Vatican: Don't Knock Science
From Wired News
VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to
what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning
into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedevilled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.
The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe. "The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said.
But he said science, too, should listen to religion. "We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said. "But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said. "The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."
Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design." Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." "A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."
He was asked about comments made in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who dismissed in a New York Times article the 1996 statement by John Paul as "rather vague and unimportant" and seemed to back intelligent design. Basti concurred that John Paul's 1996 letter "is not a very clear expression from a definition point of view," but he said evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops. Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."
It would seem that the Catholics at least seem to understand the way things actually are rather than looking back to 18th Century ideas. Personally I’m rather surprised, but pleased. Guess I was baptised into the right faith afterall.
12 comments:
Whoa! What was that? Did you feel the temperature drop? Was that hell freezing over? Common sense rears its ugly head again! ;-)
V V said: Common sense rears its ugly head again! ;-)
Seems to be breaking out ALL over ATM. Just what is going on? (grin)
Then again.. It DID take the Catholic church 300 years to say 'sorry' for Galilleo... So don't expect too many miracles just yet...
I'll have to check if they've pardoned Giardano Bruno yet. They burned him at the stake for putting forward to idea that life could exist on other worlds and that the Universe was basically infinite...
I never did understand that whole "burning at the stake" thing. I mean, c'mon, is that supposed to be some sort of character reference for your church? Oh, yes! I want to join the church that burns people at the stake for all sorts of ideas and behaviors. Where do I sign up?
V V said: I never did understand that whole "burning at the stake" thing.
I studied the European Witch hunts recently @ Uni. Apparently in England witches tended not to be burnt at the stake but it was very common in Scotland. They used to burn LOTS of people all together. I blame the fact on the inclement weather up there!
But more seriously... I'm guessing that it was supposed to represent what was waiting for them in Hell. Does seem very strange though. But I always found it difficult trying to get inside the thought processes of people back then. It was a very different time.
I have a feeling if I lived then and my personality was anything like it is today, I'd be toasting over the fire quicker than you could say, "recant witch!"
V V said: I have a feeling if I lived then and my personality was anything like it is today, I'd be toasting over the fire quicker than you could say, "recant witch!"
I know what you mean. Probably quite a few of those executed women where just independently minded - which tended not to go down very well at the time. However, about 25% of the witches on trial where men. They were particularly found of executing male witches in France for some reason. The Germans meanwhile didn't really discriminate. They sometimes executed whole villages.
It was actually a fascinating time... from 250 years distance that is....
The witch burning on this side of the pond was mostly women, older,single women, i.e. beyond childbearing, with some sort of power in the community or outspokeness. It was mostly a way to control those meddlesome women with too much time on their hands, who asked too many questions and had independent ideas and ways. Not to mention, it freed up some property that men couldn't access any other way. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich has a good book on women, power and religion in colonial America - "Good Wives - Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750." I read another book specifically about male domination and the witch trials, but I can't remember which one it was, it might be "Lewd Women and Wicked Witches: A Study in the Dynamics of Male Domination" by Marianne Hester, but I'm not sure. Anyway, back to work for me.
Ever notice how churches come to accept scientific fact, only about 25 to 100 years late. A couple of years ago the Pope declared that evolution was not at odds with Catholic theology. Maybe in another 50 years, evangelicals will finally come to the same conclusion.
I think the Catholic Church also said that Mary Magdeline wasn't a prostitute... sometime during the 1960's I think.... So that was about 600 years later..
Maybe they've been working through a REALLY big backlog.... and they're finally catching up?
Anyone who is looking for more background information and analysis on Cardinal Schonborn's contribution to this debate might be interested in the site/blog I run.
Thanks!
Thanks.
And welcome. I hope you'll join in some of the debates here.
Post a Comment