News Is the Pope Embracing the Big Bang Theory?

[jobyts]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/sc_nm/us_pope_bigbang

I'm glad to see the Catholic's change in view from geocentric (as mentioned in the Bible) to more universal. (I believe even John Paul II made a similar statement)

But looking at the picture of the known universe and trying to convince people that humans on Earth are the most supreme creations of God would be a hard thing to do. It was easy with a geocentric picture.

 

[Borek]

For hundreds of years church did the same mistake again and again. When faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they move a step back and start to hold the new position as the final truth. Earth was flat, in the center, 10k years old, there was no evolution and so on. Sometimes I think they never learn.

 

[drankin]

For hundreds of years church did the same mistake again and again. When faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they move a step back and start to hold the new position as the final truth. Earth was flat, in the center, 10k years old, there was no evolution and so on. Sometimes I think they never learn.

To be fair, this holds true to the scientific community as well. I believe you are describing human behaviour more than anything.

Blood letting was a medical practice for centuries, for example.

 

[waht]

They should also change view on atheism.

Last time Benedict traveled to London, he in his speech, totally slandered atheists as the prime source of evil in this world, and he also said that Hitler was an atheist, which he was not.

 

[Evo]

The story says

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident:

God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said on Thursday.

Kudos for what? Proclaiming that the catholic God did it? Telling worshippers that they should reject scientific suggestions that it required no creator?

 

[jobyts]

The story says Kudos for what? Proclaiming that God did it?

For the small step, at least. Implicitly accepting the big bang as a valid theory.

 

[Ittiz]

Originally many physicists didn't like the idea of the big bang because it implied a beginning to the universe, which in turn implied a Creator. At the time they favored a steady state universe where everything just kinda hung around. Of course when you think about it if the universe was steady state there would be almost no energy flow and therefor we probably wouldn't exist.

 

[Evo]

For the small step, at least. Implicitly accepting the big bang as a valid theory.

I agree that in this, Catholics are the most progressive amongst the christian faith. More important, I think, was saying that using condoms to fight disease would be allowed. The church's refusal to allow its followers to use condoms was a serious medical mistake.

 

[turbo]

This is nothing new. Pope Pius XII claimed the Big Bang as evidence of universal creation even before I was born (1951).

 

[Gokul43201]

To be fair, this holds true to the scientific community as well.

The important difference being that while science says (roughly) "this is the best model we have so far for the universe and things within it - and we think it's a pretty good one", the Church says (roughly) "this is the infallible word of God".

 

[russ_watters]

...and only begrudgingly accepts the scientific conclusion long after it is considered well proven in scientific circles. But hey, at least they progressed from Galileo to Einstein pretty quickly.

 

[Borek]

To be fair, this holds true to the scientific community as well.

To some extent only. Scientific community moves forward much, much faster.

 

[Hurkyl]

The important difference being that while science says (roughly) "this is the best model we have so far for the universe and things within it - and we think it's a pretty good one", the Church says (roughly) "this is the infallible word of God".

Science doesn't have a mouth, it can't say anything.

In addition to the more reasonable people, there are those (scientists, even!) that make rather more dogmatic claims in the name of science.

Similarly, there are Christians who are able to keep separate the infallible word of God from the interpretations man makes of it.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

The pope is a hypocrite. This is exactly the reason why people don't believe in Christianity.

Every now and then they come together to make Christianity more acceptable to the general public by changing their interpretations of fundamental teachings . How can someone believe in such a church ?

A while ago homosexuality was condemned by Christendom churches and now they have shifted grounds and are now accepting it.

The Pope does not understand the bible himself. If he did he won't be making stupid comments and embarrassing himself. [URL]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/nfforums/NF%20smilies/hm.png[/URL]

 

[drankin]

To some extent only. Scientific community moves forward much, much faster.

Yep.

As a Christian myself I am amazed that the Pope is considered some kind of authority on Christianity as a religion and somehow speaks for the rest of us. I think he is simply an authority of an organization. But that is another subject altogether.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

...and only begrudgingly accepts the scientific conclusion long after it is considered well proven in scientific circles. But hey, at least they progressed from Galileo to Einstein pretty quickly.

Funny enough Galileo's work didn't conflict with the bible but the TEACHINGS of the Catholic church.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the Church says (roughly) "this is the infallible word of God".

in this case, though, the Catholic church did not say a particular theory is the "infallible word of God."

The Pope does not understand the bible himself. If he did he won't be making stupid comments and embarrassing himself.

That's one of the least informed things I have ever read here. Before becoming Pope, Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of theology at Regensburg (and before that at Bonn). He spent 25 years as a professor of theology.

You might disagree with his views on the Bible, but to say that Ratzinger doesn't understand it is just plain silly.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

That's one of the least informed things I have ever read here. Before becoming Pope, Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of theology at Regensburg (and before that at Bonn). He spent 25 years as a professor of theology.

You might disagree with his views on the Bible, but to say that Ratzinger doesn't understand it is just plain silly.

I guess understanding it would include his inability to interpret it properly and contradicting himself. [URL]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/nfforums/pictureem0.gif[/URL]

 

[drankin]

I guess understanding it would include his inability to interpret it properly and contradicting himself. [PLAIN]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/nfforums/pictureem0.gif[/QUOTE]

I'm sure it makes complete sense to him and is without contradiction to him... and his organization.

Thankfully, Martin Luther existed.

 

[jobyts]

I'm sure it makes complete sense to him and is without contradiction to him... and his organization.

Thankfully, Martin Luther existed.

The contents in the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
)about ML were impressive until I read

In his later years, Luther became strongly antisemitic, writing that Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed.

 

[drankin]

The contents in the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
)about ML were impressive until I read

Yep, he kind of weirded out towards the end. But, he did challenge the Catholic establishment of the day. Without that event, America may have never become a refuge of the sects of Christianity that resulted. In which case, it may have never become it's own country even.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For hundreds of years church did the same mistake again and again. When faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they move a step back and start to hold the new position as the final truth. Earth was flat, in the center, 10k years old, there was no evolution and so on. Sometimes I think they never learn.

So the mistake they make is that when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, they accept it. Yes, that IS outrageous. Even worse, they make a point to state this publically rather than hiding it in the their docrtine. This is clearly much worse than the many religions that flatly reject science, even in principle.

I wasn't aware of the Pope saying anything about this being the final word. Can you provide a source for that one?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the record, I was taught about the Big Bang, as well as evolution, in a Catholic school, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This was only about 20 years after Hoyle so named the Big Bang. At that time, the theory had just gained wide acceptance in the scientific world.

 

[turbo]

For the record, I was taught about the Big Bang, as well as evolution, in a Catholic school, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This was only about 20 years after Hoyle so named the Big Bang. At that time, the theory had just gained wide acceptance in the scientific world.

As I mentioned above, about 60 years ago Pope Pius eagerly embraced the Big Bang theory as evidence of a creation event. In 1951, the church got on board because it supported their belief system. It is no surprise that Benedict has followed suit.

 

[Gokul43201]

in this case, though, the Catholic church did not say a particular theory is the "infallible word of God."

I wasn't speaking about this particular case (I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to do so) but about the general statement that science and religion evolve in an identical manner when it comes to accepting new ideas and discarding old ones.

Science doesn't have a mouth, it can't say anything.

I disagree with that specific statement, but if you said - and I think it's what you intended - that science can't speak about its own behavior, I'd agree. That would lie in the domain of philosophy.

In addition to the more reasonable people, there are those (scientists, even!) that make rather more dogmatic claims in the name of science.

I'm quite sure that's possible. But I think it's not very hard to filter out the more dogmatic positions from the more mainstream ones.

Similarly, there are Christians who are able to keep separate the infallible word of God from the interpretations man makes of it.

However, the Pope - who I was referring to when I mentioned the "Church" - is not fallible in his interpretation of scripture.

 

[Evo]

Yep, he kind of weirded out towards the end. But, he did challenge the Catholic establishment of the day. Without that event, America may have never become a refuge of the sects of Christianity that resulted. In which case, it may have never become it's own country even.

Or without the plague of religious extremists that weren't wanted in Europe because of their extreme beliefs (witchcraft, demons, puritanical views), we might have a better country., eh? It *is* historical fact.

 

[drankin]

Or without the plague of religious extremists that weren't wanted in Europe because of their extreme beliefs (witchcraft, demons, puritanical views), we might have a better country., eh? It *is* historical fact.

My point is, if we ended up with a country at all, it would probably be heavily influenced by Catholic extremism, which included some the extreme beliefs you describes.

As far as a better country without religion at all, just provide some examples of such.

I'm not going to argue that extremism of any sort is good for a country and it's government.

 

[Evo]

As far as a better country without religion at all, just provide some examples of such.

The UK is secular and they're the ones that our settlers ran away from because the settler's form of religion was considered too extreme for England.

 

[drankin]

The UK is secular and they're the ones that our settlers ran away from because the settler's form of religion was considered too extreme for England.

Well, we can be thankful for that then. :)

 

[nismaratwork]

Religion is often a bad joke, in the case of Catholicism the joke is, 'The Aristocrats'. What the pope does or does not do, or say, is a laughable addition to the middle of the joke, which is still fixed and filled with horror.

 

[nismaratwork]

The UK is secular and they're the ones that our settlers ran away from because the settler's form of religion was considered too extreme for England.

Note that it was too extreme for just ONE generation of pilgrims too... the kids were already in *revolt... what a shock. They were some crazy buckle-shod wackados.

*by pilgrim standards

 

[Evo]

Well, we can be thankful for that then. :)

Only if we lived in England and we weren't subject to the whims of the religious fundamentalists in this country.

 

[nismaratwork]

Only if we lived in England.

If things keep going this way, I'll consider it... or maybe France... religion is almost dead there, thank god *tee hee*. Ireland is certainly going discount now, so maybe a move there?

 

[drankin]

Only if we lived in England and we weren't subject to the whims of the religious fundamentalists in this country.

Plenty of extremism in the UK btw. It's just not so much Christian extremism.

 

[nismaratwork]

Plenty of extremism in the UK btw. It's just not so much Christian extremism.

The problem in the UK is still, where you were born, how much money you have, accent... in short, class. I don't think most Americans appreciate that beyond the status games common to our cultures, there is that extra element. I think in the UK, that outweighs any form of religious extremism.

 

[Borek]

So the mistake they make is that when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, they accept it. Yes, that IS outrageous. Even worse, they make a point to state this publically rather than hiding it in the their docrtine. This is clearly much worse than the many religions that flatly reject science, even in principle.

Nice twist of my words, but that's not what I said. Problem is not that they accept the evidence, problem is that the day after they start to reject new evidence.

I wasn't aware of the Pope saying anything about this being the final word. Can you provide a source for that one?

I am not sure what you refer to. You quoted me, but I have not referred to the Papal infallibility - that's the name of the dogma.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

Basically Pope is always right when he speaks about faith and morals. That is - they voted he is always right. I guess creation fits the "faith" category.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Basically Pope is always right when he speaks about faith and morals. That is - they voted he is always right. I guess creation fits the "faith" category.

Almost. He also has to speak "ex cathedra" - i.e. be deliberately intending to make a statement in this category. It was last used about five popes back.

 

[turbo]

Almost. He also has to speak "ex cathedra" - i.e. be deliberately intending to make a statement in this category. It was last used about five popes back.

Thank you. The doctrine is less than 150 years old, and is concerned with papal pronouncements that may or may not have been supported by ecumenical councils. Pious XII's embrace of the Big Bang in 1951 was not of that level of import, but the BB conveniently fit with the Catholic church's view of universal creation.

In other words, Catholics do not have to believe in the BB, but the top Catholic hierarchy has supported that theory for about 60 years.

 

[Jack21222]

This thread reminds me of this comic:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2005#comic

 

[nismaratwork]

This makes me wonder... does a pope NEED kudos? I mean, priests go straight to heaven, right? The pope must be pretty well set without kudos... and there is the point, made in triptych, by Eric Cartman of 'South Park':

"Do I want to do it? Does the pope help pedophiles get away with their crimes?" (Eric Cartman - 'South Park')
"Is that something I'd want to do? Is the Pope Catholic and making the world safe for pedophiles?" (Eric Cartman - 'South Park')
"Does a bear crap in the woods and does the Pope crap on the dreams of 200 deaf boys?" (Eric Cartman - 'South Park')

 

[BobG]

For hundreds of years church did the same mistake again and again. When faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they move a step back and start to hold the new position as the final truth. Earth was flat, in the center, 10k years old, there was no evolution and so on. Sometimes I think they never learn.

Which church? I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never taught the Earth was flat, nor do I believe they ever took the position that there was no evolution (in fact, it took over 100 years for them to take any stand on evolution whatsoever).

 

[nismaratwork]

Which church? I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never taught the Earth was flat, nor do I believe they ever took the position that there was no evolution (in fact, it took over 100 years for them to take any stand on evolution whatsoever).

True, they had a lot of money to make, sheep to fleece, and kids to molest. That's hard work, and takes a LOT of time.

 

[Borek]

Which church? I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church never taught the Earth was flat, nor do I believe they ever took the position that there was no evolution (in fact, it took over 100 years for them to take any stand on evolution whatsoever).

Perhaps it can be attributed to a difference between church as an organization, and church as individual priests. I remember being bashed as a kid by my peers for stating evolution exists, and I remember being told "we were told in church that's not true". Such things can be traumatic when you are 5 yo, hence long memory. (Yes, yes, I know, 5 yo trying to discuss evolution and telling others our ancestors were apes doesn't sound normal. That was always my problem, I don't know how to keep my tongue beneath my teeth.) Since then I have several occasions to talk with catholic priests, many times my words were twisted just to show my approach - call it scientific method - is wrong. Once I was even told I believe in god of equations.

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps it can be attributed to a difference between church as an organization, and church as individual priests. I remember being bashed as a kid by my peers for stating evolution exists, and I remember being told "we were told in church that's not true". Such things can be traumatic when you are 5 yo, hence long memory. (Yes, yes, I know, 5 yo trying to discuss evolution and telling others our ancestors were apes doesn't sound normal. That was always my problem, I don't know how to keep my tongue beneath my teeth.) Since then I have several occasions to talk with catholic priests, many times my words were twisted just to show my approach - call it scientific method - is wrong. Once I was even told I believe in god of equations.

To me, an individual priest should be taken on the basis of the sincerity of their faith, and the things they DO. If they're terrible people, so be it, but I've had a lifelong friendship with several Jesuits (smart smart smart) and there's nothing wrong with Catholic PEOPLE. The Church...

 

[jreelawg]

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg (help·info) July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Louvain. He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.

Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

prelate |ˈprelət|
noun formal or historical
a bishop or other high ecclesiastical dignitary.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

prelate |ˈprelət|
noun formal or historical
a bishop or other high ecclesiastical dignitary.

Now that's interesting... the history of the church, while hard to bear, is fascinating. The works of individuals within the church can be very impressive however.

 

[zomgwtf]

I skimmed through the last page all I could read in this thread was some apologetics for the church and some arguements against the church.

I think that the Pope should stick to reading his bible and let scientists say what's going on in the scientific world, last time I checked his credentials didn't give me the SLIGHTEST clue that he knew or understood anything remotely related to BB.

People are going to come in with the apologetics of but he's got to say something! He leads so many people and influences their beliefs!
Sure he can influence and lead them all he wants, as far as the bible is concerned. He should stay the **** out of everything else including: other religions (I doubt he's well studied in those), politics, science, social sciences, history (if not related to the church) and the list goes on. He should inform and influence his followers to read and learn for themselves. BUT WAIT! They can't do that! People might stop listening altogether and leave the church! Well if you need to string them along with lies and manipulation the entire time the what does that say about your beliefs in the first place?

This in my opinion is the equivalent of those 'Drs.' you see on TV going on about the benefits of some product. Meanwhile they just got a PhD in history or something and have no qualification to be making a comment about something aside by attempting to portray they are well studied in the field.

 

[nismaratwork]

I skimmed through the last page all I could read in this thread was some apologetics for the church and some arguements against the church.

I think that the Pope should stick to reading his bible and let scientists say what's going on in the scientific world, last time I checked his credentials didn't give me the SLIGHTEST clue that he knew or understood anything remotely related to BB.

People are going to come in with the apologetics of but he's got to say something! He leads so many people and influences their beliefs!
Sure he can influence and lead them all he wants, as far as the bible is concerned. He should stay the **** out of everything else including: other religions (I doubt he's well studied in those), politics, science, social sciences, history (if not related to the church) and the list goes on. He should inform and influence his followers to read and learn for themselves. BUT WAIT! They can't do that! People might stop listening altogether and leave the church! Well if you need to string them along with lies and manipulation the entire time the what does that say about your beliefs in the first place?

This in my opinion is the equivalent of those 'Drs.' you see on TV going on about the benefits of some product. Meanwhile they just got a PhD in history or something and have no qualification to be making a comment about something aside by attempting to portray they are well studied in the field.

Well... I'm not going to apologize... if anything you've been extremely generous.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the catholic church, like any big organization, does whatever it needs to do in order to survive. big organizations do not exist for the betterment of their clients.

if god exists, the catholic church has no more understanding of god than anyone else does.

the catholic church changes its mind about a lot of things. if it really had a connection to god, it would not need to change its mind.

the sadness that i see is that there are so many brainwashed catholics, who simply go along with whatever the church says. if the church says something is true, then catholics must believe it is true, or be told they are sinning and arent good catholics, etc.

then when the church changes its mind, the people are also supposed to change their mind. what would have been a sin yesterday, is now a sin today for just the opposite reason.

when i was a kid, catholics were still being taught that only catholics could get to heaven. while pope john changed that in the early 60s, it did not trickle down to the various priests and nuns at the individual churches instantaneously.

i finally wised up, and realized that the catholic church has no connection with god.

 

[chiro]

Its sad that many people look up to authority figures like this. It happens everywhere whether they are priests, scientists, celebrities, talk show hosts: it makes me sick.

It takes a lot of bravery to stand up to this sort of rubbish and its a pity that people are afraid to stand up and question out loudly what they are being told.

The moment that people became convinced that some among us are gods over us mere mortals caused the huge downfall of our civilization.