Vatican says aliens could exist

[rootX]

Why these guys are even doing all these things?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church has a great interest in science. My guess would be that in the interest of science, and in an effort to officially keep up with what we know, they are taking a public position that the notion of alien life is not contrary to Church doctrine.

Of course the UFO conspiracy theorists have a different interpretation.

 

[russ_watters]

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church has a great interest in science. My guess would be that in the interest of science, and in an effort to officially keep up with what we know, they are taking a public position that the notion of alien life is not contrary to Church doctrine.

That's roughly how I would put it, though I'd be a little more pointed and say that due to the decreasing popularity of religion, they want to remain ahead of the curve, if possible, to avoid embarassment and further loss of revenue. That's the main thrust of their interest in science - making sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end. It took them more than 300 years to accept Galileo and a lot of scientifically minded people will never let them live that one down. I don't have much near-term hope for their position on abortion/contraception, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Abortion and the like gets a little more dicey because it becomes a matter of the definition of life, which can be a matter of faith. And then there is a moral judgement made in addition to the facts. But over the last couple of centuries, I would guess... the church has made a real effort accept scientific theories at face value. Speaking as someone who attended a Catholic school for 8 years, I can say that math and science was a larger part of our curriculum than it was for the public schools. In fact, the primary reason that my parents wanted us to attend a Catholic school was that we would get a better education. It had very little to do with being Catholic. And not everyone in school was Catholic.

We studied evolution without any justification needed.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, and good idea making sure to announce this before the Phoenix returns any results. It would have been pretty awkward having to have this ephiphany after - god forbid - Phoenix digs up some bacteria. It's a good hedge.

 

[waht]

The irony is that currently there is no proof whatsoever of little green men. That's why this is an ill timed move by the Vatican to secure credibility.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Funny, what I see as accepting scientific fact you all see as butt-covering.

Did they modify the Gospel so as to avoid any contradictions? No. Of course not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First rule of thumb: Not all people of faith are uneducated idiots.

 

[g33kski11z]

Second rule of thumb: Don't double .. um, triple post. :rofl:

But seriously, I would have to agree with you said on the Catholic school / better education thing. My Mom did the same for my brother and I {3rd & 4th grades}. Although, once she was divorced, we were kicked out of the church and school. .. Oh well.

I do however feel that they {the church} are just trying to "sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end" as Russ said.

 

[humanino]

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

From wiki (I'm sure most of you know that already, just posting for records, plus it's so funny I never get enough of it)

On February 15, 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today." Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views".

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

 

[mgb_phys]

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary,

If you've ever been involved in university teaching committees - that's quite a fast response to changing knowledge!

 

[BobG]

That's roughly how I would put it, though I'd be a little more pointed and say that due to the decreasing popularity of religion, they want to remain ahead of the curve, if possible, to avoid embarassment and further loss of revenue. That's the main thrust of their interest in science - making sure they don't get bitten in the rear-end. It took them more than 300 years to accept Galileo and a lot of scientifically minded people will never let them live that one down. I don't have much near-term hope for their position on abortion/contraception, though.

And even in the case of Galileo, it wasn't so much that the Church didn't know he was right. They were more worried about the effect that it would have - interestingly, not unlike the Brookings Report wrt ETs.

Actually, the problem for the church was that they didn't know he was right. Without an accurate estimate of how far away the stars were and no measurable parallax shifts in the position of the stars, scientists of the time were divided on whether Galileo was correct. The church's "position" was to definitely not take a position. What if they backed the wrong one?

Galileo's persecution was more because of his intermingling of religion into his attempts to sell his theories. Some felt he was trying to force the church to take a side (his side) in the argument. The Catholic church has always been open to science, but their desire to not "get bitten in the rear end" has always trumped their openess to science. Committing to a theory that's later proved wrong doesn't help the church's credibility.

Galileo's theories weren't completely correct, anyway. He was still affected by the idea of man being the center of the universe. He knew the Earth couldn't be the center of the universe, but he didn't move the center very far. He only moved it as far as the Sun. It took a lot longer for astronomers to realize our solar system was just one of many in our own galaxy, which was just one of many galaxies.

 

[TeTeC]

I don't want to engage in any debate, but there is something that seems unclear to me in this article :

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

Aren't the people who promote creationism also follow what the Vatican says ? Or is it just another branch of the religion which I am not aware of ?

 

[f95toli]

AFAIK most creationists are protestants, not catholics.
I might be wrong but evolution was as far as I remember accepted relatively quickly by the Catholic church; according to them there is no contradiction between evolution and the bible.

 

[TeTeC]

Okay, thank you. ;-)

 

[mgb_phys]

The catholic church has 'generally' been remarkably pro-science over the last couple of centuries, they employed a lot of smart people who knew they would look stupid if they kept denying things that were obviously true.
Galileo, like Bruno before him, got in the middle of some political in-fighting more than being a matyr for science and ironically at the time he was more strongly attacked by protestants who had a much more fundamental approach to scripture.

The vatican has almost started to step backward and become more conservative recently, the statement about Galileo from the current balconey jockey:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism."

 

[Moridin]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part2.html

"Those who assert that 'the Earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the Earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the Earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."

- John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

 

[russ_watters]

Funny, what I see as accepting scientific fact ...

Could you clarify what scientific fact, exactly, they are accepting? I don't see any mention of any scientific facts in the article in the OP.

 

[turbo]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory because it established a scientifically acceptable framework for a creation event, and in his mind, for a creator.

 

[mgb_phys]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory

Well one of their guys did invent it - Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest.

 

[turbo]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

 

[mgb_phys]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

Not a very helpfull attitude for a priest.
GoergeM> "Hey, boss - don't put too much faith in this, there is no real evidence yet."
Pope> "Can I remind you what business we are in ?"

;-)

 

[Holocene]

In the early '50s Pope Pius XII embraced the Big Bang theory because it established a scientifically acceptable framework for a creation event, and in his mind, for a creator.

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

It is very clear that Catholic church has acknowledged the many faults and failings contained within their teachings, but they have not admitted it. Instead, they "endorse" the latest science, and twist whatever they have to in order to make it compatible with a God.

Perhaps they day will come when they admit the virgin birth is a load of crap, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one.

 

[robertm]

Not a very helpfull attitude for a priest.
GoergeM> "Hey, boss - don't put too much faith in this, there is no real evidence yet."
Pope> "Can I remind you what business we are in ?"

;-)

Oh man... PRICELESS :rofl:

 

[mgb_phys]

Oh man... PRICELESS :rofl:

I'm going to hell - I know it!
What would the nuns at school think.

 

[turbo]

I'm going to hell - I know it!
What would the nuns at school think.

I'm not sure. The younger ones kissed me and the older ones whacked me with their heavy maple pointers...

 

[robertm]

I'm not sure. The younger ones kissed me and the older ones whacked me with their heavy maple pointers...

Whoa... all at the same time?? :rofl:

 

[turbo]

Whoa... all at the same time?? :rofl:

No, at different times.

 

[baywax]

Vatican says aliens could exist

Oh, I guess they finally looked in the mirror.

 

[Moridin]

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/

In the beginning — specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon — out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang. The bang was followed by cosmological inflation. God saw that the Big Bang was very big, too big for creatures that could worship him, so He created the earth. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created out of Quarks and other subatomic goodies) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[RocketSurgery]

Actually, George was one of the people who cautioned the pope not to get too committed to the BB because it lacked observational support.

Wow this dude mustve been a master of Irony Theory as well.

 

[RocketSurgery]

What I find so ironic about that, is that the Big Bang theory of the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to the creation story laid out in Genesis

To accept the Big Bang, you're pretty much forced to acknowledge that the universe must be several billions of years old.

You have to accept the fact that the planets, and ultimately life, were not independent and potentially divine aspects of the universe, but instead that our origins are purely cosmic in nature.

Again, this is nothing like what is described in Genesis.

It is very clear that Catholic church has acknowledged the many faults and failings contained within their teachings, but they have not admitted it. Instead, they "endorse" the latest science, and twist whatever they have to in order to make it compatible with a God.

Perhaps they day will come when they admit the virgin birth is a load of crap, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Nah its going to happen soon. They'll say they artificially inseminated Mary with God's sea men.

 

[BobG]

Nah its going to happen soon. They'll say they artificially inseminated Mary with God's sea men.

What!? So she's the woman that started the tradition of picking up sailors. I never knew that.

 

[shamrock5585]

i find religion to be a blanket over the eyes of society... it is based on no logic at all... all our beliefs, traditions, and customs have changed drastically in the past 100 years and we are constantly learning every day... so why does it make sense to follow blindly the beliefs of humans of over 2000 years ago which is based on no logic or science...

religion is good in a sense to ignorant people because some deranged people need guidlines to go by... I, myself see that i am an ethical person because i believe in working for the greater good and advancement of humanity... but ignorant people need the fear of god in them so that they have an ethical view on the world...

But if we want to talk about ignorance in religion we see that if god is our great creator and we all are his great children then why have we been killing each other throughout history in the name of religion... IF ANYTHING RELIGION HAS ONLY SLOWED OUR ADVANCEMENT IN SCIENCE! great philosophers of the past were affraid to express their actual view which may or may not have been correct because fear of the church. we have all these great religious books that different religious groups follow but who wrote them... some dude... not god... what race were adam and eve? if noah had to get two of every animal how did he get a kangaroo and a buffalo? and I've never seen a burning bush talk, but i have seen a crack head have a conversation with a wall before... its all just ignorance based on lack of logic from long ago

religion is a false truth with lack of backup so we rely on "faith" - but faith in what... some other people's beliefs? we need to accept that things that don't have an explanation can be explained, just not at the moment, and as a race we are looking for that TRUTH... Id rather spend my whole life looking for the right answer rather than accepting a false one