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.