Vatican Agrees with Darwin

[Kevvers]

Why is it that Catholics always try to turn this blantant authoritian abuse of power by the Catholic church into an attack on religion in general?

Because it's really an attack on history: the attempt to turn history into an anti-religion parable at the expense of truth. In attacking religion, anti-religion people often engage in the same blatant authoritarian abuses of power in trying to obscure the truth when it's inconvenient for them.[/quote]

Its not an attack on history, its part of it, all this was going on during the reformation -- the whole protestant set of churches were formed as direct consequence of this kind've heavy handed clerical authority. Martin Luther? Each man is his own cleric and the bible his authority? Your case seems to be that the Church wasn't doing such a bad thing after all suppressing his theories, banning his book, and putting him on trial simply for disagreeing with the Pope.

 

[bjj hero]

Because it's really an attack on history: the attempt to turn history into an anti-religion parable at the expense of truth. In attacking religion, anti-religion people often engage in the same blatant authoritarian abuses of power in trying to obscure the truth when it's inconvenient for them.

You cant compare Kevvers saying he thinks the church misused its power when Galileo xas tortured, put through the courts and imprisoned until he was to old and infirm to coninue his study. Please tell me youre not so biased as to see there is a big difference.

These things did happen, you can interpret different intentions and motives but these things did happen and at that point in time the church was brutal in its control of dissent and any idea it felt might discredit the bible or papal power. It was par for the course at that time for people in power.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.

So if, say, you happened to believe in Santa Claus and then figured things out, you'd not be able to admit that you were wrong without losing respect for yourself?

Standing up for your mistakes and working to fix them is called learning. Standing by your word because you're too proud to admit, or understand, that you can do wrong is called stupidity. Please do explain why the latter would be more worthy of respect.

With no proof to deny the existence of a fat man who rides around on a sledge, I'm not going to admit that he doesn't exist. If you have principles its better to stand by them, then just turn into a spineless organisation who bends over backwards for whatever view is popular.

Is that why scientists still think the earth is flat and that the speed of light is constant and that DDT is completely safe and that malaria is caught from breathing in bad air and that women have inferior brains to men?

The speed of light is constant if the medium it's traveling through doesn't alter. The other ideas have long been discredited in the scientific community.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Just the topic of this thread appears to be (judging from some of the responses) that changing ones mind based upon evaluating current knowledge and evidence is a very bad thing.

Those things were once believed by the scientific community, and they changed their minds!

Because it's really an attack on history: the attempt to turn history into an anti-religion parable at the expense of truth. In attacking religion, anti-religion people often engage in the same blatant authoritarian abuses of power in trying to obscure the truth when it's inconvenient for them.

That is not someone dealing in fact though Cheeze. Anyone willing to distort history to make their point is engaging in willful delusion and can't be helped.

 

[Marbas]

Those things were once believed by the scientific community, and they changed their minds!

Oh. Right then.

Carry on.

 

[Jman1236]

Allow me to say: WHAT THE F***?!?!

 

[Azeban]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.

No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.

But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.

Huh? I guess I missed the part where I said I was spiteful and hatefilled. I only mentioned that that churches change what they say, do and believe to match the current popularity. Calling Darwin a heritic when he first came up with the theory of evolution and then adapting thier own beliefs to match the trend and evidence is being hipocritical. This is why I don't believe in religion, because it is fallable and changed to suit people.

And I never said they were evil, I was just referencing he looks like Palpatine.

Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?

I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.

 

[anNIALLator]

Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.

So if, say, you happened to believe in Santa Claus and then figured things out, you'd not be able to admit that you were wrong without losing respect for yourself?

Standing up for your mistakes and working to fix them is called learning. Standing by your word because you're too proud to admit, or understand, that you can do wrong is called stupidity. Please do explain why the latter would be more worthy of respect.

With no proof to deny the existence of a fat man who rides around on a sledge, I'm not going to admit that he doesn't exist. If you have principles its better to stand by them, then just turn into a spineless organisation who bends over backwards for whatever view is popular.

Is that why scientists still think the earth is flat and that the speed of light is constant and that DDT is completely safe and that malaria is caught from breathing in bad air and that women have inferior brains to men?

The speed of light is constant if the medium it's traveling through doesn't alter. The other ideas have long been discredited in the scientific community.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Just the topic of this thread appears to be (judging from some of the responses) that changing ones mind based upon evaluating current knowledge and evidence is a very bad thing.

Those things were once believed by the scientific community, and they changed their minds!


Of course they changed their minds! What's the point in science if you're never going to find anything out?

 

[Kevvers]

That's not my case at all. My case is, one, the Catholic Church at the time was nowhere near as hostile to science as people make it out to be; two, it wasn't undeniable science vs. pure religious dogma, that there was science on both sides; three, that this wasn't a case of any Galileo being persecuted just for bringing up the issue of heliocentrism, that the real events are much more complicated than that.

My case is that history has been distorted for ideological purposes by anti-religion people, just as religion has distorted history for it's ideological purposes. The problem is I think, you've got such a bias against religion, you see anyone calling for a more accurate history free of ideological influence as making the kind of case you're ascribing to me.

1. Not hostile to the scientists that stayed out of areas that the they felt conflicted with their scripture, otherwise you could end up on trial for heresy -- that doesn't exactly sound scientific to me. This is why he's called the father of modern science.

2. There may have been science on both sides but it was definitely an unfair trial.

3. I fail to see what 'complex real events' justifies his treatment.

As for your attack on the Reformation, yeah, there was a lot of rough treatment on both sides. But you honestly can't tell me they were worse, you can accuse me of distorting history all you like.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?

I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.

Actually the theory of evolution was first mooted (that we know about) as early as 400 BC. As Lucretius wrote:-

And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing. And many a stock
Remaineth yet, because of use to man . . .

Lucretius. On The Nature of Things, Book V

During Darwins day basic evolutionary theories were flying around. Dinosaur bones had been getting uncovered for a while and about 3 years prior to the publication of the first edition of The Origin of Species Neanderthals had been discovered. I think this is why the church had come down so incredibly heavy on him - a link between man and beast had been discovered and raised an important theological conundra vis-à-vis god making man in his own image and man being simply a technological ape. That book put into words something that they feared but couldn't bear to contemplate.

 

[bjj hero]

In the end no one gets to "know" anyone and these angels tell Lot and his family to leave because God is going to nuke the city, the Americans didnt give anyone at Hiroshima the same curtesy.

I cry fowl! They did in fact drop phamplets and they were ignored.

Interesting read if I say so myself.

I stand corrected... in my orthopedic shoes.

 

[sheic99]

I guess that also means they denounced that the Earth began on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am.

Lies! it was 8:59 am. xD

I know you're joking, but that was the accepted theory for a long time.

 

[Azeban]

Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?

I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.

Actually the theory of evolution was first mooted (that we know about) as early as 400 BC. As Lucretius wrote:-

And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing. And many a stock
Remaineth yet, because of use to man . . .

Lucretius. On The Nature of Things, Book V

During Darwins day basic evolutionary theories were flying around. Dinosaur bones had been getting uncovered for a while and about 3 years prior to the publication of the first edition of The Origin of Species Neanderthals had been discovered. I think this is why the church had come down so incredibly heavy on him - a link between man and beast had been discovered and raised an important theological conundra vis-à-vis god making man in his own image and man being simply a technological ape. That book put into words something that they feared but couldn't bear to contemplate.

And yet children were still being taught by their parents that Genesis was 100% fact. It's not the opinion of academics that decides history, it's the opinions of the people. I don't think we can blame the church for not accepting Darwin immediately.

 

[guardian001]

Wow, this is really old news. Pope John Paul the 2nd declared that evolution happened at least 10 years ago and that teh creation story was about he creation of the soul and not the body

I would like to point out that there is in fact a difference between a pope saying he agrees with something and an official statement from the Vatican. While the church has been leaning towards this for a while( Like you said, John Paul II accepted it), It only recently became their official position. Unofficial things can be ignored by religious zealots. Official statements on the position of the Church are much harder to ignore without seeming sacrilegious., although I'm sure people will continue to ignore it anyway.

 

[Echo3Delta]

Unfortunately this being an internet forum is not the right place for me to actually present all my arguments for not being a Christian. However I will list a few things that if I were to analyze them they would require a book each but I will only do so in order for people to understand where I stand.

First of all, you say you are a logical person, but if I were to press you on that statement I could say that in virtue of your faith, (if indeed your devotion or "dedication" requires one such leap of faith) one could argue that these two methodologies are actually incompatible. You cannot be logical and yet faithfull (the kind of faith that skips a few steps in its string of arguments). NOTE that I dont use the word logical to imply neither intelligence nor anything else that might be associated with potential. The only thing I am raising here is the difference in methodology. I employ logic in which every step is a necessary step and if not I am aware of it, whereas religiou people do not (in general).

Second. On Christian Ethics. I have read the Bible and I think I am educated enough in Christianity (being an ex-Orthodox myself) to know about them. My position on their ethical theory is this: It is right BUT for the wrong reasons! I have ended up with pretty much the same ideals as Christians teach the world to follow but my starting point was one that cames much earlier in the logical process and can is more defensible than the Christian equivalent.

Third. Christianity requires some form of dogmatism in any division of its faith. That is true and I have not encountered a Christian doctrine that can prove me wrong so far. I'd like to be corrected on this if possible. Therefore, if people who calls themselves followers of that doctrine dispose away with its arguments for its conclusions I am inclined to call these people anything but Christians from now on, because what they are essentially doing is stepping away from the doctrine and finding other arguments for it from other sources to justify their original view based on their original source. Why doesent the credit go to this new source? (It could be the use Human intellect/rationality, science, epistemological arguments in philosophical writtings)

Finally, I am not a Christian because I see no special place for that religion in contrast to other religions and in contrast to anything else that the religions does for one, with anything else in the human world that could serve the same purpose.

I know I can never convince people to lose their faith in an internet forum, but what I can do is present my view piece by piece and let others think about it!

I like your tone, Soresu, and thank you for reading my post. I'd like to make a point concerning your issue of logic, faith, and their seeming incompatibility. I consider myself (rather whimsically) to be a religious humanist. I place the utmost importance on correct logic and effective argument, because well-reasoned ideas are perhaps the most powerful things in the world. My personal definition of justice even is: the conclusion of perfect logic.

Now, you raise the question of whether I can reconcile my faith with my devotion to the logical process. Let me say that you strike me as a very logical person. But are you aware that you exercise faith every single day? The simplest question to demonstrate this is: How do you know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln? You certainly didn't see it. You very probably haven't seen any hard evidence of the event. Yet you have no doubt that it happened, because enough people agree that it did. An act of faith of a different nature is: You get on a plane and completely trust that it will fly you to your destination safely. You don't know anything about how planes work, and you certainly didn't thoroughly inspect the aircraft before you got on. This is faith in the competence of others, whom you did not investigate yourself.

I have read the writings and the dogmas of prominent Catholics, and I find them to be the most logical and reasoned arguments about how man should live in order to maximize everyone's happiness. Because of this, I have a good degree of trust in them, as you have trust in your history teachers and the technicians of the plane you're riding. There are certainly gaps in the whole scheme of things, for which my logic cannot fully account. These points are where I am comfortable with the trust I've placed in the millions of Catholic philosophers and theologians that have come before me.

Finally, no matter how much logic and thinking we devote to one subject or another, there sometimes comes a point where we need to make a choice, because the evidence simply is not there. I was presented with the question: Could humanity have become the only living creature on this planet to develop reason, the only living creature to comprehend language, and the only living creature to reach into the earth and in just a few thousand years pull out something as breathtakingly complex as New York City, simply by random chance? I considered and made my choice. No.

 

[Echo3Delta]

So your saying most catholics will admit the Old Testament is bollocks? fairy stories? So the 10 commandments are made up, abortion is fine, no encouraged, contraception should be free. I wish youd mentioned this sooner. Your churches stance on contareption has made fighting AIDs in Africa ever so difficult.

So Homosexuality and general bumming is not sinful? Ill start tomorrow.

If the new testament is "fact", an entirely accurate historical document, why is it not studied with the same scepticism as other historical documents?

Texts from Rome, writing from Egypt, after reading something you ask what message does the author want to get across? What does he/she have to gain by exagerating/lying? Would it be adventageous to say the Jesus, who the authors say is the son of god, is magic?

Plenty of novels have morals etc. It doesnt mean they are acurate portrayals of history or fact. Ill be using the Discworld novels for my bible, it has moral stories, is just as likely to be true, is better written and far less judgemental.

Wow. I'll take your post point-by-point.

I don't believe most Catholics share my exact feelings on this matter. Of course, I don't begrudge them their faith in the O.T. I simply don't share it, because it makes no sense to me. I do claim, however, that there is no need for the O.T. in order to prove or even defend any teaching of the Church.

The 10 Commandments are pretty good advice, but I can't very well take them seriously when, in the same book (Exodus), God breaks his own gift of free will by "hardening Pharaoh's heart," and in a more obscure passage actually attempts to kill Moses for no good reason (if you take the words literally). You see how one can argue against the 10 Commandments? But of course they are all summed up when Jesus says, "Love God, and love thy neighbor as yourself," are they not?

As for abortion, contraception, and homosexuality, these are not discussed at length in the N.T. Homosexuality is called an "abomination" in Leviticus, but of course the very same chapter calls eating shellfish an "abomination" as well. So we can't very well take that seriously, can we? This is why the Catholic Church recognizes 3 legitimate sources of truth: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church leadership). It is the Magisterium who have published the arguments against killing babies and disordered sexual activity. I have read their arguments, applied my reason, and concluded that they are sound. I do NOT agree with the Church leadership because I am Catholic. I am Catholic because I agree with the Church leadership.

Finally, history as a genre had not been well-established at the time of the writing of the Bible. I myself believe that there are many of what we would call exaggerations in the N.T. as well. The writers would not see it this way, because they would not see the importance of getting every detail historically accurate. There was no historical tradition at the time, and it was more important to them to get their point across. If you choose not to believe it, fine. I do. Quit being an ass about it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Well the Vatican only really speaks for the Catholics, not Christianity as a whole. So many 'evangelicals' will still stand by their creationism worldview.

As a Christian, I don't see the big deal, really. I don't think it matters....but I won't turn this thread into a theological discussion. It's an interesting read, for sure.

Actually, I have long believed that God gave us the ability to Evolve to insure our survival. Hell, NOTHING about the Book of Genesis contradicts Evolution. Doesn't it say in the Bible that an Eye-blink to God is 10,000 years to us? Imagine what he could do in a whole DAY if 10,000 years pass in an Eye-blink? This actually makes SENSE to me...

Plus the word used in Genesis for 'day' could also be translated as 'passing of time', not a literal day. Saying God used evolution doesn't stand opposite to Christian theology, and science and a faith in God aren't exclusive from each other (Not that I'm saying you said or implied that, Mobius).

 

[acer840]

This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.

Spoiler

I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"

I can so see this happening its sad.

Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.

No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.

But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.

Huh? I guess I missed the part where I said I was spiteful and hatefilled. I only mentioned that that churches change what they say, do and believe to match the current popularity. Calling Darwin a heritic when he first came up with the theory of evolution and then adapting thier own beliefs to match the trend and evidence is being hipocritical. This is why I don't believe in religion, because it is fallable and changed to suit people.

And I never said they were evil, I was just referencing he looks like Palpatine.

Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?

I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.

Yes, that is true (not for thousands of years tho as the origional Roman gods where still the dominate religion till just after 5 AD. We all thought the world was flat and krackens ruled on the edges of the sea, but even that was disproven by navigating the globe. But as I posted after this post you quoted me, isn't the bible supposed to be the word of God? If so, why is it incorrect?

 

[Echo3Delta]

While I agree that everyone has some sort of faith in the sense of believing something they have no empirical proof for, the parallel you're making doesn't fit here. One believes that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln because of the historical evidence. It's not just that there are "logical and reasoned arguments" it's that there are eyewitness accounts and other data that back up the theory. One can have faith that the plane because lots of other planes, including this one have flown before this. Even if you don't "know anything about how planes work" you know they tend to fly unless something goes wrong.

Like I said, I agree that everyone has some kind of leap of faith in their thinking, like "all men are created equal." However, history and getting on planes aren't the right place to look for that common faith that all people have: they are both based on evidence in a way that a belief about how humans should live is not.

Good point, Cheeze. Perhaps my example would've been more effective had I used a more obscure historical reference, such as the circumstances surrounding the fall of Rome. In cases like that, there are no absolutely credible eyewitness accounts, and the only evidence we have is the surviving writings (which may or may not be trustworthy) and archeological evidence, which is hardly conclusive by nature. We can only assemble the information we have and reach a consensus on what we think most probably happened.

And you're right; making sound philosophical arguments is not indicative of having correct knowledge of history. My faith in the history is supported more by the millions of Catholics through 2000 years who have agreed on it - kind of like the fall of Rome. There are of course millions who disagree, but that's where the choice becomes necessary. Thanks for making me think more about my reasoning.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I guess Ive always kind of belived in both, Like there could be a god and evolution happened, or there isnt a god and evolution happened. Either way I enjoy life.

umm people


THEY NEVER SAID EVOLUTION WAS FAKE!!!!!!! I swear atheists can really misinterpret well

Well, that shows how much you paid attention in history.

For the record, Darwin was a Christian until the day he died.

You might be in a different country than me so there might be a difference in culture, but dont you learn about darwin in Biology?

 

[bjj hero]

So your saying most catholics will admit the Old Testament is bollocks? fairy stories? So the 10 commandments are made up, abortion is fine, no encouraged, contraception should be free. I wish youd mentioned this sooner. Your churches stance on contareption has made fighting AIDs in Africa ever so difficult.

The Catholic Church's stance on contraception is not justified on the basis of what's found in the Old Testament:

Thank you, I found the article interesting and informative. Its good to see that not everything is based on historical text, although I disagree with the logic.

It still isnt helping to fight AIds in Africa though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_8.shtml