Poker-faced Pope plays high stakes against science

Nick says:

08:21am | 30/06/09

You don’t need the Da Vinci code to question Christ’s death on the cross. Try theologian Barbara Thiering’s hypotheses based on the dead Sea Scrolls in her book: “Jesus the Man”

Steve says:

08:47am | 30/06/09

There’s the small problem that for God to exist, the physical laws that govern the universe (as scientists understand them) must be completely wrong.  God and angels etc, for example, don’t exactly obey the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy.  The way scientists understand how the universe operates and ‘God wot done it’ are two incompatible theories of How Things Work.  You can have one or the other.  The church inviting in a little bit of science here and there is simply window dressing.  You’ll note that scientists don’t invite in a little bit of religion when they want to back up one of their theories – they stick purely to this thing called evidence instead.

RT says:

08:49am | 30/06/09

Is the Pope also in favour of the widely accepted scientific version of the creation of life and the universe, instead of the bible-literal creationist version? Because carbon dating provides evidence for the former explanation and debunks creationism. You can’t have it both ways with science.  Since the Big Bang has been mentioned, do we know whether Benedict agrees with John Paul II that this was the moment of God’s creation? Under that scenario, what did God do before the Big Bang, how was God created, and how….oh, never mind.

Paolo says:

09:15am | 30/06/09

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes”. - Pope John Paul II

Kat says:

09:23am | 30/06/09

At most they can prove that they are St Paul’s remains - but they can’t prove that anything the Bible says about him is true.  Anyway, how do they prove it’s actually St Paul? Does the Pope have his DNA stashed away somewhere?

Steve says:

09:44am | 30/06/09

“Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes”.  <—What are joke. 

Religion deals in absolutes, science doesn’t (false or otherwise).  Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in science is just a theory that best explains the evidence at any given time.  That’s about as far from absolute as you can get.  Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, for example, is, to the best of our knowledge, completely correct.  However, if a piece of evidence comes along that shows it to be incorrect, then the Theory of Relativity is out the door and will be replaced by a theory that better explains the evidence. 

As for purifying science from idolatry; what the hell does that mean, seeing as, again, religion has idols and science doesn’t?  JPII FAIL.

JG says:

10:55am | 30/06/09

You’ve gotta love infallibility. How can you argue against it? Popes are infallible because they say they are infallible. So it must be true, because they are infallible. QED.

eg Innocent XI who thought of infallibly defining his own infallibility.

Recursive post-justification give me a headache.

Re science, if churches can continue to pick and choose which bits of scripture to follow, they sure as hell can pick and choose which bits of science are kosher.

Helen says:

11:08am | 30/06/09

If I had the choice to believe in supernatural beings or fact I know what I would choose,

GC says:

11:19am | 30/06/09

Imagine believing in faeries residing at the bottom of the garden and using science to prove that, yes, the garden does in fact exist.  That would be similarly worthwhile to the Catholic church’s efforts.

GC says:

11:19am | 30/06/09

Imagine believing in faeries residing at the bottom of the garden and using science to prove that, yes, the garden does in fact exist.  That would be similarly worthwhile to the Catholic church’s efforts.

Paolo says:

11:32am | 30/06/09

Steve, absolutely! What an absolutely absolute absolution of science!

JP2 was saying religion and science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.

IJK says:

11:37am | 30/06/09

All this proves is that the body of someone who lived a long time ago is in the tomb. Could be anybody.

Greig says:

12:08pm | 30/06/09

So when you remove the superstition from religion what, exactly, do you have left?

Anyway, for those who may be interested, there’s a lengthy debate between some very clever bods about whether religion and science have anything worthwhile to say to one another here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

Rob says:

12:14pm | 30/06/09

I can’t help thinking that there is a bigger issue here that should be reported on. I mean, fair enough there’s quite a lot of conjecture between science and the bible. But how about the amount of money being spent each year by people who don’t use their gym membership? Fitness First must be one of the best supported companies on earth!

Steve says:

12:30pm | 30/06/09

Paolo, JP2 saying religion and science aren’t mutually exclusive is a statement of the obvious.  We live in a world where there is both religion and science and even some scientists that are religious.  Humans have a remarkable ability to hold up two completely contradictory ideas as correct. 
However, science is about postulating a hypothesis and trying to prove it incorrect with evidence.  If the hypothesis cannot be proved incorrect at the time, it is held up as a theory.  Faith plays no part in the process and is, in fact, its complete antithesis. 
Religion is completely based on faith and cannot be tested against evidence.  Does that make religion wrong? No, as perhaps evidence will come along that supports the existence of God and that Jesus was his son etc..  Perhaps our fundamental understanding of how the universe operates is completely wrong.  But as things stand at the moment, the rational option is to believe that which is supported by evidence and ALL the evidence we have at the moment indicates God does not and cannot exist.
So while science and religion aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, as a basis of understanding anything about ourselves and the world we live in, religion would seem at best a distraction.  And that’s not even getting into tiny problem of all the different religions contradicting each other.

Ben Payne says:

01:37pm | 30/06/09

Every time there is some scientific discovery that vaguely resembles a religious belief or teaching, the church is the first to point it out, “Look, look! That’s what we’ve been saying all along!”

But when the evidence points the other way (which would appear to be, well, pretty much all the time), the church decries it as “only a theory”, or failing that, they adjust their interpretation of “the literal word of god” to better match the science – so now it appears that the big bang was god’s moment of creation, and he “guided” evolution to reach the pinnacle of perfection – us.  Hah! What a joke!  If there is a god, he’d be ROTFL!

Are you really suggesting your god is a bumbling experimenter, throwing 99.999% of all species that have ever existed onto the trash pile?

And can someone explain infallibility in a way that makes sense?  Like, how did the “infallible” pope, who stated that god created the earth about 6000 years ago, and denounced the big bang, get superseded by the “infallible” pope who accepts the big bang theory?  Likewise the “earth as the centre of the universe”, burning of witches, the inquisition, slavery, the endorsement of Nazism, unbaptised children in limbo, inequality of women, etc etc etc.

The church has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and has been forced to rescind or modify huge swathes of its “infallible” dogma, because the attitudes of the general public have made them untenable, and to hold on to these beliefs would even further alienate it.

I hardly think the word “infallible” fits.

Now Paul, I don’t mean to be rude, but your hypocritical “fitness first” attitude to religion, which is so common these days, distorts the statistics that are used by governments to make decisions – if, as the census states, only 19% of Australians are non-religious, then it (almost) makes sense to allow the church to have input into our laws, on topics like stem-cell research, abortion, same-sex marriages, etc.

It also gives protection to fundamentalists of all breeds, justifying the idea of “defamation/vilification of religion” laws, where we are not allowed to even question the beliefs of others, even when those beliefs run counter to existing laws, common sense, or even survival of the species. 

When a nuclear war will signify the start of the “end of days”, a pre-cursor to the return of Christ (which will be, for those that actually believe it, the best thing that is ever going to happen), religion goes from an (arguably) benign imposition to a very real threat. 

When a martyr can jump the queue and go straight to paradise (and the legendary 72 virgins), without the tedious waiting around for an inquisitorial judgement day, the only real surprise is that there aren’t more of them.

Make a decision, people – because sitting on the fence is only going to give you splinters

Mick says:

02:51pm | 30/06/09

Science is a funny thing.  The more you know the less you declare as an absolute truth. 

There are many erroneous clichés in the bibles story of creation, these can not be denied nor glossed over.

Hawkins will not deny the existence of a creator.

Scientists say that the stars are billions of years old, the bible says they are 5000 years old.  Einstein’s relativity theory states that time passes differently from observer to observer.  Surely a gods view point is poles apart from ours.  A billions years to us could be the blink of an eye to another.

Darwin’s theory has many holes yet by most it is still considered gospel.  In the primordial soup multi celled,  A-sexual organisms evolved into sexually reproductive organisms, this is not a genetic advantage.  Current species share near identical organs despite sharing no common ancestor (squid and people retinas).  Etc etc

All I’m saying is admit you don’t know, admit you will never know, then move on.  This is not a two party system, you do not have to vote.

Ben Payne says:

03:46pm | 30/06/09

Mick, I think it was Socrates who said “the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing”. Science has shown us that we know less and less about more and more, but what that means is that with each new discovery, we realize how much more there is to find out.  Absolute truth may be beyond our understanding, in fact may always be beyond our understanding, but searching for the answers is definitely better than shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting “blah blah blah blah”.

“There are many erroneous clichés in the bibles story of creation” – hahahahahaha, that is the understatement of the millennia – they weren’t clichés when they were written, they were the ignorant myths and fairy stories from a barbarous age when they didn’t know dick about anything.  I think the statement “not even wrong” is probably the best description.  They do not provide one iota of intelligent information on anything at all – there is no way to even measure or test any of these absurd notions, let alone prove them. You are correct on one point - Hawkins does not deny a creator, but he says that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that there was one, and that even if there was a creator, there is no evidence that it has influenced anything since creation.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity states that space-time is curved, and time may be experienced differently when travelling at different velocities.Darwin’s theory is not claimed by anyone to be gospel – it is, in fact the complete opposite.  It is a scientific theory, which best fits the observable facts, but is subject to revision (or rejection) should another theory better describe the facts.

You mention holes in the theory, but that is not correct – there are holes in the data, the observable facts, but those holes are fast becoming smaller and smaller, and all the data that we do have is consistent with the theory. You also mention retinas as being shared between squid and people, but you haven’t done your homework at all – so far there have been discovered well over 20 different, independently evolved types of eyes, and there are living examples of each stage of the evolution of the eye.  Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before spouting off. 

I fully admit that I don’t know, and I admit that I will probably never know, but I’ll be damned (sorry) if I’ll shove my head up my ass and say “I don’t know, so it must be god”.  That is simply a cop out.

SHABS says:

04:35pm | 30/06/09

Look around you. Can this be a coincidence?  Can all this be some random act of nature?  “Absolute truth may be beyond our understanding” and so is faith.  Faith that you are more than some meaningless creature in a world with no purpose.  Religion provide us with hope and reason, if nothing else.
Take you head out of your ass Ben and just look around you.

Cherub says:

04:49pm | 30/06/09

Ben: you and many other commentators here simply don’t know what you don’t know.  The issue of papal infallibility has nothing to do with whether or St Paul’s remains are where the Church has always believed they were.  But it is not, nor ever has been, an article of faith infallibly proposed that the remains are Paul’s remains.  So everyone get over yourselves in your rush to display your ignorance and bigotry where Catholicism is concerned.  Where the origins of the universe are concerned, there are issues which remain within the competency of science, and those which remain in the competency of theology.  And Ben, really, holes in the data may well suggest holes in the theory.  Good scientific theory is proposed to make sense of the facts as we know them to be, or believe them to be.  Since science is always making new and fresh discoveries so it is that theories change.  For example, it has, until recently, very recently, been taught as a scientific fact that the brain does not regenerate new cells.  The science of adult stem cells now tells a different story.  Where St Paul is concerned neither I nor any of you know what that science is.  So, I am prepared to wait until the scientists make their case and other scientists provide a scientific critique.  Until then, I have no opinion.

Mondo Rock says:

06:03pm | 30/06/09

Look around you. Can this be a coincidence?  Can all this be some random act of nature?

I don’t think Shabs has left any room for an alternate answer in this strange bastardisation of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy.  The world is a good place for life to flourish, and therefore God exists.

A watertight position.  Not one based on reason, logic or intellect - but watertight nonetheless.

Simon says:

11:46pm | 30/06/09

Mondo Rock: there seems to be a growing consensus among religious types inclined to justify their religion by rational debate, that ‘surely it can’t all just have happened without a guiding force’ is about the best argument they’ve got left for the existence of a god.

And if it is, they ain’t got much. To use your words, “coincidence” and “random” are both human concepts, that only have meaning to humans (they don’t have meaning to the endless void, an asteroid belt or millions of species on planet earth). To presume that humans existing and having consciousness must be a product of a grand design where we are the kings of the universe, is just plain ol’ species-centric arrogance with no basis in any serious philosophical argument. So when you boil it down, the question is merely, “Look around you. Can all this be?” To which the answer is, “Sure seems to”. The inquiry says nothing at all about how it came to be.

Ben Payne says:

12:01am | 01/07/09

Shabs: I never mentioned coincidence; it is a common misconception of those who have not bothered to find out what the Theory of Evolution actually is, and understands the implications.  It really is one of the most simple, logical, and testable explanations of how we became what we are.  I really think you owe it to yourself to read it.So “hope and reason” is enough, regardless of any truth in it?  You are OK with that? Are you actually listening to what you are saying?  I look around, and I see a beautiful garden, why do you need fairies at the bottom?

Cherub: I was talking about infallibility in general, which was mentioned in the article. I was just trying to understand how there are different levels of infallibility – I mean, to me, infallible is kind of absolute, either you are, or you are not.  So my question, put as simply as possible is, how is it possible that 2 “infallible” popes gave diametrically opposed arguments on various issues?  Please explain.I’m not sure which competencies theology has to explain the origins of the universe.  It would possibly be competent to explain it to a small child, who hadn’t yet been to school, because any school age child knows more about the universe than did any of the authors of the bible.  We take for granted how much science has given us, but this is a perfect example. By the time a child is 6 or 7 years old, they will have ideas on germ theory (from catching cold and getting better), know that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, and the moon goes round the earth, that the stars in the sky are other suns and that there are other galaxies. They will understand how aeroplanes fly, and will probably have flown in one themselves. 

I could go on listing the advances of science that have enabled our children to understand so much, but comparing that to religion?  The authors of the bible knew about sheep and goats, and deserts, and wars. They were stupid and ignorant, and they were scared of the dark, and lightning, rain, flood, drought, famine, and so on, because they didn’t understand a damn thing about the world they were living in.  And this what you are suggesting has a right to be given equal, nay superior billing, here in the real world of the 21st century?  How dare you?And “holes in the data may well suggest holes in the theory”? you don’t know what you are talking about.  There are, without a doubt, millions of different species that have existed in the past that we have no way of knowing anything about – it really is amazing that we have been able to dig up as many bones and things as we have.  All the stuff we have found to date fits the theory, but there is more stuff that hasn’t been found yet, so we can’t test it.  We might be very surprised if someone found something that contradicted it tomorrow, but we would not be upset for too long, the theory would be modified to fit the new and existing data, or a completely new theory would need to be created to fit all the available data.  Scientists never claim that they have 100% solved anything, but at any given time, the currently accepted theory will be the theory that best describes all the available information, and is as close to “truth” as we can get it, based on research and evidence, measuring and testing, not superstitious gobbledygook.

Mick says:

09:32am | 01/07/09

Ben, I would love to see you “shove your head up your arse” but frankly I doubt you are that flexible.

The majority of people on the planet believe in a higher being. Get over it.

Cherub says:

10:24am | 01/07/09

Ben, we are in agreement not disagreement re scientific theory.  Scientific theory always stands to be corrected by facts.  Some theories are abandoned and others are modified.  So don’t get snaky.
If you want to have a go at those who you think are your opposition do as I do: find out what they are really saying, how they use the words they use.  It seems that the “infallibility” issue where Church and Pope are concerned is firstly limited to matters of faith and morals.  The Church does not claim to be able to pronounce infallibly on science, economics etc.  Second, by infallibility, the Church means “free from error”.  It is not an absolute in the sense of “the whole truth”.  The Church, pondering the data of revelation, proposes doctrines to be believed by all the “faithful”, and the understanding of those doctrines may defvelop, indeed has developed, over time.
Look Ben it is all about respect.  From an academic point of view you should really try and honestly understand points of view with which you may think you disagree. It is always disappointing when people put up “straw men” and demolish them.  It is always better to state your opponent’s position at its strongest rather than assume, as you seem to do, that all religious people are superstitious dolts.  I have found much good in views I thought I totally disagreed with when I have taken the time to listen and to learn.

Cheers

Ben Payne says:

11:57am | 01/07/09

Mick, I love how you change from debate to demand, it is so typical of faith and the faithful.  Despite losing the argument on all points, you feel justified in telling me to “get over it”?

Look, you are correct in that the majority of people on this planet do believe in a higher power, but I must have missed the memo declaring faith to be democratic. Should we take a vote to see which god is real?  I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy with the results, and neither would I. 

Unfortunately, people of faith have a hard time keeping their faith to themselves, because all religions are based on missionary principles – you must go out and try to convert others.  Not only that, they feel the need to impose their own ideas of morality and justice onto the ‘unbelievers’ for their own good. I know the inquisition seems like ancient history, but it wasn’t until late in the 19th century that the pope actually declared torture to be wrong.

I know you think I’m just trying to be rude and obnoxious, but I’m not.  If you saw someone had accidentally left their fly open, you might giggle quietly to yourself, or you might try to inform them of the situation before they embarrass themselves further.  This is simply what I am trying to do, by pointing out the embarrassing deficiencies in what you believe.

Cherub, the problem I see with religious dogma is the fact that it is dogma – it is believed not because of any evidence or reason, it is believed because the pope (or the bible, or whatever) says that is what you should believe. Religious dogma is not modified to account for new evidence, it is held onto as absolute truth in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, until such time as it appears to be driving people, and then the church will change its stance because it has to, to remain even partially relevant.

It is on issues of faith and morality that I question the “infallibility” of the pope – take slavery and torture, for example, or unbaptised children going to Limbo? I would see these as issues of morals and faith, which previous popes have heartily endorsed, but the current pope does not. My question still stands – how can both be “infallible”?

Can I *respectfully* say that all religious people are superstitious dolts?  I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but please take a step back and examine what it is you believe, and why you believe it.  Having grown up in a Christian household, and having read the bible through a number of times, I do know what it says, and if that isn’t superstitious rubbish, then someone had better change the definition of the word ‘superstitious’.

Would you consider someone carrying a ‘lucky charm’ (like a rabbit’s foot, horseshoe, etc) to be superstitious? Would you consider them silly for their belief in its ability to protect or bring luck?  What about someone wearing a cross on a chain?  How are the two different?

I have not intentionally thrown up a ‘straw man’ to tear down - I thought that was your strongest argument.  Please have another go with something stronger, and we’ll see.

Mick says:

01:11pm | 01/07/09

Ben,

Yes, Get over it.  The debate ceased to be a debate when you diverted from facts and attacked characters.

Not sure where you got the idea that you have countered my arguments or that I’m faithful, I have spent 4 years studying physics and chemistry, I think string theory is both amazing and terrifying.  I think your understanding of relativity is limited to the headline you quoted.  To me you sound just like another preacher, trying to convince everyone that you know the truth.

I’m going to coin a new term Scientific Extremist, you’re it.

Ben Payne says:

02:39pm | 01/07/09

Mick – I am sorry that you got the impression I “diverted from facts and attacked characters”, it was not my intention to do so.  By calling religious people “superstitious dolts”, I was not trying to attack anyone’s character, merely stating facts – superstition is defined as: “a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge”, while dolt means “a dull, stupid person”.  Sorry, but if the boot fits…

My (very much simplified) account of Einstein’s theory was given to show that time duration may only be experienced differently due to relative velocities, so unless god is travelling at some significant percentage of the speed of light, his experience of time will be much the same as ours.

I do not claim to know the truth; it is religion that makes that claim.  I am asking simply that people examine what it is they believe, or profess to believe, and compare the simple minded and superstitious explanations of the origins of the universe, as found in religious doctrine, with the current scientific theories that are based on observable facts and empirical evidence, and make an informed decision based on intellect and reason.

My purpose is not to start a fight, or to laugh at other people; I am genuinely concerned that in our society, logic and reason are perceived as ‘bad’, and that faith is perceived as ‘good’.  Not only that, our society has built up the notion that questioning a person’s faith is taboo – we are just not supposed to question it.

On any other subject, be it history, mathematics, engineering, whatever, we can not just make statements without backing them up with some kind of evidence, but with matters of religion and faith, it is not only expected that unfounded claims be made, but we are expected to take these claims at face value, as though they actually represent some truthful view of the world.

Those who hold faith to be sacred and un-questionable, simply because it is faith, are putting us in a very dangerous position. This taboo is based on the concepts of respect and tolerance, but by disallowing questions of your own faith, you are also disallowing questions on the faiths of others – and some of those faiths are very much in opposition to the concepts of respect and tolerance.

JohnB says:

04:14am | 02/07/09

On the evidence

What social,  political and religious safety measures would you recommend knowing this linked document http://www.september12009.com/index.php?id=20 was signed and dated in 1962 and also understanding that this was simply the signing on of a much earlier document - thus showing this formed a part of the law for generations in this entity with the result being a political, religious and social culture unable to respond appropriately when it has been found that the leading Christian church holds within its ranks the largest co-ordinated group of pedophiles the world has ever experienced and that position is currently being supported through the manipulative and abusive use of the powers inherent in being an authoritative or religious figure or simply an effectively deceived member of a congregation or an individual in that environment taking into account the fact that many other social and religious entities have originated, splintered from or provide support through continuing to trade, support and defend this corrupted core?

What will science and an analysis make of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wwuU1NE9E and many others - these are the current issues and are attempts to look forward whilst the church can only look to the past as a means of re-filtering and re-telling the story of their past without the reality of what that past has been - while we ignorantly accept that we ignorantly ensure that future generations of children will be abused at the hands of a dysfunctional mono culture which has had the covering up of criminal activities of clergy as its prime concern.

Cherub says:

09:55am | 02/07/09

Well Ben, you do claim to know the truth.  And one of those truths, based upon a dioctionary definition of words but without supporting argument, is that religious people are superstitious dolts.  You refer to “slavery and torture, for example, or unbaptised children going to Limbo” as examples of papal or church infallible teaching.  The Church has never endoprsed slavery.  If, as you claim, you are totally au fait with the Bible, then the story of Philemon will indicate to you how wrong you are.  The Church has always opposed the use of torture in her teachings, no matter that some people in the name of God may do it, or as in the case of atheists widely practice it.  Limbo has only vever been a theological opinion and never taught as part of the Church’s dogma.  And speaking of dogma, why are you opposed to it?  And if you are why do you subscribe to the dogmas you do, such as religious people being superstitous dolts and the dogma that all religious dogma is irrational?  And, pray, what is irrational about the Catholic account of creation which is theological and which takes full account of such scientific evidence as is available.  Belief in God is consistent with reason as many of the finest philosophers in the world attest.  However, if you begin with the premiss that the only reality is physical reality, then you have made your own metaphysical belief claim, a claim which cannot be proved by science.  And that, Ben, is your religious dogma.  Now while I would disagree with that I would not want to insult you or any other atheist by saying that an atheist as an atheist is necessarily a superstitious dolt.  But your own definition of superstition might well apply to you.  Oh, and by the way, no one is saying faith is unquestionable.  Of course it can and should be questioned.  And your faith that there is no God should also be subjected to close scrutiny.  Cheers

Ben Payne says:

02:10pm | 02/07/09

Cherub, you obviously don’t know your history.  On May 15, 1252, Pope Innocent IV issued a “papal bull” (decree) authorising the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics.  The church has for centuries not only endorsed slavery, it has been responsible for organising and policing it.

Philemon was a Christian slaveholder, and Paul’s letter to him was to ask forgiveness on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus – forgiveness of the crime of deserting his master, not release from slavery. These passages were quoted widely on both sides during the American debate over the abolition of slavery.

The concept of Limbo, while never actually entering official church dogma, was encouraged by the clergy, because the alternative – that unbaptised children were damned to hell for all eternity – didn’t sit well with anyone who actually thought about it, especially the parents of children who died before being baptised. In 2007, a Vatican commission announced that they hoped unbaptised babies went to heaven, rather than hell, because “limbo seemed to reflect an ‘unduly restrictive view of salvation’.”

I am opposed to dogma because it is an absolutist concept, not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.  It is simply “do as you are told without question”, which is definitely irrational.  I do not hold “religious people are superstitious dolts” to be a dogma, it is simply a statement of observable fact.

The catholic account of creation has been modified and massaged to try and fit in with scientific discoveries, because the original account is an ancient myth stolen from previous mythologies, and to maintain these ridiculous notions in the face of overwhelming evidence would show how truly out of touch with reality the church really is.  Note that the church throughout the ages has actively tried to discourage (and by discourage I mean imprison or kill) those who dared to have differing views, or whose inquiries led them to discover truths about the universe that it did not agree with.  Your idea that faith is consistent with reason is only espoused by those who would benefit by saying so – e.g. pretty much everyone who wanted to stay alive while the church had power, and now that its power is waning, those who seek to bring its power back.

I did not say that the physical reality is the only reality; I just said that it is the only reality that we have any way of measuring or testing, and any ideas about heaven or hell are merely the wishful thinking of people who are scared of death.  Show me some proof of these things, and by proof I mean reliable, repeatable, measurable proof, and I will not need ‘faith’ to believe it.

Faith is simply the wish that something is true.

I do not have ‘faith’ that there is no god; I have stated all along that I have an open mind on the subject.  There is no way to prove that god does not exist, but there is also no way to prove that he does. Everything still works without the assumption that there is a god, and removing god from the equation does not affect the outcome.

Cherub says:

06:21pm | 02/07/09

Hi Ben
You are quite wrong re slavery and torture to which I will return at another time.  But I thought I would just give you this bit from Catholic World News:
Disputing a claim by Pope Benedict that the bones of St Paul seem to have been found in Rome, a Dutch expert, Rengert Elburg, says this can never be proven.

Elburg, an expert on archaeological study of old bones and organic remains for the government of the German state of Saxony, told the German Press Agency dpa in an interview, “It’s impossible to establish that it’s him,” according to a Monsters and Critics report.

Even a genetic analysis of the bones in a sarcophagus marked as Paul’s would reveal nothing, because there were no proven descendants whose DNA could be compared.

“But the bones could tell you the sex and age of death of the person,” he said. A face could be reconstructed if a skull were in the grave.

“But we don’t know how Paul looked, so that doesn’t help identify the body,” he said.
So you see, Catholics are very open to a critique even on what the Pope says.

Cherub says:

06:40pm | 02/07/09

OK Ben, sorry I got interrupted with a phone call from my daughter.  Answers to your issues.  Re torture, what you said is fact is fact.  But no Pope has ever taught that torture is acceptable as an infallible truth.  Not every policy or personal view of the Pope enjoys infallibility.  In fact the Church and the Pope use infallibility rarely.  Same with slavery which is a vastly more interesting and complicated issue than can be dealt with here and limbo.  But Ben, you can’t have it both ways.  The Church is wrong nwhen it proposes something as infallibly true and wrong again when subject to further reflection, criticism and discussion she revises an opinion.  Your assertion that “Faith is simply the wish that something is true” is a self-serving attempt to discredit faith.  If your definition of faith were what we indulge in your criticism might have some validity.  But t is not.  Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which you can google online) and read what it says.  Faith involves an assessment of fact and then a trust.

alan says:

12:33am | 03/07/09

It amuses me when people claim that ‘morals’ are the same thing as ‘ethics’.  It seems to be an attempt to verify the relevance of the bible in our modern world?  I’d point out there are only about two references to risk management in the bible, one - build my house on a rock, the other is a religous law about sleeping on roofs without parapets.  Does that mean that in our workplaces we shouldn’t do Job Safety Analyses, a good prayer will suffice?  Perhaps St Christpher medals should be compulsory in all aircraft cockpits? Tell THAT to the Coroner!!

Cherub says:

10:37am | 03/07/09

Alan, morals and ethics are essentially the same thing.  Morals comes from the Latin “moralwes” while etics is derived from the Greek word ???? (ethos).  Some make a distinction using morals to refer to personal moral rules of conduct or even universal rules of moral conduct, while ethos or ethics may be reserved for the values and mores of a society.  So, Alan it is nothing to do with verifying the relevance of the Bible in the modern world.  However Christian ethics with its Ten Commandments and Golden Rule is pretty much identical with the moral insights of other religions and, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948).  I continue to be amazed at how much religious discourse is carried on in the absence of any real or substantial knowledge of the religion that is being criticised.  Like it or not, Catholicism shaped Western culture.  And unless one bothers to get informed, one is in real danger of engaging in the worst aspect of cultural relativism.  Modern science emerged out of Chritianity.  Why?  Because of Christianity’s commitment to objective truth, an ordered universe whose rules could be discovered and understood, thereby allowing human beings greater real control over the world in which we live.  Science and religion are no opposites, but complementary ways of arriving at the truth of the existence of the world, its purpose and plan, and ways to arrange human affairs to maximise happiness.

Ben Payne says:

01:10pm | 03/07/09

Cherub, have you really been that brainwashed? 

The church has opposed every scientific advance throughout all history, and it continues to do so.  Stem cells anyone?

I agree, the church has shaped western culture, and I don’t like it.  We are economic slaves, kept in debt to a system that does not care for us, controlled by religion that is designed to keep us in our place.

Modern science HAD to emerge out of Christianity, because that was all there was.  Science and religion are opposites, because religion is about control, and science is about truth.  Corporate money and biased media is the corrupter of both.

Please don’t try and tell me that human affairs are arranged to maximise happiness, because they are not.  Human affairs are organised by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful, using religion as (one of) the tools in that control. 

Why are millions of human beings dying from starvation and AIDS each year in African nations?  Overpopulation, promoted by the church under the guise of morality – “condoms are sinful”, “abortion is murder” – and corporations that control the distribution of medication that could be used to save lives.  Poverty is good for business, which is why outsourcing to economically deprived countries is so profitable.
Look around you at the world we are living in.  The GFC was a result of the Federal Reserve Bank of America (a private corporation) deliberately contracting the money supply, resulting in debts being called in, causing a run on the smaller banks, just like it did in the great depression. 

As you say, most people are ignorant of their religion, and the pope does not need to explicitly invoke the “infallibility” clause for believers to accept his words as infallible.

Faith does not rely on fact, which is why it is faith – if it was based on fact, it would not be faith; it would be truth.

Religion promotes guilt and misery, not happiness.

Cherub says:

02:51pm | 03/07/09

Ben, have you really been that brainwashed?  You talk about truth but then revert to slogans and assertions.  Get a grip.  You cover so many subjects superficially with one-liners you indicate that yu are not reeally interested in the truth at all.  You begin with assumptions which you refuse to examine.  I had mistakenly thought that in this splendid forum you might limit yourself to one argument at a time.  So, sticking with the point of the argument, which is about science and religion, it is a fact that science emerged from Christianity.  I have given the reasons for that.  It did not emerge from the agnostic philosophy of Buddhism or any other world religion.  It was the Judeo-Christian tradition which gave us science.  It is agnosticism and atheism which are inhuman and reckless, killing embryonic human beings to get stem cells, killing unborn children, and promoting condoms which cannot prevent the spread of AIDS.  Each one of these subjects is worth investigation.  That the Church respects science may be sen from Pope Benedict being willing to subject a tradition, that st Paul’s remains were under the Church building of St Paul in Rome is an example of it.  Personally I am sceptical that science can establish the truth or otherwise because there is no other DNA source with which it can be compared.  The more likely avenue for testing the proposition would be the evidence of history which would only give a probability not a certainty.  But that may be enough in terms of the approach of historical research.  So enough with your venting, Ben. How about real substantial argument from you for a change?  You reveal a lot about your ‘feelings’, but that is not in any way persuasive

wnjsjijb says:

08:59pm | 03/03/11

4B18CQ pagqmjmufutj, xwduejhiynzm, [link=http://xlumwbxnlxvq.com/]xlumwbxnlxvq[/link], http://tgcpdjdrrmai.com/