]

200. What amazes me is that the fundies can't ...

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 06:13 AM - Edit history (1)

and won't allow creationism and evolution to co-exist.

Time is a man mad construct, well the measurement of time.
Who's to say that we can have 100 hour days, or 100 minute hours or 100 second minutes?

So to say that God created earth in 7 days may be true, but how long is a day measured
during that creation? 1 day could be 1,000,000 years in our current time measurement.
So if our cosmos took say 7,000,000 current time years, then both theories would be true.

Now watch heads explode.

[Union Scribe]

278. Including here, it would seem. nt

[Orsino]

2. Closer...closer...closer. n/t

[Frustratedlady]

3. Ouch! I doubt the RW can handle ebola and another of the Pope's revelations

so soon.

I know of a couple RWrs who still haven't gotten over same-sex marriage. You can't overload their brains too much at one time...2014 has been a hard year for them.

[BlueStreak]

4. "evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve". Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

[gcomeau]

88. You mean making silly stuff up about a topic he knows zip about?

Like, say, organic chemistry, abiogenesis, and the formation of molecular self replicators... none of which "require the creation of beings that evolve"?

No, that's never really hard. That's why it's so popular for Creationists to do it.

[Drahthaardogs]

175. You do realize that the Vatican has priests with PhDs in biology, physics

Psychology, astronomy etc. Right?

[gcomeau]

176. Indeed

And either none of them were consulted in the formulation of that statement, or they decided their religion was more important than the scientific facts.

[Drahthaardogs]

178. I don't think I would call abiogensis a scientific fact

there are many scientists who do not believe life spontaneously arose on earth.

[RichGirl]

185. Right....

You could put a monkey in front of a keyboard and if he pounded away for a hundred years he wouldn't write Shakespeare. I believe kind of like the Pope....life isn't random. Creativity, reason, love...none of it is random.

[gcomeau]

226. Sigh...

"You could put a monkey in front of a keyboard and if he pounded away for a hundred years he wouldn't write Shakespeare. I believe kind of like the Pope....life isn't random."

Neither are the physical laws governing organic chemical interactions. So your keyboard monkey analogy is meaningless to this subject.

[Adrahil]

198. I wouldn't say "many." I think that number is probably small.

And if life came here form elsewhere, it still need to start, so abiogenesis is basically a sure thing.

Jack Szostak is close to demonstrating one path of abiogenesis.

[gcomeau]

227. Kind of like there are "many scientists"

...who don't believe in climate change.

[Drahthaardogs]

229. Uh no.

Quite a few believe life was brought here from somewhere else via comets etc. It makes more sense. Nice trolling attempt though.

[gcomeau]

230. They believe...

...that basic organic materials like amino acids, which are what would LATER develop into life (right here... on earth) were brought here by comets. Amino acids are not themselves alive.

Perhaps you should gain a slightly better understanding of the subject matter before getting ahead of yourself on the trolling accusations.

[Drahthaardogs]

234. Awwww

Bullshit. You know what you were doing and so do I.

[gcomeau]

267. Educating you on the scientific reality of this topic?

Well yes, I did know what I was doing. I remain skeptical you did as well.

[Drahthaardogs]

268. Metabolism first theory?

Makes a lot more sense.

[gcomeau]

269. It makes a great deal of sense...

It also involves life starting here, on earth, through entirely natural means. No Creator involved.

[Drahthaardogs]

276. But it is not abiogenisis

Now is it?

[gcomeau]

277. Umm, it is exactly abiogenesis.

What are you talking about?

[Drahthaardogs]

283. I think you better go educate yourself.

On what is and what is not abiogenisis.

[gcomeau]

284. I happen to be rather thoroughly educated on it

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

And you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Abiogenesis is, simply, the process of life naturally developing from non living matter.

Metabolism first theory is one of the hypotheses that attempts to explain the manner in which that abiogenesis occured.

[Drahthaardogs]

289. DEFINITION:

Definition of ABIOGENESIS. : the origin of life from nonliving matter: as. a : spontaneous generation. b : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances.

The fact is, life probably DID NOT arise from INORGANIC substances. Those theories violate the laws of nature and thermodynamics.

A far more realistic scenario is that simple biological molecules and their precursors are part of the universe and likely always have been.

[gcomeau]

294. For cripes sake...

It's hard to know which silly statement to begin with, so i'll just take them in order.


First, since you seem so worked up about that inorganic detail, would you perhaps be unaware that the word has more than one meaning? In this particular case it is NOT the one that means "doesn't contain carbon" but rather the one that means "not consisting of or derived from living matter". Which is a pretty damn obviously true statement seeing as living matter obviously wasn't alive before it was alive.

Second, no that does not violate any laws of nature.

Third, I would love to hear whatever silly argument you have that that violates the laws of thermodynamics. I seriously never get tired of those. Comedy gold.

Fourth, this statement is pointless:

"A far more realistic scenario is that simple biological molecules and their precursors are part of the universe and likely always have been. "

Of course it's precursors had to be in the damn universe, where the fuck else would they have been? The Netherverse? Oz? Those precursors of course being INORGANIC ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS.

[Thor_MN]

246. And One out of Five Dentists don't reccomend Trident for their patients who chew gum.

[bvf]

242. Is that supposed to impress anyone?

The Vatican also shuffles around child molesters.

What's your point?

[BlueStreak]

261. I am willing to allow this Pope a liberal interpretation of "create"

It seems to me his vision for his religion is:

a) Work hard to make the world a better place. Oppose those who are ruining it through greed, corruption and abuse of power. Make the planet a place a god could be proud of.

and

b) There is no war against science. Of course evolution is real. Can we settle that dispute by simply referring to the foundations of the universe as "creation"

As an atheist, I can live with that. I don't believe in a nanny god, and I'm not so sure this Pope does either. And I can't say with any certainty what preceded the big band. If a person chooses to believe that there is a realm beyond our known universe that set the creation of our universe into motion, that's OK with me. But everything that happened after that was a function of science and random chance.

[gcomeau]

266. You can allow it, but he's not using it so that's kind of irrelevant.

He's not "referring to the foundations of the universe as creation" as if he's some kind of deist and he just wants to call the universe God. He's explicitly stating evolution requires a Creator.


That is nothing but straight up ID, stealth Creationism.... pure anti-science dressed in harmless looking camouflage.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. The Jesuits are not anti-intellectualism like some other forms of Christianity.

They are not afraid of ideas and critical thinking.

[yellowcanine]

15. Actually Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical in 1950 saying there was no conflict between the TOE

and Christianity. Catholic schools, Jesuit and non Jesuit alike, have been teaching the TOE for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Catholics aren't the problem when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. Evangelical Christians, particularly in the U.S., now that is another story.

[ReRe]

25. That's right...

... the Evangelicals. The Creationists.

[TexasProgresive]

69. Evangelists are coming into the Catholic Church and polluting it

with Creationism and other ignorance.

[Maedhros]

103. The Evangelical movement in the Catholic Church seemed to be catching on

right when I began my extrication from the Church in 1982. We had some "speaking in tongues" and such at a Search retreat in which I was involved. It was one of the things that led to me abandoning my faith.

[hollysmom]

107. They also instituted healing services and had nuns laying on of hands.

[TexasProgresive]

138. THere is a difference between Catholic Charismatics and Protestant Evangelical converts.

True the Charismatics are probably influenced by the Evangelicals.

[Drahthaardogs]

199. I avoid the Charismatics

As do most of our mainstream catholic friends.

[JDPriestly]

87. But this Pope says (or reads) it so beautifully.

“Therefore the scientist, and above all the Christian scientist, must adopt the approach of posing questions regarding the future of humanity and of the earth, and, of being free and responsible, helping to prepare it and preserve it, to eliminate risks to the environment of both a natural and human nature,” Pope Francis said. “But, at the same time, the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realize, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the creator.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/god-is-not-a-magician-pope-says-christians-should-believe-in-evolution-and-big-bang/

Now if the Pope would just understand what that means for issues like women's rights and same-sex love. It may be too much to ask.

But it isn't just the earth that changes. Social realities change too. Or at least our willingness to understand social realities changes. The reality is that women need to be able to provide for themselves in a modern economy. We don't just live in tribes or on farms. We have to be able to make economic decisions, support ourselves, take care of ourselves, just like men have always done. And that is why we have to be equal with men when it comes to childbearing -- being able to walk away from the responsibilities -- and that is why the biological fact of same-sec love needs to be cherished just as the biological fact of other-sex love does.

But i am so glad that the Pope has not only seen the light but shared it so eloquently with the world when it comes to evolution and caring for our environment.

It's as if we are walking out of a cave of ignorance into the light of reality.

Thank you, Pope Francis.

And I never particularly liked the Catholic Church.

Now let's see what fundamentalist Protestants say to that. And by the way, I want to mention that mainstream Protestants, most of them, that is Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the really mainstream Protestants (and there are fundamentalists in all of those denominations) have always accepted the science of evolution and emphasized caring for the environment. So Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church are not leading on this. They are just expanding the numbers of people who now have permission to agree with mainstream Protestants on this.

[hifiguy]

110. Francis is a different sort of pope, that much

is obvious. Turning an institution as old and bureaucratic as the catholic church around is like trying to raise the Titanic with tweezers. He's at least moving in the direction of reason. One issue at a time is the best that can reasonably be hoped for, at least by this atheist.

[JDPriestly]

111. I know. I just wish. He could change a lot that is stupid in the world.

[BrotherIvan]

140. If the pope wishes to do something about our world, he could do it in a single proclamation

"Folks, it's ok to use birth control. Family planning is da bomb."

Until he does, this is all lip service.

[JDPriestly]

142. Very true. That was my first thought after I posted what I wrote.

Birth control is the key to taking care of God's creation.

As my mother used to say, if you intervene with God's plan to lengthen life you should intervene to control births.

I'm paraphrasing my mom. But I think I make it clear.

[BrotherIvan]

155. That is extremely sharp of your mom

Yes, we are prolonging life against God's plan and also artificially increasing the birth rate. I just can't understand the fetish with the idea that people need to have a brood of children other than it is a plan to keep people poor and servile. There is absolutely no other explanation.

And to those who say most US Catholics use birth control, that is because they are going against the express orders of the Church. Not so in other countries where a mother is allowed to die rather than having a life-saving abortion. I also read a story from an animal rescue group about two dogs that were found running around a neighborhood but chipped, so they found the owner. When she came in, they said the dogs weren't fixed which had to happen before the animals were released back to her. She said, "I'm Catholic, I don't believe in birth control." For a dog!!!! So sure, some people make their own decisions, but some have been told so many times they're going to hell if they use a condom, they submit.

It would be fine if those decisions only affected the person making them. Sadly, no.

[JDPriestly]

162. In our day and age, it is irresponsible and even cruel to have a family that is larger than

you can reasonably care for. And I am not just talking about material necessities. I am talking about education, affection, physical contact, time with mom and dad, privacy, all the things children need.

[mmonk]

193. It was a priest that came up with

the Big Bang theory. He took Einstien's equations and realized the universe was not static.

[JDPriestly]

202. I see utterly no conflict between the science of the big bang and of Einstein and the idea

of God. I can't understand why people do. Evolution is obvious all around us. Focusing on creationist theories, etc. is a way to avoid the spiritual reality that we live in.

[markpkessinger]

187. Exactly . . .

As I pointed out in another post, Roman Catholics are not, and historically have not been, biblical literalists.

In any case, it is a bit foolish to get excited every time Pope Francis says something that sounds more hopeful or progressive coming from the Church. As his recent statements calling for greater tolerance for LGBT folks and a more pastoral approach to those have been divorced (statements which the bishops quashed like a bug) demonstrate, his statements don't mean jack shit against the institutional intertia of the Church.

[intheflow]

205. Not Evangelicals.

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Fundamentalists. Not all evangelicals are fundamentalist, but almost all fundamentalists are evangelical. Evangelical means spreading the "Good Word." Fundamentalists tend to be identified as synonymous with evangelical because they think spreading the good word means shouting down anyone who doesn't share their ignorant, fundamentalist interpetation of the Bible. But evangelicals can be found in even the most liberal of Christian traditions. I would describe Pope Francis as an evangelical Catholic, for instance.

[bvf]

18. I actually thank them for my arrival at atheism

for the very reasons you mentioned.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. They equivocate a bit too much for my liking :) - nt

[calimary]

97. The Jesuits kick ass!

Governor Brown here in CA was educated by the Jesuits. Smart as a whip. They're all about facts and objectivity and truth and open minds.

This pope is a Jesuit. Maybe there's hope. He's opening doors and windows and letting a lot of stale smelly air out and fresh air in - on so many topics - including denouncing trickle-down, advocating non-judgmentalism and acceptance of gays, the importance of environmental protection, the recognition of global warming, GREAT stuff. Now... if we can just get him to open his eyes a little more about women's rights...

As another post here said - "maybe that's too much to ask..." Unfortunately.

But on other scores, His Holiness is definitely on an enlightened track. It's good to see some sunshine come out, after years and years of long cold bleak winter.

[MBS]

119. " " " " " n/t

[Cleita]

116. My best teachers in Catholic school were Jesuits.

I think they taught me critical thinking so well that I reasoned myself out of religious thinking. Oops! Another Catholic that has fallen away! Also, I was taught real science in science classes even when it contradicted what was taught in religion classes.

[markpkessinger]

188. That's true, but unfortunately . . .

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 11:35 PM - Edit history (2)

The RCC had 35 years and two popes who did everything they could to relegate the Jesuits to the status of institutional backwater, and filling the episcopacy with some of the most reactionary, hardline conservatives they could find. And as was recently demonstrated when this Pope called for a more pastoral approach to LBGT and divorced folks, only to have those proposals quashed by the ultra-hard line episcopacy, they will only allow him to go so far.

[lancer78]

210. A Jesuit came up

with The Big Bang Theory.

[Arugula Latte]

263. But yet their entire religion

is based on the clearly fictional idea that a very special dead guy born of a deity and a virgin from Roman-controlled Judea is going to magically reappear on Earth one day, and that this is the most important thing in the entire universe, a universe of billions of galaxies.

The efforts to reconcile science with mythology must be exhausting to those with critical thinking skills.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. Meanwhile repubs don't have the guts to say they believe in that or even global warming.

Don't want to upset the voters they've been carefully dumbing down for the last 50 years.

[Blanks]

156. They're just coming to terms with the theory that the earth is a sphere...

It's not gonna happen overnight.

[JaneyVee]

7. This guy better get a taster.

[bvf]

20. Nah, they're plenty happy for the misdirection.

Frank is just the new face on the same old crap.

Seems to be doing his job well.

[stevenleser]

115. That swill is getting harder and harder for you to sell.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)

And makes you look more and more ridiculous the longer you try to do it.

[bvf]

134. What do you mean? n/t

[bvf]

223. I'll ask again.

What are you talking about?

Is it your habit to jump into a discussion, drop an insult, then run away without responding to a simple request for an explanation?

[drray23]

160. that is shortsighted

I think your analysis is a little too premature.

The catholic church is not without its past flaws but if you follow closely what pope Francis is doing, it is hard to conclude it is just facade. We will see in a few years or maybe after his papacy ends that this man is a transformational figure.

The church is like a big boat. Steering in another direction takes a long time. We are seeing this happening now.

Time will tell if Francis will manage to overcome inertia. I have no doubt that he is trying however.

[bvf]

184. I don't think so.

"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” 

No it doesn't. What does this even mean?

[Warren Stupidity]

194. Why? This has been the official position on evolution for at least 60 years.

Plus if you read what hew said, he still has a creator god intervening in and guiding evolution in order to produce human beings. That would be ID, not TOE.

[bklyncowgirl]

8. This has been Catholic Doctrine for a long, long time. The current Pope has a science background.

Whatever their faults in other ways (totally twisted on anything to do with sex) Catholic theologians have thought long and hard about how to reconcile science with a belief in God. I like the way he incorporates the need to care for the earth as a part of that theology.

[HockeyMom]

11. Evolution taught in Science class

God created Evolution taught in Religion class. Catholic school 50 years ago. No, this is nothing new.

[eridani]

181. 1963 for me. The biology nun had two Masters degrees n/t

[riversedge]

129. yes you are right.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

164. Pope Francis has a masters in chemistry

As did Margaret Thatcher, which is one reason she supported the Kyoto Accords, since she completely understood the science behind global warming.

A bit from The West Wing just went through my mind. President Bartlett has just been speaking to a chemistry professor, and afterwards remarks to Leo McGarry, his Chief of Staff, " There was a while there I wanted to be a chemistry professor."

"What happened?"

"I never actually studied chemistry."

"A lot of these college chemistry departments are really demanding that way."

[COLGATE4]

9. You already know the Fundies' answer to this:

'Cathylics aren't Christians anyway'.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. A lesser-known fact about the KKK in its iteration in the 1920s and 30s was that

it was profoundly anti-Catholic, along with the better known anti-Jewish and anti-Black.

Not sure where today's KKK comes down on the Protestant-Catholic divide. They're probably so desperate for members (and $$) that they've set aside the anti-Catholic posture.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. I thought of the "crazy God warrior lady"...

[Raster]

177. Good lord.... really?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

211. Those types are all over the place....

Look at the reaction from the kids.

Keep in mind that these people also own lots of guns although, I picture her as the type where you wake up in the middle of the night to find her standing over the bed in the dark with a big ass kitchen knife.

[libdem4life]

10. I've always thought this ... there's some reason both have persisted for millenia.

And, in a way, they are both miracles. Also every culture has their own version of creation and they are fascinating reading. I once bought a children's book of the varying stories to read to my son. We thoroughly enjoyed them.

[KingCharlemagne]

35. Hinduism's creation stories blow every other religion's out of the water, imo. I don't

remember any specifically off-hand, just being blown away when I learned about them on (I think) PBS.

[lunasun]

58. Agree . Also Nordic mythology

I am not Hindu or Nordic but fascinating

[Voice for Peace]

64. I wrote a paper on the Hindu creation myths a long time ago

and I can't remember it all either, except that it made
as much sense as anything else. Endless cycles. Everything
comes to an end and creation goes dormant as in a black
hole, pure potential. Then it all starts all over again.

[libdem4life]

189. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was fascinating reading...I know, doesn't sound too trendy or cool,but

I just kept shaking my head with every chapter. Same with Zecharia Sitchin's work. A lot of people even here make fun of him but if one reads all of his books with an open mind...he's a scholar and historian and has extensive illustrations, references and artifacts to illustrate the basis of his philosophy.

I was a practicing Hindu for a time and they believed that not only was the spark of God within each of us, thus so was Hell. We made our own and lived it out...day to day. I still believe that. And thus we get chances over and over and over again to finally get it right. That, to me, is working out our own salvation.

[Scootaloo]

204. Kemetic creation is pretty interesting

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

basically, everything exists because an adolescent god got bored and decided to have a good wank.

the Kalevala creation myth is itneresting too. Ilmatar goes for a swim, and gets knocked up by the sea. While she's laying back in the waves enjoying herself and getting pregnant with an old man, a duck flies down and nests on her knee. it gets too warm for her so she knocks the duck's nest off; the egs break and from them spill the universe. Then a hundred years later she gives birth to the wizard-poet Vainamoinen who wrestles a giant pike to death, makes banjo out of its head, and creates the rest of everything else.

[Sanity Claws]

12. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and was taught these scientific theories

He is confronting the bigotry and ignorance of the Fundamentalists, who take the Bible literally. Go Francis, Go. But get yourself a food taster.

[etherealtruth]

24. As was I

I know MANY "science" majors from catholic universities .... all were taught and fully believe in evolution, the "big bang' and all widely accepted scientific theories.

My father (almost 80) was educated by the Catholic's (grade school through grad school) ... and the same is true of him and his contemporaries.

Though I left Catholicism behind decades ago ... this is consistent with Catholic teaching .... as others have stated .... this is a "slam" at Christian Fundamentalists and others

[bklyncowgirl]

29. I remember discussing the evolution of dinosaurs with a Bishop in 6th grade science fair.

Got the blue ribbon too.

[etherealtruth]

38. :-) !

[BlancheSplanchnik]

48. christian fundamentalists need all the slamming they can get. n/t

[etherealtruth]

52. Without doubt

[calimary]

93. Amen!

[upaloopa]

80. I went to a Catholic college and I had to have

more science credits to graduate than if I had gone to a state college.

[calimary]

91. Yep. Noticed that, too.

Science class was big stuff in my Catholic school. INCLUDING evolution and the "Origin of Species" and the scientific method. NUNS taught that. And there wasn't one bit of religious propaganda or undercurrent in there. Not in biology class or advanced biology, not in physical science or physics classes, not in chemistry class, nowhere. Which is how it's supposed to be. Besides, Catholic school offered plenty of exposure to, and opportunity to study, religious and theological and spiritual and philosophical things. PLENTY. It was an extremely successful balance and there was never any confusion or wiggle-room offered. The two topics were simply not recognized as needing to be taught together or merged or muddied in any way. That mindset just did not enter into it at all.

I am genuinely fearful of these religious extremists. How long before they go Inquisitional and start beheading those of us who live in the real world and try to make sure our children learn to do so too?

[MBS]

117. Yes, I also recommend a taster. : ) nt

[snooper2]

13. Doing his best to keep his mythology relevant as the masses become more educated

Got to give him props for that, I guess

[Arugula Latte]

75. The whole thing is a house of cards.

"Well, we accept reality on A, B, and C, and view Bible stories X, Y, and Z as 'symbolic,' and yet the very basis of our 'faith' is that a magical dead guy from Roman-controlled Judea will return to Earth one day."

I get fundies -- they are just effing stupid and turn off their brains and don't question. But the more educated and discerning religious people -- hmm, I don't get how they can see the mythology but still pick and choose a few myths to believe as "true."

[snooper2]

78. I don't get it either, and every time I tell someone they don't get to "pick & choose"

the happy parts of their holy book--- crickets-

[lindysalsagal]

272. Next you're gonna tell me you don't believe in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, or elves.

Geez! What's wrong with you!?!?!?!?!

What? no vampires, Unicorns, or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow? Not even the "Easter" Bunny???!?!?!

All of it is beyond me, but, the whole "re-united in heaven" thing was a brilliant piece of marketing. Ya gotta giv'em that.

[Arugula Latte]

285. It is very good marketing. Religion plays to two strong human qualities --

narcissism and awareness/fear of mortality.

Narcissism: You as a human are the most special being in the entire universe of billions of galaxies. There is an invisible ruler of said universe who keeps his eye on this planet and also you in particular. You are able to communicate with this ruler with your thoughts, and you can even persuade Him (of course it's male, dontcha know) to affect outcomes in a more positive way. Christianity: One of your fellow humans was magical. The last 2,000 years have been the most important ever in the multi-billion year history of the universe. This magical human will come back to Earth some day to "save" you because you are special because you believe in the magical man.

Mortality: Other beings die, but you as a very special life form, a human being on planet Earth (the center of the universe and the focus of the great ruler), will go to a special place after you die and life on in ecstasy. You will see Grandpa again, and your friend who died in the car crash in high school, and, maybe you'll even mingle with great historic figures!

[lindysalsagal]

286. And the human capacity for self-delusion when none of the promises materialize

The nicest person you know, who helps the poor, raises a great family, and would never say booo to a flea, gets cancer and dies. Well, "It was god's will."

And all around you, the most nasty, immoral, unethical and even pathological people get whatever they want. And that was god's will, too.

Riiiiiiight.

[Arugula Latte]

287. Exactly.

"There's a plan for everything." Uh huh. You keep telling yourselves that.

[polichick]

161. God forbid the church lose its power.

[merrily]

14. For religion, the important thing should be that a Divine Being was involved with creation

somehow and at some point, not that creation took six 24 hour days, as we currently understand that concept.

In more than one place, the Bible specifies that God's time is not like human time (not in those exact words, but close enough), so it should not be a huge leap, even for literal interpretationists.

However, obviously, they have seen it not only as a huge leap, but an insurmountable obstacle. Maybe Pope Francis's pronouncement will help them finally bridge the gap between Galileo and Darwin. Here's hoping it won't take as long as it took to acknowledge that Galileo ws correct.

[riqster]

21. Not a Catholic, but I was taught that Genesis was allegorical.

At least in part. That was 40+ years ago.

[merrily]

32. I think the Pope is generally respected throughout "Christendom"---except, of

course, for those who think he just might be the Anti-Christ and/or someone sent by Satan to deceive people away from the true path salvation.

If the evangelicals were able to get behind a Mormon for President, maybe they can at least listen respectfully to a Catholic Pope, too.

Who knows?

[bvf]

37. I'm personally rooting for another Schism. n/t

[merrily]

46. I understand.

[rustbeltvoice]

124. priorities

Jesus was a logician, "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." — Matthew vi.24.

Even some business professors understand, one cannot do two things at once. To the average 'evangelical', a Republican is preferred over a Democrat. His religion can be overlooked easier, than a Democrat in office. Also, for a Republican Catholic, especially one who is conservative in either and both, if there is a conflict between God and mammon, Catholicism and political/economic views, the latter is served. We have been presented with Paul Ryan. John Paul II was against bush junior's war. Republican Catholics had no problem supporting war and bush over peace and pope.

[merrily]

171. Forgive me, but I don't take much politicians say at face value, including what they say about their

religious beliefs. Do they really have them, or is it convenient for election purposes to say they have them? I don't know. So, I don't try to reason about anything based on what religion any politician claims to be.

[rustbeltvoice]

190. Yes, but...

...i did not mean to restrict my statement to just professional politicians. I also meant to include people that one may become acquainted with. I certainly meant to include people whom i have met, and i also meant to include other partisans within the general U.S. population whom i have never met.

[happyslug]

34. That was the Position William Jennings Bryan took at the Scope Monkey Trial in 1926

Everything in Genius is allegory till we get to Abraham. Jewish tradition of being a separate tribe starts with Abraham. Some Scholars suspect the stories BEFORE Abraham were NOT part of the Jewish Tradition till the Babylonian Captivity, where the Jews added various traditional stories from Mesopotamia (Modern Iraq) to the Jewish scriptures and gave them a Jewish twist.

[merrily]

41. Not in the movie! (That's all I know of the Scopes Monkey Trial, but it's a wonderful film)

In the movie, it's Spencer Tracy's character, Clarence Darrow, who advances the proposition that Genesis is open to more than one, highly literal interpretation, and forces William Jennings Bryan into some some grudging admissions. I think the movie was correct in that respect.

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

[happyslug]

149. The Movie is hopelessly inaccurate

Where is the Movie does it show Bryan approaching Scopes at the Dinner welcoming Bryan to Dayon (both Attended that dinner) AND where Bryan asked Scopes if he needed any help paying the fine, and if Scopes needed any help Bryan would pay the fine himself.

The two big things in the movie that WAS NOT in the Actual trial, were :

1. The protest the "Bryan" Character did to the fine only ruling (i.e No Jail time). No such protest was made for it was actual charge was subject only to a fine AND Bryan had actually lobbied the Tennessee Legislature NOT to even add the fine the year before. The reason for this was that in Bryan's view you were dealing with Professionals and thus no fine or jail time was needed to get them to follow the law.

2. The Jailing of Scopes. The hardest part of the trial for Scopes was getting him to admit he reviewed Human Evolution with the Biology Class just before their final exam (The actual Biology teacher was sick the day of the Review, so the winning Football coach, Scopes took over the review). Scopes was popular before and after the trial, in fact his contract to teach and coach football was renewed after the trial (He moved away do to being given a Scholarship in a Northern Collage, which he decided to take).

Another difference was the use of the term "Colonel".

3. In the movie, the term "Colonel" is used as to Bryan but NOT Darrow. In the actual trial, the participants followed established Tennesee procedure and ALL LAWYERS WERE REFERRED TO AS COLONEL except for the Attorney General who was referred to as "General". In the actual Transcript the only time Colonel is used in when the Judge refers to Darrow by that term. This was do to the fact the lead Attorney for the Prosecution was the Attorney General so the Term General was used. Bryan role was to give the final summation, thus asked no questions in the actual trial.

4. Another difference was both sides had to work around the testimony of the students. It turned out Scopes NEVER did teach Evolution, a fact Scopes admitted after the trial, but both sides wanted to get to the legal issues so worked together around that factual problem.

5. This was a Republican County in an otherwise Democratic Tennessee. Thus the Attorney General, Bryan, and Darrow (and the other attorneys for both sides) were all Democrats holding a trial in front of a Republican Judge and Jury.

6. Scopes fine was arranged to be paid by the Chamber of Commerce of Dayton County before he even agreed to say he taught Evolution. The ACLU had advertise in Newspapers for some teacher to fight the rule against teaching volution with the understanding that the cost of the Defense would be bore by the ACLU. The Chamber of Commerce of Dayton saw this as an opportunity to bring in revenue to the City of Dayton (and to a lesser degree lesser the popularity of the most famous resident of Dayton County, Sergeant York of WWI fame, a good Democrat).

7. While the movie when it comes to the Bryan testimony follows the transcript they play games with the transcript to make it appear more anti science then Bryan testimony actually was (for example, they delete Bryans reference to the Theory of Relativity and they delete the efforts of Darrow to bring up race when Darrow said he did not care what a black man in India had to say when a Bryan brought up a discussion he had in India with a Buddhist, after Darrow Racist comment Bryan pointed out the man he talked to was an English Convert to Buddhism).

More differences between the Movie and the Actual Trial:

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness3.html#pww

http://www.scopestrial.org/scopes.htm

[merrily]

168. It does appear, though, that Bryan was more literal about the Bible.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[happyslug]

183. Yes, but as he said in his answers to Darrow's questions

We have to look in how it appeared to the people who saw the incident. That is what Bryan is saying when he answered Darrow Question as to Giddon and Joshua's pray to God for the sun to stand still.

In the book "Battles of the Bible" two Israeli Generals write about that battle and commented that all it may mean is the regular change in wind in Israel that goes from West to East in the Morning, then East to West in the Afternoon was delayed.

In the North Temper zone winds tend to go West to East, but as you near the equator such flows stop (more so in Summer then Winter) and become more like wind in the Tropic Zone, i.e. local flows only.

Israel is near equator so in summer its weather is more tropic like then tempered zone like. Thus in summer you no longer see West to East Movement of weather but only local movement of weather (i.e. between the desert and the Mediterranean Sea).

In Israel the summer norm is for a shift in the wind do to the fact Warmer Air flows to Cooler Air. In the AM, the Warmer Air of the Mediterranean Sea flow Eastward in the Morning to the cooler air over the desert (Desert lose heat over night), then shifts from the Desert to the Sea as the Desert heats up and become warmer (i.e. goes East to West as the Desert heats up).

The night flow of wind brings with it moisture from the Mediterranean and thus areas of fogs in valleys, that disappear as the ground warms up. Toward nightfall the winds reverse direction again, as the desert to the East of Israel cools down (Remember the sun goes east to west thus the desert to the East of Israel cools down rapidly as the sun sets over the Desert).

Because the Sun sets over the Desert and you see a rapid cooling of the Desert this leads to a shift in the wind, as the by night time warmer air over the Sea wants to flow to the night time cooler air over the desert. This shift in the direction of the wind brings with it increase in mists and fogs as you near sun down for the wind from the sea brings with it Moisture from the sea.

Joshua knew his Army would lose the ability to track his enemies if the mists connected with nightfall came in. Thus Joshua's pray for the sun to stop. It was NOT for the night NOT to fall, but for the wind NOT to shift and bring with it the fogs and mists of night.

The Scary part is the section before mentions a hail storm. That implies the battle took place either in spring, or fall (NOT Summer) for that requires a more Temper Zone West to East Storm to be in the area. Like most areas in transition between Summer and Winter Weather, Israel also tends to have a mix of both types of weather during the Transitional period between Summer and Winter.

Thus you could have had a battle, followed by a hail storm, followed by a delay in the shift in the wind do to the Thunder Storm that produced the hail storm being in the area. i.e. the Thunder Storm headed Eastward and acted as a barrier between the Desert and the Sea so that the traditional wind shift was delayed some hours and thus produced the "longer day" do to the lack of mists and fogs that makes up the start of the traditional night in Israel. As the thunder storm went even further east, the wind started by hours after they normally makes this shift.

This shift in the wind flow is a factor in many, if not most of the battles in Ancient Israel for the wind is a serious factor in how well arrows fly in addition to making it easier to hide the direction your army is moving in (Wind coming and hitting your face means the dust being raised by your army is flowing to your rear, so the enemy can not use it to detect you coming, if the wind is behind you, i.e. flowing in the same direction you are marching, the enemy will have an early warning of your approach do to the flow of the dust your army is kicking up by just walking).

http://biblehub.com/joshua/10-12.htm

Just a comment on the bible and what it says, some of the "Miracles" in the bible can be explained by other means (For example the term "The walls of Jericho came tumbling down" can mean the walls fell down OR that the city as taken for the term "Tumbling down" may NOT be a literal meaning but just that the City fell to the Israel army).

Another aspect of language that book brought up is the term "Harlot" as used in the English King James Version of the Bible. This term is used throughout the bible for a term used for prostitutes by 300s but if you actually look at the terms it should be translated as "Female Innkeeper". Some where the term became a name for prostitutes in Judea and the King James Bible thus uses the term Harlot every time that term comes up.

The problem is first seen in story of the taking of Jericho. How can a prostitute talk to a city council? That is rare, but if she was a Female Inn Keeper that makes perfect sense. Thus the woman where the two spies sent into Jericho stayed at the inn where the woman lived, it was her inn (and the bible says it was her inn NOT that she just worked there).

We see it again in the story of Solomon and the "Two Harlots". Why would a King have to decide whose baby is whose if both women were "Harlots"? The answer is a King, even if he was ruling just a small city would NOT have to. On the other hand if the two woman were running a inn in the City, that is a different class of people and the King would be interested in who they claim to be their son. Thus the term Female Innkeeper may be the better translating then Harlot.

I bring these stories up, for we have to be careful when reading the bible. It contains stories that were told for hundred of years BEFORE they were written down and as such contain terms that may have had different meaning even to the people reciting them. i.e. depending on the usage, the Jewish term in question may be "Harlot" or may be "Female Innkeeper" depending on the story.

I bring this all up to show, you have to take the position of the author of the story to fully understand any of the stories in the bible. In many ways that is the same position as Bryan took and the Catholic (and most main line Protestant and Orthodox Churches take to this day).

The worse part, is I have read some fundamentalist pamphlets stating as facts that any version of the bible that is NOT the King James is in error (including the one in the original Hebrew).

Bryan's position was the Bible has to be taken as Written, but with an understanding of the time and place of the writing AND WHY IT WAS WRITTEN. Some of the stories of the bible were just histories, other were justifications for acts done in the past. Still others was for the ruling elite and rich NOT forget about the poor (the thrust of most of the later prophets in the bible).

That is a good way to view the bible, it gives you an insight into the time period and what message the author was trying to make.

[riqster]

42. Plus, Rev. Schwartzback pointed out, "what is the point of early Genesis?"

The wording can be parsed in many ways. But what were the authors trying to say?

1: God created the universe.
2: The human race as a whole is far too prone to these characteristics: vanity, stupidity, greed, laziness, and arrogance.

The first bit can be argued. The second, not so much.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Also, #2 Is Provable

History has shown that.

[riqster]

70. Yah hey, exactly!

[hifiguy]

114. Monotheism did not begin with the Hebrews.

It dates back at least as far as Akhenaten, an 18th dynasty Pharoah of Egypt circa 1350 BCE and father of King Tut, and probably developed in Mesopotamia at around the same time.

[happyslug]

167. There is indication that monotheism existed prior to the adoption of the Pagan Gods.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)

For example the "Great Spirit" of Native Americans (through how much of this is derived from Christianity is unknown, the extent of European and North America Contact prior to Columbus is much debated. One historian pointed out the lack of sources of copper during the Copper and Bronze age in the Mediterranean Sea Area AND the massive amount of Native American Copper Mining in Michigan. Today we do not know if these were of the same time period, but it is only one week sailing by sail from North America to Europe as opposed to six weeks sailing from Europe to North America and during the Copper Age large canoes could make that journey can carry the copper. We also know of Viking Legends of reaching North America and finding Irish Monks already in the places the Vikings went).

Hinduism has some aspects that indicate the concept of Monotheism, but if this is a product of some ancient Monotheism that later adopted the other gods of Hinduism, OR a product of exposure to Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam is unknown.

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

Just pointing out Monotheism is a lot older then a lot of people think. Present theory as to how the Ancient gods were created is related to the later growth of Empires. Every Tribe and City would have its own "God" when they were defeated and made subject to another tribe or city, that conqueror would also take the conquered tribe's god and make it part of its own god's domain. As societies became more integrated, these lesser gods became to represent certain aspects of life, often tied in with whatever their tribe such god was related to did well. Complex stories were made of these gods, often to explain what was happening, i.e to give some explanation of what people were seeing when there was no way for the human observer to determine what was happening. Like any good stories, some of these stories were slowly added to (For example in Homer's Iliad, the Walls of Troy appears to be of two different types, and from later archaeology seems to be of two different periods, that Homer merged into his epic poem).

In some of these stories we can still see these add ons, the main actors of the two separate, but now integrated stories, have only brief interactions with each other. At all other times these actors are during two different things.

This can be seen in the Story of Ajax in the Trojan Wars, Achilles, the other hero is absent from these stories do to a feud between Achilles and Agamemnon. Homer does an excellent job of connecting these two warriors, but then indicate the wall Ajax was climbing had a slope on it, that is later referred to as straight up and down in the fight involving Achilles. This implies two earlier stories Homer merged, but such merger is standard then and even today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(mythology)

Thus in ancient times Monotheism seems to go in and out of fashion as a religion. At the same time the stories of the gods tend to be very local, with some of the Greek gods, having different roles depending on where the story of that god that defined that god's role is from. i.e. the gods of Athens, may have the same names as the gods of Thebes, but who had control over what would be different in both cities (Zeus would remain king of the gods, but what he did would even be different from city to city, and Jupiter, the Roman Zeus had even different powers then Most Greek Cities Zeus).

The problem was as the various Empires become larger, and decided they could no longer be military dictatorships, but an empire of all of its Subjects (i.e. a united country, not a country and its conquered territories), monotheism in the form of Zorcastism and later Christianity came back for with it there is no local god better then another local god. Furthermore, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and later Islam, all had way to get messages to its diverse followers, something lacking in the older Pagan Religions. These methods of making sure every member of that faith was on the same page of that faith required extensive communication. This system of Communications for centuries to develop, but in place the Roman and Sassanid (Iranian) Empires took advantage of them. When Islam came into place, it followed that same practice but was a more integrated State and Church Situation then in the older Roman/Christian and Iranian/Zorcastism systems.

Buddhism and Confucianism perform this role in China, both being "belief systems" based on learning how to communicate from the Village level to the Emperor and vica versa (Buddhism is an agnostic religion, Confucianism leaves the belief in God or gods to whatever is the local practice but created a system of communications similar to the Local Parish through Diocese to Pope system, with a very similar Village to provincial government to the Emperor and remember in both system it also went top to bottom and bottom to top).

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

In the days before Modern Papers (about 1850) it was more important to either have the local bishop support a revolution or remove him as part of the Revolution then anything else. The reason is simple, the bishop controlled the best communications system in the country and thus can get your message of why the revolution was needed (or in reverse, why the people should oppose the revolution for it was not needed). Yes you had newspapers prior to 1850, but they were mostly advertisements intended to be kept for months if not years for their were printed on Linen Paper thus NOT meant for popular consumption (an example of this is Paine's Revolutionary pamphlet "Common Sense" where he advocated US Independence. Washington had it READ to his men by their officers while they stood in formation. Why? That was the closest thing Washington could do to get them into a church and have a preacher read it to them. Why not give each soldier a book to read himself? Most could not read and linen paper books were to expensive for most people to buy, thus one per 100 men is the most Washington could afford, 100 men to an infantry company was the norm at that time period).

Thus Christianity took off for it had adopted a system to get the word to the common people. In Christian thinking, it meant the Word of God, but the Word of the Emperor could follow the same path. Thus control of that line of Communication was critical for every nation and why most Nations kept State Churches till the mid to late 1800s. Even in the US, where separation of Church and state is older then in Europe, use of the Church's communication system was still the main way to spread news till the 1850s when pulp based newspapers spread by Steam locomotives replaced it. i.e. the States would tell all the Churches to spread the word of any change in the law and that remain the norm till it was replaced by putting changes in the law in the Newspapers after 1850 (and in turn we are seeing such notices being made on the Net as newspaper readership drops, I suspect in a few years most such notices will be exclusively on the net for the net reaches more people then newspapers ever did AND at a higher speed).

Just some comment on Religion (including such Secular Religion as Confucianism) and communications. Monotheism in the West did what Confucianism did in the East, enhanced communications. Interesting solutions to the same problem.

[hifiguy]

173. Definitely bookmarking that for further reading!

Thanks for the links!

[KingCharlemagne]

40. Mendel (a Catholic who gets credit for the science of genetics) will be there to help them bridge

the gap between Galileo and Darwin

[merrily]

45. Fruit flies Mendel?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

50. why yes, thank you.

With a side of peas.

[merrily]

53. I'm pretty sure he sat behind me in tenth grade geometry class.

Good one, Blanche! And, the foodies are trying to get us used to the idea of getting our protein from insects.

[F4lconF16]

98. Hey, don't knock insects!

Fried grubs and ants are delicious, especially with sauces. Grubs in particular are good raw, too. I don't recommend grasshopper, though--the legs are very scratchy on the way down, and the exoskeleton kinda crunchy in a bad way.

[merrily]

169. I didn't.

[F4lconF16]

196. I was joking.

Sorry if it came across wrong.

[FourScore]

16. I love this guy. nt

[shenmue]

17. Oh snap

[Martin Eden]

19. Do Rightwing Evangelicals accept the Pope as an authority in such matters?

Papists they are not.

[merrily]

39. Please see Reply 32.

I think anti-abortion views now bring together religious groups that were at each others throats doctrinally prior to the 70s or 80s.

Before 911, some evangelicals were even speaking tentatively of allying with Muslims because of a common belief in an Old Testament (ish?) God, prayer, etc.

[Martin Eden]

137. Regardless of "respect" for the Pope (and I have my doubts about that) ...

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:10 PM - Edit history (2)

... my point is that RW Evangelicals are highly unlikely to have their fundamentalist beliefs about evolution changed by any Papal announcement.

[merrily]

170. I agree, esp. as to the relatively near future.

[demosincebirth]

96. You must be kidding. Some don't even concider Catholics christians. Talk about uneducated about

church history.

[Martin Eden]

131. You must have missed the text of my post

"Papists they are not"

Obviously, I was pointing out why the Pope's pronouncements have no impact on the belief of rightwing Christins in this country.

[jberryhill]

145. Only when they agree with him

[whatthehey]

22. ...and the gaps get smaller and smaller ..........

[Marrah_G]

23. He is a jesuit

[belzabubba333]

26. im surprised our pope haters havent chimed in - go frankie

drip drip drip

[demosincebirth]

92. Their heads are exploding.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

[belzabubba333]

100. theyre both here now and a new one

[Bluenorthwest]

133. As are those who will defend anti gay and anti choice activists strongly and without reservation

as men of great science. Francis and his Church say gay people are inherently disordered. Anything I say about them is far kinder than their filthy libels or than the personal insults cast about by his so called Christian followers. And I assume his promoters agree with his bigoted views, otherwise they would object to them instead of attempting to draw attention away from them.

[Moonwalk]

113. I believe the haters are thinking the same thing those of us who tend to shrug over this pope do...

Thanks and now that we've accepted science can you now change the Catholic rules on contraception because science shows that human overpopulation is really hurting the planet?

Honestly, I don't think the haters heads are exploding over this. Let him approve contraception, make it absolutely okay for Catholics in even the most poor and church run countries to use birth control--and make sure that those church run countries DO allow it for any woman/man that wants it, and then maybe heads will explode as you so very much want them to.

[phil89]

95. Does he deserve a medal for

accepting scientific theory? I welcome him to the 21st century.

[Kingofalldems]

118. I was taught this in Catholic school--early 60's.

Try checking up on things.

[Arugula Latte]

27. I thought this was the long-standing position of the RCC ...

This isn't new.

The RCC is a terrible, repressive, misogynistic, homophobic institution, but at least in this one respect it accepts reality.

[KingCharlemagne]

28. I hope this Pope has an excellent protective detail, given what befell

a few of his predecessors in the Middle Ages. (Specifically, I'd be keeping a close eye on the kooks associated with Opus Dei, but that's just me, I guess.)

Or, as a hand-written sign I saw at an anti-war protest in 2005-06 put it: "Jesus! Please protect me from your followers!"

[Sanity Claws]

121. What about John Paul I?

That was late 20th Century.

[KingCharlemagne]

122. Yeah, I forgot about that precedent also. Strange times in which to live, eh? - nt

[mountain grammy]

30. Catholic schools have always taught science and evolution

[bvf]

44. After a healthy dose of

the Baltimore Catechism and a few mind-bending rituals here and there.

[SpankMe]

36. The Roman Catholic church has been to the left of American evangelicals for decades. n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

43. That's not very difficult, sort of damning the RC church with faint praise :) - nt

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Except on LGBT rights and of course women's reproductive freedom, two big issues on which

American Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church have always been in full agreement. Politically they organize together to oppose the rights of women and of LGBT people. I do not see that as being 'to the left' at all. I see them as being the exact same set of political objectives packaged in two different wrappers.

[Rozlee]

71. Too many right-wing Catholics have been becoming Cathevangelicals.

Of the Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan and Paul Ryan type. The Catholic Church has also come out in support of anthropological climate change, as shown in a report given by a working group under the Pontifical Academy of Sciences called 'The Fate of Mountain Glaciers of the Anthropocene.' I'd really like to see the reactions on the faces of some of these evangelical Catholics if someone showed them a copy of the climate report or asked their thoughts on the Pontiff's declarations on evolution and the Big Bang, especially that smug little bastard, Father Jonathan Morris, the Catholic contributor on FOX News. I'm not being tempted to go back to the Church by any means, but I like the grenades Francis is lobbing around and all the Catholic establishment goons trying to duck them.

[MBS]

135. I agree, and would add one more thing

All religions seem to have two sides to them/two kinds of adherents: the fearful, hateful and intolerant ones (the ultra-orthodox, the ultra fundamentalists, militant Islam, the anti-Vatican II and/or latin traditionalists among Catholics), for whom religion is a means of constricting the world to their viewpoint only; AND the ones for whom religion is a path to humility, with respect to other people and to acknowledgement of our limited understanding about the world, to a life of giving to others; and to openness to the world.

Among Catholics, Santorum, Buchanan and Ryan and the Fox News guy (who luckily I have not seen) (and Brownback and Gingrich) are in the former category. And they've had too loud a voice for too long in US politics and in the Catholic Church. Thank goodness, Pope Francis (as was John XXIII) is definitely in the latter religious category. Among US Catholic politicians, John Kerry and Joe Biden represent this wing of Catholicism. No accident, I think, that at least among US Catholic politicians there seems to be a pretty good alignment between party affiliation and religious style.

[Rozlee]

206. Thank you!

[SCVDem]

47. Some Repubs claim ebola is airborne.

That would be an evolution of the species.

[HoosierCowboy]

49. Holy Mother Church...

...kept the Bible behind the Altar for a thousand years before the Reformation. Only the priests, who had "special guidance" from the higher ups were allowed to read it, in Latin of course.
The Scriptures were described as "confusing and misleading"

[Avalux]

51. Wow. Just wow.

I am somewhat astounded to hear this from Pope Francis.

"God is not a divine being or magician". WOW.

[Daemonaquila]

54. "... not a divine being..."

Francis, I hope your bodyguards are working overtime!

[Bluenorthwest]

55. This is what the Catholic Church has said for many years. Isn't it? It is what I was taught as well,

in Protestant schools and Churches, long time ago. Of course I was also taught that the wafer remains a wafer and the wine remains wine because God is not a magician but who's counting myths?
Another thing that is not new is the religiously practiced tactic of excusing the uncomfortable bits as 'symbolic' or 'mistranslated' or 'no longer applicable to our times' while very quickly pointing out that the parts about gay people are literal, translated directly, applicable to our times and that they are the Word Of God which no one can change or question.
I don't think selective, self serving readings of texts is very scientific. But who am I to judge?

[pepperbear]

56. they will be calling him the Anti-Christ in 3......2........1.......n/t

[begin_within]

57. But God is “all-powerful,” so why not create the heavens and the Earth.

[MisterP]

148. mainstream theology does still believe that: it's long said that Creation

is a constant process, not a single event, using natural law: Augustine already wrote reams on natural law and non-literalist interpretations (Biblical literalism didn't really become a movement until some 1700s eccentrics: "literalism" itself changed meaning with the printing press's new culture): theologies other than the fundamentalists' have existed for millennia, and not because "science is rolling back the boundaries of what's known so theology is just covering its ass by becoming less literalist/universalist and rolling back its claims": that may've been true for some 1890s and 1900s factions (capital-L "Liberal Christianity" is the name for one of these movements, which gave up on epistemology and ethics altogether and saw Jesus "as a sort of amiable elder Brother, whose letters from abroad were worth reading," or Arnold Lunn's description of a "vague unmiraculous Christianity&quot

but the difference is that their vision of creation is not overt: creationism (in its modern form basically an Adventist heresy) has everything pop into being much as it is today (except maybe dogs were still wolves and the continental margins were a little bigger without any outbreak floods)--it's downright ham-handed; their version of God is extrinsic--He's basically a very large human being, overgrown in all aspects, who interferes with the cosmos, staying securely outside it

since well before Christianity, OTOH, Jewish and Platonic (and Indian and Chinese and Native American and Yeniseian and ...) theologians have been seeing the divine force at work immanently--an "increation" perhaps; when I discuss the Book of Job with students I note the language of God's self-description: "infinite" doesn't just mean "really, really big" and "eternity" doesn't mean "a really, really long time"--they're transcendent

so these different visions of God's creation differ in every way imaginable, with the exception of the names of the producer and of the product: it's like saying Star Wars II's love stories diminish Shakespeare's because they're on the same theme

[exboyfil]

59. The problem is that it contradicts

a central tenant of Christian doctrine.

Romans 5:12

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death (Thanatos) passed upon all men, for all have sinned."

This is not the only example. It goes far beyond the Genesis account because that account is taken literally by Paul in describing Christ's sacrificial gift.

Once you start chipping away at the core understanding of Christ, I am not entirely sure when you stop. A narrative can be constructed to accommodate theistic evolution, but then you start hollowing out the central tenants of Christianity.

Several have taken a crack at it, but if you study both the Bible and evolution carefully, it becomes really hard to develop a coherent understanding of just how to reconcile both short of saying that virtually everything in the Bible is in symbolic language up to and including the death and resurrection of Christ. At that point what purpose does Christianity serve. I am still working on it in my own faith walk.

One thing everyone should agree on. If you are serious in figuring this out for yourself, you need to spend time with both the Bible and a good textbook on evolution such as Strickberger's Evolution. A used copy can be had for $2 + shipping from Amazon. I admire Ken Miller, but his book does not find a safe place for the Christian God to reside (Finding Darwin's God). If he can't do it, then I have to wonder about anybody else. Collins book is even less satisfying (The Language of God).

[Liberalynn]

60. I knew right from the start

there was a lot I was going to like about this particular Pope. I probably will never go back to believing in or trusting the Church fully ever again but this is a definite improvement.

For what ever reasons, and cynic that I have become, I'm willing to concede it could be to try and get former Catholics to return and start filling diminishing collection plates again, this Pope seems to be trying to distance the RC church from the Right-wing American version of Christianity that many American Bishops have unfortunately embraced.

[Recursion]

63. Old news

The Roman church has accepted these findings for over a century now.

[Paladin]

65. The re-broadcast of those positions is a very good thing.

Thank you, Pope Frank.

[Recursion]

67. Agreed on that

I hope Francis stays off small airplanes.

[Paladin]

68. Good point, unfortunately.... (nt)

[Historic NY]

66. "BOOM".....

fundy's explode all over the world.

[Mariana]

72. Nah.

See post #9. This doesn't surprise the fundies in the least.

[LibDemAlways]

74. The Catholic Church has long taught that the

"Who is as important as the How," as I once heard a priest explain. God and science are not, in Catholic teaching, mutually exclusve, but Catholic teaching is that God set the wheels in motion.

[Robert24]

76. God

Holy Crap, I feel the earth moving

[ErikJ]

77. What about the Talking snake, Frank? nt

[MNBrewer]

89. Or the "water into wine", or "raising the dead"

for example.

[SidDithers]

79. Intelligent design, in fancy clothes, is still intelligent design...nt

Sid

[AlbertCat]

84. Intelligent design, in fancy clothes, is still intelligent design

It sure is.

And with the "universe from nothing" consensus, gods become even MORE superfluous.

[Starboard Tack]

128. "universe from nothing" consensus?

Care to share that with us?

[AlbertCat]

163. Here's a whole book on it. Read up.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414526130&sr=1-1&keywords=lawrence+krauss

[Starboard Tack]

244. A whole book indeed and a very interesting book at that.

You might want to check the meaning of the word "consensus"

[AlbertCat]

245. Consensus..... general agreement

and it is in the scientific community.

[Starboard Tack]

247. Right! Now look up the definition of "nothing"

It's all about how "nothing" is defined, Albert. Alexander Valenkin wrote a paper on this 30+ years ago.

There is consensus that the theory is possible, not that it is correct.

[AlbertCat]

248. the definition of "nothing"

Oh please..... that whole red herring is addressed the book.

[Starboard Tack]

264. Exactly! Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

81. I went to Catholic School in the 80's and 90' and was always taught evolution.

[Peacetrain]

82. Yep.. the Bible is not some book of magic..

I have been saying that for years.. As a strong Christian committed to my faith..science is part of our faith..

[Bluenorthwest]

102. So what so called science supports his teaching that gay people are 'inherently disordered'?

If he's such a man of science in community that integrates science? You tell me. I'll check back.

[Peacetrain]

166. If you are talking about the Pope, Bluenorthwest.. I am not a Catholic

and I do not follow their religious teachings.. so I cannot help you there.. I have no idea what his teaching on those issues are.. now I read here in DU sometimes last week he was butting heads with leadership and other cardinals and bishops on bringing gay and divorced members of their faith following back into their community.. that is about all I know about that.. if he is saying that gay people are "inherently disordered" that would seem to fly in the face of what he was reported to have said last week.

Need someone who is Catholic to give a reading on that.. I would be interested in reading it myself

[cilla4progress]

83. This is a God (and Pope) I can believe in!

Screwed up how the Bishops are fighting him ... at least on marriage equality, LGBT rights.

[Arugula Latte]

85. And yet his priests are magicians, turning crackers into Jesus flesh.

Go figure.

[gcomeau]

90. Ha, posted that while I was writing mine. :-D -eom

[gcomeau]

86. "Now, let us all take communion..."

"...in which these wafers and this wine will be LITERALLY TRANSFORMED into the flesh and blood of Jesus when you consume it through the miracle of transubstantiation as we all engage in the ritual cannibalism of our deity."


Excuse me for not marveling at the supposed rationality and accommodation of basic scientific realities by the Catholic church this announcement is, I'm assuming, supposed to be giving us the impression of. Recognizing one point of reality, partially (he's still insisting evolution required a creator... when no it did not) does not make the rest of the crazy go away.

[Zambero]

94. A very profound statement

Sometimes a few concise words are all it takes to get a point across. Whether any who cling to a hocus-pocus creationist mentality wilt take note remains to be seen.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. So what so called science supports his teaching that gay people are 'inherently disordered'?

Until the old gas bag can answer that, until he can explain why condoms are worse than 1.2 million deaths a year in Africa, he's a purveyor of dangerous myths, in no way a person of reason or of science.

[belzabubba333]

101. yes the pope is responsible for ALL the births in africa -

why is he responsible for people in africa having babies

[Bluenorthwest]

104. I'm talking about the deaths that happen when people are told condoms are a sin

Every 3 days, more people in Africa die of AIDS than have ever died of Ebola. The simple use of condoms greatly reduces the chance of transmission of the HIV virus which causes AIDS. The Catholic Church forbids the use of them. Uganda, for example, is 43% Catholic, AIDS is the number one cause of death representing 17% of all deaths.
When using a condom will save lives, it is criminal to forbid people to use them. That's what I think. Nothing about having babies. It's about saving lives.

[belzabubba333]

112. the catholic church cant stop people from using condoms, or having sex. people chose to do

those things. what the church says about anything has little effect here, how many christians here are using birth control? it sounds like youre mad at the church and looking for justification.

Uganda, for example, is 43% Catholic. so less than haLF the country even listens to the church yet you still blame the church for ugandians lack of safety standards

[Bluenorthwest]

127. Go read up on the issue, lives are at stake

This is from Benedict's time, but there has been no change:
"In May 2005, shortly after taking office, the pope made his first pronouncement on Aids, and came out against condoms. He was addressing bishops from South Africa, where somebody dies of Aids every two minutes; Botswana, where 23.9% of adults between 15 and 49 are HIV positive; Swaziland, where 26.1% of adults have HIV; Namibia (a trifling 15%); and Lesotho, 23%.

This is continuing. In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/the-catholic-church-condoms-and-hiv-aids-in-africa/

[Enthusiast]

105. The Righties® will hate the Pope as bad as they do President Obama.

Maybe their heads will explode.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

165. They already do.

Rush Limbaugh called Pope Francis a Marxist for saying that the worship of money was a bad thing.

[heaven05]

106. this Pope

is a different kind of Pope than in the past, ever. I think. Oh, humans are a BIG fail on that evolve bit. Just saying.

[hifiguy]

108. Oh my (in George Takei voice).

That's gonna leave a mark.

[ballyhoo]

109. So the Pope is doing a God rewrite to make him more amenable

to man, who also likes ponies? Oh, how unifying...I wonder who this Pope is actually working for? I would suggest that this may be the last Pope.

[riversedge]

126. My Catholic school--upbringing taught evolution. As

far as I know it still does. I am no longer a Catholic--left long time ago. I do not think many know this.

[ballyhoo]

141. Then you might remember that the Catholic Church supports

theistic evolution but the Catholics are free to not support any of it. I was more, probably poorly, addressing the Pope's insistence of addressing these questionable beliefs. His comments may make it seem to some Catholics that now evolutionary theory is now espoused by the Catholic Church. BTW, I am NOT a Catholic, but rather a religious independent who believes in God and prefers to do my praying and conversations with God in private. Later...

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

[Kingofalldems]

120. I hope he was calling out the fundies.

[hifiguy]

152. Mighty hard to see it as anything else.

[MBS]

123. The man is fearless.

He could give Dems a lesson on the power of integrity, the power of simply speaking the facts and the truth clearly.
Elizabeth Warren (another fearless truth-teller) is the only Dem who doesn't need lessons from Francis .
Notable that neither Francis or Warren are shouters, either. You don't need to shout when you're clear about what you're doing and saying and why.

Bravo.

[EEO]

125. This man needs a food taster.

[jen63]

174. And a mirror! n/t

[Youdontwantthetruth]

130. Come On God must know at least 1 card trick, perhaps some slight of hand?

Heck his kid turned water into wine to keep the party going

I don't expect to have god make an elephant disappear, but he must know at least 1 simple trick he can do.

[LittleBlue]

139. Makes sense. Hell, it was Georges Lemaître who proposed the Big Bang theory

Who was, of course, a priest






My Catholic school never taught us anything but Big Bang and evolution. There was a clear separation between the teachings of the bible and science class.

[RadicalGeek]

143. Splitting The Baby?

That quote makes it sounds like Pope Francis is trying to straddle the line between science and faith.

[Hekate]

146. There's never been any need to do so. The RCC has a long intellectual history...

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

It's American Evangelicals who are anti-intellectual and all that goes with it. The US can be so proud.

The Roman Catholic Church, especially the Jesuit order, is capable of learning -- in the case of Galileo, it took a few centuries to admit their own mistake, but they did. The RCC embraced understanding of the scientific principle long ago, and see no inherent conflict. Their overarching guide to life and thought is a theological one, but they understand science.

When Pope Francis speaks of a demiurge and magician, he gives a nod to an ancient theological dispute the Church settled its mind on long ago -- a worldview resurrected (so to speak) by the anti-intellectual, anti-science American fundamentalists.

[RadicalGeek]

150. The Vatican Does Have an Observatory

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:51 PM - Edit history (2)

And I have never heard a priest explicity preach creationism (at least none of the ones I've heard)

[Raster]

179. yes they do.

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

http://vaticanobservatory.org/

The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It has its headquarters at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, outside Rome. Its dependent research center, the Vatican Observatory Research Group, is hosted by Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.

The Vatican Observatory Research Group operates the 1.8m Alice P. Lennon Telescope with its Thomas J. Bannan Astrophysics Facility, known together as the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT). This is located at the Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO) in southeastern Arizona.

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

Mount Graham (called in Nnee biyati' (Western Apache) Dzil Nchaa Si An - "Big Seated Mountain&quot is a mountain in southeastern Arizona in the United States. The mountain reaches 10,720 feet (3,267 m) in height. It is the highest elevation in Graham County, Coronado National Forest and the Pinaleño Mountains. As the name "Mount Graham" is often used by locals to refer to the entire mountain range, the peak itself is frequently referred to as "High Peak". It is twentieth of the 57 ultra prominent peaks of the lower 48 states, and the first of the five in Arizona.

Mount Graham summits are headwaters for numerous perennial streams that tumble through five major botanical zones. Located between the southern Rocky Mountains and Mexico’s Sierra Madre Occidental, and biologically isolated for millennia, the higher elevations have provided refuge for relict populations of plants and animals with adaptive strategies rooted in Pleistocene ice age environmental conditions. Of particular note are stands of the oldest conifer trees in the U.S. Southwest and associated habitats for threatened and endangered species, especially the Mount Graham Red Squirrel.

Located near the northern limit of the Chiricahua Apache homeland and the southern margins of Western Apache territory, the range is one of the Western Apache’s four holiest mountains and is considered sacred by all of the region's Native peoples. Since a determination by the Keeper of the Register in 2002, Dził Nchaa Si An, as it is known in the Western Apache language, ranks as the largest and most extensive (~330,000 acres) property listed on or formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Mount Graham Observatory

Large Binocular Telescope on Mount Graham.
Mount Graham, with some of the clearest skies in the world, is home to the Mount Graham International Observatory area, where multiple organizations have set up large telescopes in a few separate observatories authorized by a rare peace-time Congressional waiver of U.S. environmental laws.

The United States Congress authorized construction of observatories on the mountain in 1988, but there has been outcry from the four federally recognized tribes of the Western Apache Nation and Native American groups, who consider the site to be sacred. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club also oppose the Mount Graham International Observatory because the higher elevations are the last remaining habitat for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. So what so called science supports the teaching that gay people are 'inherently disordered'?

People declare the high intellect of the Pope and his Church, but when asked they never have an answer to that question.
US fundamentalists agree with the RCC about women's reproductive choice and on their vehement opposition to equality for gay people. These are anti-intellectual and anti-science views shared by both groups.
So I really don't see the difference, aside from the props and costumes.

[Hekate]

201. BNW, if you don't see the difference, there's no conversation to be had

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I can and do continue to deeply disagree with certain attitudes of the RCC, while celebrating the change inherent in the papacy of "Who am I to judge?" Francis.

People who can't see the difference between him and his predecessors, or between him and American fundamentalists, don't want to see it.

Pax.

[Bluenorthwest]

224. You did not even try to answer the question. Where is the science in his bigotry?

He's in full agreement with the fundies on choice and on my rights. So if you are willing to overlook those things and imagine that he's unlike the others, that's you business.
I asked you a question you should be able to actually address instead of preaching at me.

[KamaAina]

144. Bazinga!

(I believe in Big Bang )

[BeanMusical]

151. Lol!

[KamaAina]

154. Thanks, and welcome to DU!

[happyslug]

172. The Big Bang Theory is just Catholic Theology made by a Catholic Priest

Now, the priest was also a well known mathematician and physicist and it was in the later two roles the Priest published his papers that first proposed an expanding universe AND the Big Bang Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Georges Lemaître, ordained in 1923, beat out Hubble by about 2 years in proposing an expanding universe and the big bang that began the universe, through Hubble, living in the USA saw his papers on the subject read by more people then Georges Lemaître's paper, printed in French and then only on Belgium.

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

The term "Big Bang" was invented by its opponents as a derogatory name, but it was adopted by its supporters and is now the preferred name for the theory.

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

Just to point out the "Big Bang" theory is a theory made by a Catholic Priest.

[AnnieBW]

195. I think that even Sheldon

Would like Pope Francis.

[KamaAina]

209. But his mom wouldn't

the Pope is, after all, Catholic.

[bulloney]

222. I believe in Big Bang, too. Well, Penny anyway.

[Orsino]

147. I don't know who Francis is worshiping...

...but the God who performed all the miracles of the Bible was a hell of a magician.

Next thing you know, they'll be admitting that God doesn't have superpowers. Or a penis.

[BlindTiresias]

158. He is a Jesuit

They have a much different view of God and Creation than other Christians.

[ColesCountyDem]

157. The rector in my town when I was a kid was a Jesuit who trained as a physicist.

Although I love the way Pope Francis says it, this is not anything new for the Roman Catholic Church. I believe Pius XII said much the same thing sixty-plus years ago.

[Hoppy]

159. ---Pope better watch his ass. Republican will try to impeach him for blasphemy.

[Rex]

180. Holy crap, who is this guy!? Christians can believe in evolution? Pat will have some words on this!

I can hear the talking heads exploding over at Foxnews from here! A non-fundie pope! Never thought I would see the day!

[beam me up scottie]

182. Why is this a big deal? Benedict believed in evolution, so did John Paul II.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-25/news/mn-57404_1_evolutionary-theory



Pope Francis still claims that his god created humans and then let them evolve, that's not science.

"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment," Pope Francis said.

[markpkessinger]

186. This is nothing really new . . .

Roman Catholics are not, and historically speaking have not been biblical literalists.

[quaker bill]

191. “God is not a divine being or a magician"

Yes, the Pope is correct here, the confusion has always resided in and with the "supernatural". While personally these questions hold no fascination for me, if "God" "created" what we call nature, there is no reason for such a "God" to seem to us, as part of that nature, in any way supernatural.

Again, I am just say'n because I have never found these questions even vaguely interesting. When I have encountered anything I would see and call divine, the experience was quite human and earthly, and often fairly mundane by "miracle" standards.

[SummerSnow]

192. rofl...waiting for faux news to call him the anti christ

[Heather MC]

197. The Pope is on the path of Atheism, good for him!!!

[vlyons]

203. God is a concept

A meta-concept, if you will. And as such, "God" lives within you as you. Everyone has their own unique concept about godness. What it is, what's it's not. Some people impute a personality onto their concept of God. Some imagine god as love. Some imagine god as justice, or war, or a tyrant, or a bringer of good luck, or an enforcer of rules. Some think god is just a silly and illogical concept. But all are just concepts.

I'm a Buddhist. We don't bother with worrying about whether there is a creator god or not. We practice being in the present, and living an ethical life that generates happiness, rather than suffering for ourselves and for others. And depending on your aspiration in life to create happiness, we sort of categorize those aspirations as follows:

No aspiration: seeking personal pleasure and fulfillment of desires above everything else in this life is an unworthy aspiration. This is where sociopaths hang out.
Modest aspiration: to be reborn in more fortunate and happier circumstances, less suffering. Christianity is in this category, because they want to go to happy-heaven after death.
Moderate aspiration: To attain personal enlightenment and be freed from suffering.
High aspiration: To help others attain liberation from suffering. And if there is such a thing as reincarnation, to postpone one's personal individual enlightment to help others get there first.

I'm ok either way if reincartion is real or not. I decided long ago that if not real, there's nothing to worry about. If it is real, then where ever I land I want to add value and be of benefit as best I can.

may all of you have happiness and the causes and conditions of happiness.

[Warren DeMontague]

228. Heaven is a truck

[JonLP24]

239. I hope to go to Thugs Mansion when I die

[Beacool]

207. I attended a boarding school ran by nuns.

I had plenty of Catechism lessons. The Catholic Church is not opposed to science. I'm not surprised that a Jesuit Pope would support the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution. Jesuits were known for centuries as the most educated within the Church and the ones who established schools and universities.

[Beringia]

208. I did not know Catholics accepted evolution

What a great thing. Still do not like their ideas on birth control, divorce and equality of woman to be priests too.

[ucrdem]

217. They use the same math and science books everyone uses.

I don't think they've ever gone down that road, at least that I'm aware of.

[jtuck004]

212. After those first three words, it's a lot of melodrama, isn't it? n/t

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

[kmlisle]

213. The majority of Mainstream churches see no conflict between science and belief

Here is a link to statements by many of them.
http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion
In fact the anti evolution crowd is in the minority of Christianity although you would never know if because of all the noise they make and how the MSM reports it.

[the_sly_pig]

214. I like him. does more good than harm.

Not saying he doesnt have faults. But I think he's trying and that makes this agnostic smile.

[ucrdem]

215. The funny thing is that I'm beginning to wonder about evolution.

I hope he's right but I have a feeling that particular theory might be hitting retirement age soon. Just a hunch. . .

[gcomeau]

231. A hunch...

...based on the entirety of all scientific data throughout all of history being 100% in accordance with evolutionary theory?

Because that would be an interesting hunch.

[ucrdem]

236. I'm not so sure about that data.

For a long time the fossil record was lacking; I've heard tell of big finds touted in the meda as missing links in one or another chain but basically what we have are certain similarities between species without conclusive evidence of a common ancestor. Yes, Charles, orangutans in the London Zoo remind us of humans, and evidently there were humans (dusky, naturally) that reminded Mr Darwin of orangutans, and it's pleasant to think of comfortable Europeans as the pinnacle of natural selection, the superior product of superior ancestors choosing superior mates, but frankly the whole business has an odor of Anglo exceptionalism which has proven time and again to be quite a false notion indeed.

[gcomeau]

237. OK, so...

...you're not sure of the evidence because you've never given the subject any serious amount of study and have no idea what the evidence even is then. Clear enough from what you just wrote.

If you want a very quick overview/crash course on the topic of the absolutely overwhelming evidential support for evolutionary theory, I wrote these a few years ago. Some of the image links may have gone dead but the bulk of the information is there:

Part 1: http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-1-dating-methods.html?m=1

Part 2: http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-2-geologic.html?m=1

Part 3:
http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-3-transitional.html?m=1

Part 4:
http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-4-nested.html?m=1

Part 5: http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-5-non-coding.html?m=1

Part 6:
http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-6-phylogenetic.html?m=1

Part 7: http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-7-piling-on-and.html?m=1


Enjoy.

[ucrdem]

238. Thanks, I enjoyed. However.

I would respond by saying you should save your sermons for the fundamentalists of which I am not one. The material is nicely presented, and you've clearly put a lot of thought into those blogs, but neither you nor I can say with certainty that Darwin's theories of evolution through natural selection explain how orangutans became orangutans, why the Queen's subjects ruled the seas, or why the individuals Darwin encountered south of the equator looked different from Darwin. The details of his theories struck me as crude and simplistic even in 9th grade, and every time I return to the subject they seem more blatantly racist.

But for the record I'm not pushing creationism, just explaining why Darwin's theories in my view fall short of probability.

[gcomeau]

241. With *certainty*... no.

Since science says nothing with certainty. All scientific findings are provisional and subject to potential revision by new data.

With literally >99.99999999999% confidence based on the genetic data? As demonstrated in those links if you truly did read them?

Yes, that we can say.

If you want to hang your "hunch" on that <0.00000000001% chance all the data we have now has led us to the wrong conclusion I really don't know what to say to you... except that I have this amazing investment opportunity called 'the lottery' that maybe you'd like to sink all your retirement savings into?


And there's not one damn thing 'racist' about evolution. To return to comment you made in your previous post evolution says not a single solitary thing about Europeans being "superior" to other humans... Or about humans being "superior" to any other currently existing species for that matter. If you think it does you have no idea what evolutionary theory is. There were some idiots who tried to advance dumbass social theories they called "Social Darwinism" which you may be confusing with evolutionary theory but they didn't have a damn clue what evolution actually said either since it directly contradicts them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

243. " I have a feeling that particular theory might be hitting retirement age soon" seems to be based on

your dislike of Darwin's writing on human 'races'. Since Darwin didn't even bring humans into 'On the Origin of Species', and since the theory of evolution has vastly more underpinning it than just Darwin's work, your hunch seems completely baseless.

Darwin did not know anything about genetic material, and you do need some idea about that that to understand genetic drift, and why the Lamarckian ideas about evolution don't work. But with the ideas that developed in the first half of the 20th century, evolution with a common ancestor, mutation and natural selection is a complete theory that explains an incredible amount of biology and palaeontology that nothing comes close to rivalling.

[ucrdem]

250. "or The Preservation of Favoured Races" is Darwin's subtitle. Look it up. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

251. Your claims about evolution are still baseless, then

I'll repeat the bit of the previous post, since it looks like you didn't bother reading it:

Since Darwin didn't even bring humans into 'On the Origin of Species', and since the theory of evolution has vastly more underpinning it than just Darwin's work, your hunch seems completely baseless.

I'll also point out that the meaning of 'races' in that subtitle does not refer to human races, since Darwin didn't even bring humans into 'On the Origin of Species'. But, although his later work did talk about human race in terms unpleasant to us now (though pretty mainstream then), that does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that there is a problem with the theory of evolution, which is not based on any ideas about human race at all, and is also the work of many more people than Darwin.

[ucrdem]

252. Darwin, 1871: "The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex." 1st ed. Vol. 1. Link:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1871_Descent_F937.1.pdf

[ucrdem]

253. Darwin, 1871: "The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex." 1st ed. Vol. 2. Link:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1871_Descent_F937.2.pdf

[ucrdem]

254. Darwin, 1872: "The expression of the emotions in man and animals." Link:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1872_Expression_F1142.pdf.

[muriel_volestrangler]

255. What are those links meant to do, here? We're talking about evolution

and your claim that the theory of evolution will be dropped soon. Why are links to Darwin's later works relevant? You are spamming the thread.

Are you, perhaps, saying that you would accept that all other animals have evolved from a common ancestor, but you want to claim that humans didn't? That would seem to be pointed at, since you link to Darwin's works that are about humans. Are you a creationist that thinks God created humans separately from other species?

[ucrdem]

256. Because he spelled out his whole racist theory in the 1871 & 1872 texts.

Human evolution, that is. So here's my conclusion:

Darwin's theories were all about "the higher animals" from the get go, and he didn't need to spell them out in tedious detail in the later books because they're perfectly clear from the 1859 Origin of Species. And noting biological similarities doesn't prove anything except that there are similarities, and we didn't need Darwin to tell us that.

That's not to say that his observations aren't valuable. But if you want to believe his wretched theory of evolution in toto, fine, but it's still a belief. Was he wrong or right? I can't say with certainty either, but at this point, I very much doubt that human evolution as Darwin expressed it -- and he spelled it out in those terms, see vol. 1 of the 1871 text, link above -- amounts to more than a Malthusian superstition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

257. Sounds like you're a creationist, then

Sad to see one on DU. You should learn some science.

[ucrdem]

258. Sounds like you're not reading the posts you're responding to. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. You don't think humans evolved from other animals

Your reason for that seems to be "Darwin was racist, therefore the theory of human evolution cannot be correct".

If you want to be taken seriously, say what you think is wrong about the current theory of human evolution. Don't just say you think Darwin was racist. That doesn't cause any problems for the theory of evolution, even specifically human evolution. Calling it "Malthusian superstition" is just meaningless name-calling.

[ucrdem]

260. I think I've expressed myself pretty clearly already.

You want me to re-rehearse the whole discussion for your benefit, so you can pounce on some phrase and twist it into a ridiculous misinterpretation, that you'll want me to clarify, so you can take the clarification and twist it into some ridiculous misinterpretation . . .

etc. . .

etc. . .

Luv ya muriel, but we've been through this before. Maybe later this week.

[muriel_volestrangler]

262. All you've said is that you think the theory of evolution will soon be shown to be wrong

because of your 'hunch'. The sole basis for the 'hunch' you've mentioned is Darwin's remarks on race. You haven't tried to put forwards an argument. That's what makes you looks like a creationist - you don't seem to understand evolution, you think the theory is wrong, you think humans are a special species, and you base your argument on irrelevant criticisms of one 19th century person, rather than addressing what you think is wrong - the theory of evolution.

DU shouldn't have such idiotic crap on it as your "the theory of evolution is wrong" nonsense. You have done everything possible to avoid being clear.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. I have it on good authority that Darwin only changed his underwear twice a week

obviously, evolution is hokum!

[Warren DeMontague]

271. "his wretched theory of evolution" ...it's a fucking FACT, dude.

Like it or not, cover your ears and go "la la la".... the science of genetics; the decoding of DNA which didn't exist in darwin's time- it corroborates EVERYTHING else we know, from the fossil record etc. with regard to the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

The record is in the fossils, the record is in your cells, in the DNA of which 50% you share with a banana.

Evolution, that "wretched theory"- it's a fucking FACT. The evidence is solid, pervasive, and abso-fucking-lutely undeniable. We know how we got here.

Deal with it, don't deal with it, doesn't fucking matter- you evolved along with all other life on this planet over the past 4 billion years. Take it to the bank.

[ucrdem]

279. "in toto" means entire. Fact. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

280. Again, the massive amounts of evidence- DNA, fossil, etc. points to only one answer.

Evolution by natural selection.

That's where you come from. Same as your cat, same as the fish in the aquarium, same as the bushes outside your window. Evolution.

[ucrdem]

290. Sounds a bit like a religion, doesn't it?

And that's what I'm suggesting it is -- a matter of belief. The reason I think we're due for an epistemic shift, to borrow a phrase from Foucault, is that the foundation of this particular gospel seems to me conspicuously rotten, and what is valuable was and will remain available elsewhere. For that reason I suspect that Darwinism when it goes will go fast.

And you heard it here first.

[Warren DeMontague]

291. No. It is the opposite of a religion, the opposite of dogma.

Science is based upon evidence, and if new evidence comes in that forces a re-evaluation of the current maps or descriptions of reality, the scientific method allows- actually insists upon- updating and revising the old faulty maps with new ones.

Religious dogma is the precise opposite- it involves having the answer first and then disregarding (or getting mad about) evidence that doesn't fit the preordained conclusion. Evolution by natural selection has ONLY been confirmed, repeatedly, by the incoming evidence.

I didn't "hear it here first"... people--- Theists, mostly- have been desperately looking for a way around the fact of evolution for over a century. It hasn't happened. I don't think it will. If it does, it will be science that answers that question, because that's what science does.

But stomping ones' feet or imagining that the truth isn't really the truth because one doesn't like the implications or the views of the guy who came up with the explanation... that aint science, mac.

When something is true, actually, verifiably, evidentiarily true, telling people that fact even though they don't want to hear it may seem the same as proselytizing some myth or fairy tale, but in actuality they are two totally different things.

[ucrdem]

292. Faith is a gift.

I'm not knocking your faith. Nevertheless today's conventional wisdom is tomorrow's flat earth and Charles Darwin seems to me a sorry prophet. Here's the last paragraph of Origin of Species, and as theories go, this one is way past its expiration date:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance, which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability, from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. sigh.

We understand the history of life on Earth thousands of times better than we did during Darwin's day- and the fundamental concept has been nothing but proven, time and again. By physical evidence.

But ....keep fishin'. Maybe you'll even catch a man!




But not this one. Sorry.

[Gloria]

282. Think of it this way...

The flu virus changes and they need new vaccines every year.

What is that? EVOLUTION!

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Then why bother praying?

serious question.

[ucrdem]

218. Good for your digestion

Seriously you're supposed to pray for those less fortunate, the dead, world peace, etc., not just for a parking space, although that's also a popular subject. . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

219. I'm not the target market, so I'm not going to be doing either.

Personally, I figure the less fortunate on the planet can use something like an oxfam donation more than my invisible psychic energy.

But again, serious question- so is it to be nice? To make people feel better? Seems to me, either "God" is omnipotent, or "he" isn't. Either "he" has "powers" or "he" doesn't. Powers meaning abilities, supernatural or what-have-you, to influence events in reality. Whether those powers are to help the poor, or powers to bag a parking space.

That seems to be contrary to the picture the Pope is painting, here, which sounds more like a the God of Spinoza and (allegedly) Einstein, the "set it and forget it" God.

Or maybe the idea is that "God" is a vibe, an energy, a feeling in the human heart or consciousness, and I can certainly groove with that although one of my many problems with the word and concept of "God" is that when a word can mean everything it ceases to mean anything. Plus if we're talking about the self or consciousness, again, now we're on an internal not an external trip, which is fine, but at least the self (unlike transcendent external deities, all powerful or no) can be located (sort of) and existentially verified (sort of) - with sort of trumping "not at all".... which is why when pressed on such matters I personally lean towards Buddhist metaphysics with a dash of Taoist logic.

I will say that I think if the Pope is challenging people to re-examine or clarify concepts in their own heads which they haven't really thought through logically, that's a good thing.

[ucrdem]

220. All of the above I suppose, but there's also a short answer.

Prayer goes way back, long before Christianity, so it's an interesting question with many answers, but there's also some detailed advice if not to say rules in the New Testament, for example in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew, where Christ speaks at length on what to pray for (the Beatitudes, i.e. blessed are the poor in spirit, they that hunger, they that suffer persecution etc), how to pray (privately), and what to say, including the Our Father, rendered by Hieronymus a.k.a. St Jerome as the pater noster in the 4th century:

Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster qui in caelis es sanctificetur nomen tuum . . .
Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. . . .

http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=1&c=6

It's pretty explicit and goes on for two chapters, 5 & 6. The link above goes to Chap. 6.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. Which doesn't really address the nature of the intended recipient OF said prayers, or what the point

is. Detailed instructions on how to do an activity don't have much to do with why one does them.

Like I said, though, on the instructions, advice or "rules", I'm not even close to the target market.

[Prophet 451]

235. Several possibilities

1) Communion with the deity. Those of us who believe and worship (I believe in the Christian god but don't worship him) feel the deity's presence when we pray. This is called gnosis. It is, yes, possible that we're all crazy but it has a very different feel to my mental "episodes".

2) Meditation. While I'm not aware of any research comparing the two, I'd imagine that devout prayer would have the same psychological benefits as meditation.

3) Allows the prayer to feel like they're doing something, even if they can't.

4) Good excuse to light some candles and incense.

[phil89]

288. What makes you think

the feeling you get when you pray is evidence of any deity, much less a specific deity? I never understood that conclusion.

[Prophet 451]

295. To us, it's evidence

Now, I'd be the first to admit it's not evidence that can be shared with anyone else (and therefore, shouldn't be used as the basis for anything else). By it's very nature, it only makes sense to the receiver and is filtered through their mind with it's quirks and foibles.

[TeamPooka]

221. Are we absolutely sure Pope Francis isn't going to peel a latex mask off his face...

revealing Ashton Kutcher gloating about how he 'Punk'd' the world?

[JonLP24]

232. Hardly new

Mathematicians in ancient Greece concluded the universe is mathematically designed so how did the religious institutions who feel that god designed the universe cope?

God designed the universe mathematically.

[Prophet 451]

233. This is pretty much my own position

I believe that it was god who both created the singularity that became the first Big Bang and god who created the first lifeform, from which all others descend.

There is no conflict between faith and science, only between a dogmatically literal reading of the Bible (which was probably not intended by it's authors) and fact.

[Zorra]

249. Liberal progress is always good. Every little bit helps

to set the stage for a kinder future.

[Shankapotomus]

265. This is becoming hilarious eom

[Warren DeMontague]

270. THEN WHY DOES HE LOOK LIKE DAVID COPPERFIELD

[lindysalsagal]

274. He does not!

Everyone knows God is Ian McKellen: Gandalf the Grey

[Warren DeMontague]

275. Jerry Garcia

[Gloria]

281. OK, but this GOD, according to your church, seems to think women are inferior

and can't think for themselves about how they want to control their own bodies?

This stuff reminds me of how the Republicans are now softening all their harsh stances and
trying to come across as something they are not...
The Pope can talk all he wants to soften the image, but those cardinals aren't going to change a thing!

Recent gay comments and the back-off, case in point...