Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering

[amyrose2712]

VATICAN CITY, Oct. 31, 2008 (Reuters) — Pope Benedict told a gathering of scientists including the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking on Friday that there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.

Benedict, who briefly met the wheelchair-bound physicist at an event hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, described science as the pursuit of knowledge about God's creation.

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences," the pontiff said.


http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49u6e2-us-pope-hawking/

[phantom power]

1. It's such a shame anybody gives a fuck what the Pope thinks...

about anything, much less anything to do with science.

[ixion]

2. indeed

well said.

[amyrose2712]

3. Tis true, but they do, so good to let them know

science isn't evil "lies that the devil made up to trick us".

[Dogmudgeon]

4. None the less ...

... this further isolates the lunatic Fundies.

At least, Joey Rats will listen to his critics.

--p!

[GodlessBiker]

5. No contradiction? That's the standard? Or is the standard a question of evidence?

I guess the Pope is basing his argument on logical contradiction and not on whether there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of the particular God in which he happens to believe.

[Dukkha]

6. yeah, it's easier to just say it than to prove it

The convenience of faith is that it requires no evidence. I'm sure anything Hawking would have said in response would've gone so far over his level of comprehension it would've been a futile effort.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Does Benny feel the same way about the ancient Greek gods?

[Random_Australian]

8. Good. The less time religions spend opposing science the better. n/t

[4lbs]

9. Really, Pope Benedict?

Even those that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Even those that believe that humans and dinosaurs existed together at the same time? You know, humans that existed thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago tended to paint/draw animals they encountered. How come not one freaking painting or drawing of a T-rex, velociraptor, brontosaurus, or stegasaurus?

Even those that believe there really was an Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and a talking snake peddling apples?

Even those that believe that some dude named Noah had the ability to wrangle every living thing aboard some large boat, identify male and female, and prevent the animals from eating each other for 40 whole days? What happened to all the fecal matter that thousands of animals produced for 6 weeks? What did they eat for 6 weeks? What did they drink for 6 weeks?

[Nihil]

10. Criticise what he says, not what he doesn't say.

Benny said

> there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.

If you disagree, say so. Personally, I don't have a problem with the above
statement as it is basically substituting "God" for "sufficient random
events over a long enough period of time". That's rather like the hand-waves
that are used when presenting generalisations to small children instead of
going into degree-level accuracy & detail: As the kids grow up, they will
learn more of the truth and have fewer hand-waves.


He didn't say

> the Earth is only 6,000 years old

or

> humans and dinosaurs existed together at the same time

or

> there really was an Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and a talking
> snake peddling apples

or

> some dude named Noah had the ability to wrangle every living thing
> aboard some large boat (etc)

... so why bring in all these strawmen?


For your information,
> The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," which accepts evolution
> as scientific theory. Proponents see no reason why God could not have used
> an evolutionary process in forming the human species.

To me, that seems a reasonable position for a religious body to take.

:shrug:

(And no, I don't like the guy either - or most of the things that he stands
for - but would prefer he is criticised for *those* rather than some random
fundy crap that he didn't say or support.)

[caraher]

11. Amen

The more people like us lump the Catholic Church with the fundies, the more traction it gives the far-right know-nothing wing of the Church. The "wedge strategy" works both ways...

About 10-15 years ago Tom Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza and hyperconservative Catholic) started his own Catholic media empire in Michigan designed to push his own version of Catholicism. Few Catholics buy into creationist BS, but his rag worked hard to change that by running articles about downtrodden geniuses like Michael Behe. One of my hobbies was writing them letters to the editor pointing out things like the fact that the Pope has no problem with evolution, that contrary to their bland reporting George W. Bush was about as pro-life as Charles Manson (again, pointing out how his enthusiasm for execution contradicted JPII's admonition that capital punishment is morally permissible in only the narrowest circumstances that essentially never apply in the US).

Almost every letter they ran came with a rebuttal from their editor, followed a few weeks later by a letter from a nun or other religious pointing out what was wrong with the rebuttal.

There's at least a tension between faith and science. But Catholics at least let it be a tension they can talk about somewhat rationally. Don't force them to choose sides because some will cast their lot not with those who struggle with reconciling religious beliefs with scientific truth, but those who reject the latter entirely as they build a fortress of ignorance in defense of their own shaky faith and insist on imprisoning ALL our children inside it.

[pokerfan]

12. They even apologized for the persecution of Galileo

350 years after his death...

[Deep13]

13. substituting "God" for "sufficient random events over a long enough period of time".

That's not the definition of god. God is a purposeful supernatural entity that exists outside of the universe, but can intervene in it. Usually, god is said to have created the universe and governs the details of the lives of a certain variety of ape on a speck of dust in an unremarkable corner of the universe.

Even if we differ on what the definition of god, it is not blind, uncaring randomness.

Besides, evolution is not random. Natural selection is deterministic even though it is not purposeful.

[Nihil]

14. You are correct: we differ on the definition of "god" ... no problem there!

> That's not the definition of god. God is a ...

There is no "THE" definition of god as it is a personal thing
(whether or not the personal view agrees with any organisation's
stated interpretation).

The search for a single definition (or rather the claim that
one particular group has found it) has been a major obstacle to
human development over the millenia.

Be that as it may, my original statement is A definition and one that
I suspect is close to their desire to allow their faith to coexist
with scientific understanding - a variation of the "god of the gaps"
argument.

The "handwave" when the explanation starts to get either too complex
(i.e., in depth theory) or too imprecise (i.e., still controversial
or speculative) becomes equated to "god" (or "God" if you prefer).


> Even if we differ on what the definition of god, it is not blind,
> uncaring randomness.

There is beauty even in random phenomena.

"Uncaring" is a subjective assessment arising from a perceived
negative response to an event. "Fortunate" would probably be the
equivalent subjective assessment arising from a perceived positive
response. (Indeed, one of the lines of argument is that we are the
result of a fortunate series of events yet other species might not
view that result as "fortunate" given the impact we have had on them.)


> Besides, evolution is not random. Natural selection is deterministic
> even though it is not purposeful.

I agree but the selection is predicated upon a reaction to events,
some of which are random (e.g., genetic mutation from random damage).
Evolution through natural selection is not random (nor is it directed)
but many of the underlying mechanisms that it uses involve random events.

:hi: