# Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)



## UltraCulture

Found this on the Beebs site.

BBC News - Vatican's space mission

Pretty apt as I'm currently reading *Galileo's Dream.*


----------



## J-WO

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

They had their chance to be matey with science millenia ago. Instead, they forced Gallileo to recant his theorys, burnt Giovanni Bruno at the stake (for suggesting other people might live on other planets, SciFi fans) and dragged Hypatia into a church, stripped her naked and beat her to death.

Why? Because the power was in their hands back then. Now they've mostly been de-clawed, they come to us with big smiles attempting to persuade us reason and superstition have some kind of parity.


----------



## Tinsel

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

They must not have read the Bible enough times. I thought that these two friends were fated to destroy each other or is that what this is all about?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

It's an old ploy.

First appear to see reason. Experiment and invest, get chummy. Put some money into ambitious projects. Something big that will be difficult to argue against. The publish your nonsense and call it truth.

When the Hadron collider fails they could by it for a prayer. Run it for a few years 
(using mothballs) then announce the God particle.


In this sense old 'D Brown' wasn't too far wide of the mark.


----------



## chrispenycate

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

He certainly didn't concentrate on getting the physics right; I don't know enough about international conspiracy to know how he did on that.

But science and religion can never prove each other wrong; they're orthogonal. Not even contradictory, as long as the religion doesn't set its back to the wall and start executing people for thinking outside the box. But it's very easy for a religious figure to get terrified by the scale of a deity significant on a cosmic scale; they want the hymns like "his chariots of wrath the deep thunderclouds form", gods no bigger than Zeus or Thor, and science insists on a hundred million, a thousand trillion times bigger, which is destabilising to someone who is acting as an official translator.


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

I wonder if the website will show the Sun going round the Earth?


----------



## Tinsel

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

Apparently in the Middle Ages 350 - 1250, somewhere within that time frame, the Catholic Church had to provide the answers to questions on Bible interpretations, and than there were scientists who endangered the authority of the Bible. The one thing that happened though is during the Reformation, the Catholics and the Protestants were at odds, and I guess that scientists sounded in some ways like they were Protestants according to their persecutors. Yet as far as I know, the Aristocracy usually supported the Catholics. The Scientists were at odds with more than just the Catholic Church.

Where we see the division most clearly now is within the school system. I guess it might be interesting to see what they have to say. There used to be a lot of religious studies and also religious scholarship. Id rather look at that I think, but it is difficult to find. I'm not quite talking about theology, but more so having to do with Christ, for example titles such as "Natural Law in the Spiritual World", or "Purity and Power".


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

Last year we had visitors to stay. She was a friend of my wife and neither of us had met her husband before. He is a very strong Roman Catholic - nothing wrong with that. Except that he started a conversation defending the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo, Bruno and others along the lines of "They were just seeking to enforce a view of the Universe that they thought was accurate."

Now, normally I wouldn't start an argument with a guest but there are limits...

"But they tortured and burned people at the stake..."

"Well yes, but they thought they were doing right."

"Well so did the Yorkshire Ripper - what's your point?"

Apparently they may come again this year...


----------



## Lacedaemonian

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

Who has killed more?  The scientist or the religious figure?  I used to hold to the naive view that religion was the cause of so many wars.  Simply not true.  Now I aint going to accuse science of causing wars but what science has done is arm the world in terrible ways.  The dark ages were that.  Technology is killing us all now.  

Check out Richard C. Duncan's Olduvai theory.


----------



## Dave

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



> "Science can help in that, but it doesn't have all the answers, and we must accept that," he says.


Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but the scientific method of theory and experimentation continues to roll back the frontiers of what we do know. There was 'nothing' before the Big Bang. Only Religions make claims that cannot be substantiated and need Faith.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



mosaix said:


> Last year we had visitors to stay. She was a friend of my wife and neither of us had met her husband before. He is a very strong Roman Catholic - nothing wrong with that. Except that he started a conversation defending the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo, Bruno and others along the lines of "They were just seeking to enforce a view of the Universe that they thought was accurate."
> 
> Now, normally I wouldn't start an argument with a guest but there are limits...
> 
> "But they tortured and burned people at the stake..."
> 
> "Well yes, but they thought they were doing right."
> 
> "Well so did the Yorkshire Ripper - what's your point?"
> 
> Apparently they may come again this year...


 
Oooh can I join in?



Dave said:


> Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but the scientific method of theory and experimentation continues to roll back the frontiers of what we do know. There was 'nothing' before the Big Bang. Only Religions make claims that cannot be substantiated and need Faith.


 
I'm not a big fan of "The One Big Bang". If it can happen, it can happen twice. Why should we limit ourselves to a local event we call the Universe. Just because we can't see past the end of our local expansion doesn't mean there aren't others out there. Also it would help explain the non-shrinking effect. If we are surrounded by invisible universes our's will just get dragged apart by the rest of them.


----------



## J Riff

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

But- back in the day- the church was more like the cops, or the goon squads, are now, they weren't about thought, they actually ruled with an iron hand. Unless you believe _their_ literature, of course. Who knows why they actually killed people, if they did, it was probably for profit, same as today.
 I've diametrically shifted my opinion on the 'space program' in the last ten yrs. or so, I'd like to see them cut down to a shoestring. Not because 'there are problems here on earth blahblah'... I just don't like them. ) One more corrupt wing of the Govt.


----------



## Dave

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'm not a big fan of "The One Big Bang". If it can happen, it can happen twice. Why should we limit ourselves to a local event we call the Universe. Just because we can't see past the end of our local expansion doesn't mean there aren't others out there. Also it would help explain the non-shrinking effect. If we are surrounded by invisible universes our's will just get dragged apart by the rest of them.


That may be so, but my point was that, if so, then one day Science will find a way see beyond the Big Bang and prove it, or alternatively it will not prove it. Science may not have all the answers right now, but answers are added to the list every day. Science knows what it knows and it questions what it doesn't know.

What that commentator I quoted was trying to do is say - Science doesn't have all the answers AND SO you need a God to explain what is behind the Big Bang. Only God can give you the answers you seek - I don't agree with that, and more, Religions by their very nature survive by being conservative and not questioning things.


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



Dave said:


> That may be so, but my point was that, if so, then one day Science will find a way see beyond the Big Bang and prove it, or alternatively it will not prove it. Science may not have all the answers right now, but answers are added to the list every day. Science knows what it knows and it questions what it doesn't know.
> 
> What that commentator I quoted was trying to do is say - Science doesn't have all the answers AND SO you need a God to explain what is behind the Big Bang. Only God can give you the answers you seek - I don't agree with that, and more, Religions by their very nature survive by being conservative and not questioning things.



Good post, Dave.

I'm always baffled by the statement "Science doesn't have all the answers". So what? 

How does this compare with the number of answers that religion has provided? I'm prepared to be convinced but I'm still trying to think of one.


----------



## Moonbat

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



> Check out Richard C. Duncan's Olduvai theory.


 
I just followed that link and read the page it took me too, the guy there, Richard Duncan, initially says that permanent blackouts (part of the cliff slide into the de-industrial age) will occur by 2012, then he re-forecasts that forward to 2007.

Umm, 2007! Isn't it already 2011, am I right in thinking that most American states are not experiencing permanent blackouts?

I'm always skeptical when I read that someone has predicted some earth shattering event that happens just a few years into the future, but its very heartening to look back on these old predictions and see that they were wrong.
How many times have people forecast that the world will end? And how many times have they been wrong. That said, eventually they will be right


----------



## Tinsel

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

Science has proven itself very useful, suggested by our current life style. Someone made the comment that it has created problems, along with benefits. Technology is adapted to by human beings.

So the real questions should be, what has religion accomplished in comparison to scientific discoveries? Than someone mentioned that there was an orthogonal relationship.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



Moonbat said:


> How many times have people forecast that the world will end? And how many times have they been wrong. That said, eventually they will be right


 
Oiy!!!

Dave: Yep, fair point as Mosaix says.


----------



## J-WO

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

I don't know whether to credit this Olduvai theory, but it would explain the fermi paradox very neatly. Why has no one contacted us? Because they're all banging rocks together...


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



J-WO said:


> I don't know whether to credit this Olduvai theory,



There doesn't seem to be any mention of nuclear fusion or solar power.


----------



## Parson

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



mosaix said:


> I'm always baffled by the statement "Science doesn't have all the answers". So what?
> 
> How does this compare with the number of answers that religion has provided? I'm prepared to be convinced but I'm still trying to think of one.



I would say numbers in this case are irrelevant. Knowing a large number of answers is less important than knowing the right answer at the right time. 

Christianity (not knowing enough about other religions to generalize here) is always tempted to pontificate on things which are not central to it's God given mandate. For many people Christianity answers existential questions such as "Is there a purpose for my life?" "Do I count for anything?" etc.


----------



## Tinsel

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

The Catholics should stop trying to answer questions about the Universe. As far as I understand Christianity deals with transformation. It is the same as Paganism in that aspect, however instead of being physically based, the adoption of a new image is graduated by some aspect of God such as the Holy Ghost.


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



Parson said:


> I would say numbers in this case are irrelevant. Knowing a large number of answers is less important than knowing the right answer at the right time.



I only asked for one, Parson.

But, regarding the existential questions that you mentioned, I'm quite happy with the ones I came up with all by myself.


----------



## Parson

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

*Mosaix,

*I doubt that the self is the most important player in these questions.


----------



## mosaix

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



Parson said:


> *Mosaix,
> 
> *I doubt that the self is the most important player in these questions.



Parson, you seem to misunderstand what I said. You (your 'self') have made up your own mind about about truths and the source of them and I'm just saying that I (my 'self') have done the same and we've come to different conclusions.

But anyway, your doubts aren't mine. 

But look, let's go no further with this. I'm an ex-Methodist lay preacher, I know all the arguments and counter-arguments so we would be wasting both our breaths and space on the Chrons servers.


----------



## Starbeast

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*

So now the Vatican believes in life elsewhere. Then why did they want an observatory built a couple of decades ago? What were they looking for? And before they agreed upon life elsewhere, how would they perceive a flying saucer landing near the Vatican? Would they think the outworlders were demons? What made them change their minds about life elsewhere?


----------



## Parson

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



mosaix said:


> Parson, you seem to misunderstand what I said. You (your 'self') have made up your own mind about about truths and the source of them and I'm just saying that I (my 'self') have done the same and we've come to different conclusions.
> 
> But anyway, your doubts aren't mine.
> 
> But look, let's go no further with this. I'm an ex-Methodist lay preacher, I know all the arguments and counter-arguments so we would be wasting both our breaths and space on the Chrons servers.



Fine with me. I just wanted to give a voice to other side.


----------



## Tinsel

*re: Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)*



Starbeast said:


> So now the Vatican believes in life elsewhere. Then why did they want an observatory built a couple of decades ago? What were they looking for? And before they agreed upon life elsewhere, how would they perceive a flying saucer landing near the Vatican? Would they think the outworlders were demons? What made them change their minds about life elsewhere?



We would be better off asking the demons/aliens these questions, unless this new website has any answers.


----------



## Starbeast

Tinsel said:


> We would be better off asking the demons/aliens these questions, unless this new website has any answers.


 
Hmm, I'm aware demons are liars and Prof. Hawkings said don't talk to aliens. Now I'm stuck at square one agian...awww rats! Big hairy rats!

I'll do something else....I know...I'll go look at more color photos of Earth's moon.


----------



## Tinsel

Maybe this whole website embarkation is not going to bring down Science, however it might drop Scientology.

If they went after Scientology they could also try to sneak in a couple more hay makers on the scientists.

That is how I'd do it. I'd make a big deal about Scientology, which should grab some attention, it is a bit condescending to the Church and than the people would come in and the Church could than unload (on Science).

"Kirk out", to Enterprise.


----------



## J-WO

Now I'm picturing John Travolta with cloaking device capability.


----------



## crys

It seems that the Catholic Church simply can’t win. They are seen as being too conservative for not asking questions, but then they are criticised when they try to ask questions.

Many cruel and evil crimes have been committed by those within the Church, of that there is no doubt. However, science has also been guilty of much evil: Nazi human experimentation, Unit 731, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Poison Laboratory of the Soviets, North Korean experimentation, the Aversion Project, Project MKULTRA, Project 4.1. 

Has religion accomplished anything? In practical terms: art, music, architecture, literature, charity. And that’s on the purely temporal level, of course.

Science seems to be the standard of reason and impartiality against which everything else is compared, but humans are complicated beings. Philosophy, Religion, Language, Law, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Archaeology, etc, etc, all help us make sense of our world. And here I think the danger is one of ethnocentrism. The rise of materialism in the developed world has been accompanied by a demise of religion. However, for someone in the likes of the Caroline Islands religion is _perhaps _more useful than science.

How useful has science actually been to the developing world? The predictions are that by 2015, 375 million people may be affected by climate change. At the present rate there will be three times as many climate-related disasters by the year 2030. According to Oxfam: ‘Climate change’s effect on poor people is one of the most bitter ironies of our times. The nations that made themselves wealthy by burning fossil fuels are largely those that will, initially, suffer the least from the effects of climate shift.’

Monsignor Basti states in the BBC article that: ‘The aim is for both sides to come together for the good of humanity.’ Is that so bad?


----------



## J-WO

crys said:


> However, for someone in the likes of the Caroline Islands religion is _perhaps _more useful than science.




Though I imagine penicillin comes in quite handy, eh?


----------



## mosaix

crys said:


> It seems that the Catholic Church simply can’t win. They are seen as being too conservative for not asking questions, but then they are criticised when they try to ask questions.



They've brought it on themselves, Crys.

Throughout history they have forced their view, through fear, on the masses and still attempt to do so.

I just can't take seriously any organisation that says that condoms are worse than Aids.

If they want us to take them seriously, in the modern world, there are plenty of places for them to start.


----------



## Dave

crys said:


> How useful has science actually been to the developing world? The predictions are that by 2015, 375 million people may be affected by climate change. At the present rate there will be three times as many climate-related disasters by the year 2030. According to Oxfam: ‘Climate change’s effect on poor people is one of the most bitter ironies of our times. The nations that made themselves wealthy by burning fossil fuels are largely those that will, initially, suffer the least from the effects of climate shift.’


Why do you blame "science" for climate change? People have been burning things for warmth since we lived in caves. The steep rise in anthropogenic CO2 began with the Romans and metal-making. I agree that science has found us better ways to burn fuels, faster and in larger quantities, and in cars and in aeroplanes, but that is rather missing the point. Science, or more correctly, Technology, is surely just a tool. When a schoolboy is stabbed, do you blame the knife? When a man is shot, do you blame the gun? Yes, I guess many people do just that too.

But, how do you think are we going to solve the problem of global warming? 

We are very unlikely to see politicians make any agreements to reduce carbon emissions that they actually stick to. So, were you planning to pray for a solution?

I think you are much more likely to see some very large engineering and technological solutions. Science fiction right now, but surely possible in the future.

And without science and technology the developing world would have died of thirst and starvation many, many years ago.


----------



## chrispenycate

Yes, not good confusing science and technology; the scientific method of experimentation and extrapolation (as against the ancient Greek philosophical technique of working out what it ought to be, without checking, because that was aesthetically pleasing) is relatively recent, whereas technology predated Homo sapiens sapiens.

There is one thing you can blame on science; the excess population, due to shortage of infant mortality and longer life-spans. Their proudest achievement, and it seems to be the most destructive. And, the knowledge itself is enough to do the damage, even without the backup technology.  Mind you, the worlds religions are putting their weight behind all movements to stem the flow without reintroducing the misery, but the possession of "Truth" with a capital "T" can do that to you.

But I'm not sure scientific method, the base concept that the universe was something we could study, and make conclusions about, would ever have come into being without monotheistic religions. At any rate, it would have taken much longer. An enormous number of the basic organisational principles came from monasteries, or from the Islamic universities, before these decided that all important knowledge had already been discovered and written down in the Q'ran.

I feel it's the control slipping away that precipitates the occasional irrational outbursts. After all, they know what is best for mankind, and it's not having all this knowledge hanging around loose, where any Tom, Dick or Ali can get his hands on it. It was supposed to be filtered through a knowledgeable and benevolent authority, who could decide the right time to release ideas…


----------



## Dave

Yes, I agree, over-population is the root of the problem, and for that science is guilty, though I think the Catholic Church must shoulder some blame too.


----------



## Tinsel

In one of these novels it was said something to the effect that the man's bottles of rum had served him as, his friend, his wife, and his Bible. I tend to think that it is the other way around for me.


----------



## J Riff

_There is one thing you can blame on science; the excess population, due to shortage of infant mortality and longer life-spans. Their proudest achievement, and it seems to be the most destructive.>>> _
Frightening, true paragraph. Owch, take that Einstein! 

 The Church though, is a shame, because it's largely full of people who just want to have nice jumble sales and read good books.


----------



## mosaix

J Riff said:


> _There is one thing you can blame on science; the excess population, due to shortage of infant mortality and longer life-spans. _



If you're going to *blame* science for those you also have to *credit* science with balancing it out with more efficient killing during wars and the contraceptive pill. 

But, I think blaming science for all these things, just isn't right.

Basically, all scientists are trying to do is understand the fundamental laws of the universe. Sometimes their discoveries lead to things that benefit mankind sometimes they don't. It's the application of the discoveries that should be questioned, not the discoveries themselves.


----------



## J Riff

Yes, but that is still a bitingly true, almost sarcastic comment on things... nasty but true- keeping more people alive longer_ forces_ science to keep pace.


----------



## crys

Confusing Science with Technology, yes that was rather stupid of me.

My point wasn't to ''blame'' Science, I just feel that the usefulness of Science is overestimated in comparison to those other disciplines I mentioned.


----------



## Tinsel

I read that science was used to disprove magic. It provided more concrete explanations, and it lessened the relevance of God(s).

The population growth in high(er) in undeveloped countries, so how does that help the conversation?

It appears that in the past, there was much more divide among what people accepted however religion in accord with monotheism, had encompassed those belief systems?


----------



## crys

The Church isn't alone in its supposed possession of the Truth. Thousands of scientists were persecuted by the Communist Soviets. For example, Alexander Chizevsky spent 8 years in a Stalin gulag because he refused to retract his solar writings that suggested the revolution wasn't entirely due to the struggle of the working class. 

Apologies if this is old hat, but Chizevsky was the first to recognise the link between the 11 year solar cycles, Earth's climate, and the mass movement of people. The link between geomagnetic storms and wars/revolutions is interesting given the current sunspot maxima and the situation in North Africa.


----------



## Dave

Interesting, I've never heard of regression analysis between sunspots and revolutions before. But the next maximum isn't predicted to peak until 2013, are things in the Middle East going to get worse yet? And the last was in 2000. I don't recall any revolutions then. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, of course, which was the one before that. I was going to say this is well off-topic, but I guess having ones fate predetermined by some mysterious other-worldly force is a part of any philosophical discussion of religion.


----------



## J Riff

I read a theory once that stated that geomagnetic (?) energy was causing people to hallucinate and imagine Alien visitations. This happened in Manhatten I think, dozens of people reported similar 'dreams' and it was lined up with a huge release of energy from inside the earth's core.
 I don't know the science... what exactly is 'geomagnetic' energy and what effect could it have on a human brain?


----------



## Tinsel

Sounds a bit like "The Call of Cthulhu" story here (ref: to the last couple of replies). Rest easy?

As far as an external forces theory taking effect on how religion is presented, that may always exist in the background, but possibly the focus should remain with elevating ritual practices by representative acts.

 Is a proper Church than able to make specific associations? in addition to. Thus where does the divide meet between secular study and Christian practices, for an individual answer(s).


----------



## TacticalLoco

mosaix said:


> Good post, Dave.
> 
> I'm always baffled by the statement "Science doesn't have all the answers". So what?
> 
> How does this compare with the number of answers that religion has provided? I'm prepared to be convinced but I'm still trying to think of one.


 
This has been refered to as the 'God of the Gaps', particularly in eveolution discussions, but it also appiles here.


----------



## Heck Tate

Religion has provided an answer for everything, but they're usually wrong answers.  I'm reading Mieville's _Kraken_ right now and I think the various cults of whatever god are hilarious.  Much like real religions, they all have some story that makes sense of everything as long as you don't question any of it.  For some reason, the answer "I don't know" is worse than any other.  Hence the God of the Gaps fills these spaces with any answer.  One of the reasons I read sci-fi is because I love the idea that there are some things we don't know, but we can speculate answers without taking them seriously.


----------



## chrispenycate

Religious answers were proved wrong by rigourous scientific experimentation, based on the nature of matter and observed phenomena. Scientific explanations were proved wrong by the application of argument based on the nature of divinity. Scientific theories can change, turn inside out three times in a generation; scientific method insures this. Religious explanations are considerably more stable, changing very slowly. Many people prefer the certainty of the long-lasting paradigms to the relative instability of the hypothesis/antithesis mechanism.

You (and me, for that matter) have been brainwashed as much by the "if experimentation can not be devised to test its confluence with real conditions, the theorem is weak" method as mediaeval peasants by the mystery of the trinity in unity, of the transubstantiation of the host. Obviously your universe seems more reasonable to me than theirs; but it is as dependent on the basic acceptance of certain Truths, with capital "T", as theirs is.


----------



## J-WO

One has to stand somewhere, though. Otherwise its a journey down Solipsist Avenue or somewhere similarly hazy.


----------



## Tinsel

If religion took the position that the less obvious answers are to be handled by God, than they would not have to provide any scientific explanations. Now if they have a large telescope at the Vatican, I'm not sure if they do or not, but if they do, than they must be searching for UFO's.

Tell the Scientists to mind their own business.


----------



## chrispenycate

The scientists (I don't know any capitalised) do stick to their own business. It just so happens that that business, which is "finding logical explanations for the universe, everything it contains, and all actions taking part in it" occasionally collides with the philosophers and theologians seeking their own explanations for the same phenomena.

And no, the scientists are not always polite about it, and make no bones of the fact they consider their method as the only acceptable one; but there again, so do their opponents. And it is extremely rare for a follower of the scientific method to resort to physical violence to prove their point.

Much less so, unfortunately, for the "don't try and pull evidence on me; I know what I believe" crew.


----------



## Starbeast

Starbeast said:


> So now the Vatican believes in life elsewhere. Then why did they want an observatory built a couple of decades ago? What were they looking for? And before they agreed upon life elsewhere, how would they perceive a flying saucer landing near the Vatican? Would they think the outworlders were demons? *What made them change their minds about life elsewhere?*


 


Tinsel said:


> If religion took the position that the less obvious answers are to be handled by God, than they would not have to provide any scientific explanations. *Now if they have a large telescope at the Vatican, I'm not sure if they do or not, but if they do, than they must be searching for UFO's.*
> 
> Tell the Scientists to mind their own business.


 







 

*Director of the Vatican Observatory: George Coyne interviewed*​


----------



## Heck Tate

Tinsel said:


> Tell the Scientists to mind their own business.



Everything is science's business.  If you want to believe that there's some magical man in the sky who makes everything work the way it does, then fine.  But you better not try to stand in the way of science's quest to answer the things that you've always just written off.  I mean real science, none of this "We know god exists somewhere so we will conduct a series of tests to prove this."  I'm ok with the Vatican conducting scientific experiments as long as they're not tainting their results.  Unfortunately, given their track record, I'm not at all confident in their honesty.  There are plenty of religious scientists, but they work under the direction of usually secular entities (not that these are always more honest or moral than religion but that's another matter).  I'm skeptical of the Vatican having their own scientists, but everyone should have the chance to expand our knowledge of the universe.  Let's just hope (pray for you religious types) that they can use this properly.


----------



## Tillane

Tinsel said:


> If religion took the position that the less obvious answers are to be handled by God, than they would not have to provide any scientific explanations.


This would be okay if religion (any religion) actually had any of the obvious answers.  They don't.  They have a bunch of ideas that make precisely zero sense.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but feel free to _*prove*_ me wrong...


----------



## Interference

Why are we all getting so hung up on the past?

The Vatican is opening a website.  It is trying to prove it is ready to acknowledge new evidence about the Universe.  Good, if true.  To be persuaded to consider something new isn't actually a bad thing, even if you are a church.

Personally, I would be happy to believe religion has all the answers, but it clearly doesn't.  It doesn't even completely understand the answers that it does have.  What is important for everyone is that it learns and improves its theories.

Please read that sentence again and substitute the word "religion" with the word "science"


----------



## Heck Tate

I just feel like the whole thing is a trap.  Like when a cartoon bad guy convinces the good guy that he's changed only to stab him in the back later.  We'll just have to wait and see though.  Anyone taking bets?


----------



## Interference

That doesn't just happen in cartoons, Heck.


----------



## Tinsel

People want to work away in the sciences, so this is supported by an industry that sustains itself. The Vatican has a research branch, so it is set up to independently study whatever they decide to spend their time on. It sounds like they don't want to be constrained.

Now they have to throw off the chains of academia since they are plowing ahead. I wouldn't be surprised if another Galileo came out of the church. They should distance themselves as far as possible because if anything that would indicate that there is progress. If they can stand on their own.

Anyway, I myself simply read The Book and I'm not concerned about Science.


----------



## J-WO

Interference said:


> Why are we all getting so hung up on the past?



Well, there present isn't exactly reasonable and open minded either. Vati-science says (well, mumbles to people in African countries when the wider world isn't looking) that condoms have holes in them big enough to let the AIDS virus through, so, hey, you may as well keep procreating more believers, eh?

Its an interesting theory. Presumably, if AIDS can permeate latex then it must be a breeze for air molecules to do likewise. I'd like to see one of these Priests ministering in Kenya roll a condom over his head and sit there for an hour, or even five minutes.

We don't need this organisation mucking with the stars.


----------



## Interference

As an atheist who plays music in a Christian church every Sunday, I have a huge amount of respect for some believers, if not for their beliefs.  When I listen to sermons and readings, particularly those which relate directly to the words of Jesus, I have to translate what I'm hearing into what I can accept that any supposed "teacher" or "wise man" or "magus" would actually say.

There is no doubt in my mind that the churches and formal religious groups who have control over these ancient writings, and thus control over how they are distributed, are either keeping the important truths back or are honestly ignorant of what they are.

I'm equally positive that this is true of practically every faith-centred clique.  The people who preach it, don't really get it, so they dumb it down, first, for themselves and, second, for their congregations.  The consequence: The good stuff sinks in after a while and the mistranslated stuff becomes bad stuff that also sinks in.

The Vatican may or may not be paying lip-service to science here, realising that their congregation is no longer reliant on one source of information, but on the other hand they may actually be trying to expand their own knowledge-base.  When the ship is sinking, someone has to wonder if the hole can be fixed, if maybe the next vessel of this class can have a stronger hull.

Millions of people are leaving the Catholic church every day, very often to go and set up their own churches.  There are now more registered denominations of Christianity than any other religion in the world.  And that's an interesting point: People are leaving Catholicism, not their core belief in the Christ.

I hope that the Catholic church will learn from their scientific endeavours.  I hope they will modify their behaviour, as a result.  I actually really do hope they discover what it is that they've been worshiping for all this time because I have a sneaking suspicion that science will arrive at a similar conclusion, from a different perspective, quite soon, now.

This may be a knee-jerk response to their dwindling numbers, but good may come of it.


----------



## crys

Western Europe is becoming increasingly secular but the world’s four biggest faiths are growing. 

There are no reliable figures for the number of Catholics although the estimate was 1.1 billion worldwide with a rise of 1.7% in 2008. In fairness, that number doubtless includes many lapsed Catholics. However, the number of priests is reliable. Despite dwindling congregations and a shortage of priests in (for example) the UK, the numbers of priests worldwide continues to grow.  

The Catholic Church has made a grave error over the condom issue and it has cost many lives, but Pope Benedict XVI has now said that condoms could be used in certain cases to minimise the risk of HIV infection. That does not mean that he has condoned the use of condoms as a form of contraception, but the Church is to hold a conference on AIDS in May that will hopefully clarify the condom issue.

Then there is the subject of rape, which is a risk factor in AIDS. Hundreds of thousands of women and girls in Africa have been subjected to rapes and beatings, an issue for the justice system and not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is actually the main caregiver for HIV/AIDS sufferers, providing 25% of services worldwide and as much as 50% in Africa. But that doesn’t make for attention-grabbing headlines.


----------



## J-WO

crys said:


> The Catholic Church is actually the main caregiver for HIV/AIDS sufferers, providing 25% of services worldwide and as much as 50% in Africa. But that doesn’t make for attention-grabbing headlines.



An ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.


----------



## Dave

crys said:


> The Catholic Church has made a grave error over the condom issue and it has cost many lives, but Pope Benedict XVI has now said that condoms could be used in certain cases to minimise the risk of HIV infection. That does not mean that he has condoned the use of condoms as a form of contraception, but the Church is to hold a conference on AIDS in May that will hopefully clarify the condom issue.


I don't personally think the issue of condoms is one of science vs. religion, but I can see why others might do from the medical point of view. I think the Catholic view that sexual abstinence is the answer requires a level of self-control that is totally unrealistic, given that it is well documented that even Catholic priests are unable to follow this kind of asceticism themselves.

If you are looking for a sea change in this from that conference, then I think you will be disappointed. The Vatican later "clarified" what the Pope had said:
BBC News - Vatican: Pope did not back condom contraception use
I consider that clarification to be as clear as mud!

I respect the right of other people to practise their own religion, but when the Pope says "don't use condoms" it has a significant impact among tens, even hundreds of millions of people. Almost a fifth of Africans are Roman Catholic. I'm afraid it may be brutal, but J-WO is correct.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Christian, Catholic religion, obviously, if the Vatican is involved. I haven't read the book, but there are other religions? The Hindu Upanishads? Brahma (Shiva?) breathes out, the universe expands, Brahma breathes in, the universe contracts ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

The Pope's not a politician trying to win votes. In Catholic religion the Pope is infallible _when he speaks on matters of dogma. _In Catholic religion, over issues like contraception and celibate (oh yeah?) priests, the word of the pope becomes the word of God, who has his own way of seeing things, though human beings might not like it. In Catholic religion, sex is reserved for marriage. Look, I'm not standing for or against. A Catholic can say to God: Look I know you don't like me doing this, but I've got twelve kids running around the house already, so please give me some slack here, ok? Then you explain it to the priest when you go to confession, and he gives you 10 Hail Mary's penance for your sin. It's not a hanging matter. People smoke, people tell white lies. But paedophile priests ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

I know a (Catholic) advertising guy who was commissioned to create an ad for 'Virgin Condoms'. He told me he came up with the idea of a condom, with a halo, captioned _Immaculate Contraception. _But he spiked the idea because, as he said: a lot of Catholics fly Virgin ...


----------



## J-WO

RJM Corbet said:


> Christian, Catholic religion, obviously, if the Vatican is involved. I haven't read the book, but there are other religions? The Hindu Upanishads? Brahma (Shiva?) breathes out, the universe expands, Brahma breathes in, the universe contracts ...



Its just some 4000-year old scribe's way of making this particular God sound all spooky and bigger than we can hope to imagine. If it resembles current cosmological theory (which it now doesn't- the universe won't contract but dissipate entirely into nothing. Presumably this is Brahma's death rattle) its only coincidence.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ha ha ... now there's a _very _interesting book by Clark Heinrich called 'Strange Fruit' ... has anyone read it?


----------

