Science & Religion (The Vatican's Interest)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.