Pope warns of 'seductive' science

Originally posted by earthman4
reply to post by jimbo999

 

ok then, many of religions answers are deeply flawed. But at least the participant has an answer and the mind can go on to other questions. I'm not saying that religion is the answer to the world's problems, but it does opiate the masses well.
I like a world full of opiated people rather than a world full of frensied seekers.

Hmmm...but 'opiated masses' is a pretty accurate description of the German public when Hitler came to power. People should get an education, learn to think critically, and contribute to the well-being of eveyone/thing on the planet in their own small way. Armies of human zombies are a dangerous thing in my opinion.

J.

"Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions," he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Pope warns of 'seductive' science

In my opinion, that seems a very seductive statement to make. It invites the belief that Man IS more than that. That the Pope speaks a universal truth, and a universally known fact. There seems not evidence to support that. However, to keep it partial the Pope should have said, "Man SEEMS not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions." Put that way, the statement would have remained confined to the viewpoint of the Pope himself. Instead with the use of the controversy causing "is", the statement creates more controversy, more conflict.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that Man is more than matter and physics, but that is my belief and opinion. I do not speak for anybody else. Notwithstanding the contradictions.

reply to post by jimbo999


My feeling is that religion is a very limited part of the picture, as is science. I could be argued that science evolved out of religion (scientists were then prosecuted, of course), and this to me suggests that a new spirituality might evolve from them both. The problem comes when we refuse to consider all human endeavors as one thread of evolution, and instead try to put them in a hierarchy of importance ("religion should not be considered to be on the same footing as science, etc..."). What science means should be considered at the same time you are asking yourself what religion means. The answer to either one may lie in the other.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by Zanzibar

Originally posted by jimbo999
So - where exactly was this Chritian 'god' while all this was occurring? Simple. He hadn't yet been invented by the small tribe of goat herders in northern Egypt that eventually DID create him.

You would not begin to imagine how many times I've said that and watched the person I'm talking to stop and falter. To be fair, my secondary school RE teacher just told me to leave the room.

Absolutely hilarious in a sick, crushing their spirits kind of way.

Heh. Yes, perhaps. But I KNOW I'd rather know the truth myself. If I was trapped in a Moonie camp, brainwashed and helpless - I'd be VERY thankful if someone 'kidnapped' me, took me to a dingy motel room somewhere in the middle of nowhere - and de-programmed me I'd be forever thankful personally..... But maybe I'm just a bit odd that way...

J.

reply to post by Silenceisall


Interesting thought. And yes - there is some proof that 'religion' emenated from early scientific investigation - or 'Philosophy' , to use the ancient Greek term for what we today call 'religion'. But the Greeks had a very different, more open minded concept of 'religion' than most have today. The Greeks accepted all gods as simply local manifestations of their own deities... But then - they were pretty clever folk

J.

Hmmm.

Lets not forget that the Vatican also announced Harry Potter was evil as well.

Originally posted by Smugallo
Hmmm.

Lets not forget that the Vatican also announced Harry Potter was evil as well.

Well, he IS evil ain't he???

J.

reply to post by Silenceisall

There are some boundries that (mad) scientists shouldn't cross when they don't know the consequences. Such as trying to create a black hole or stargate or some other anomoly. I wonder how many other curious worlds have ultimately destroyed their worlds in this way.

But scientific research used to extend and correct genetic problems doesn't really seem to be as harmful.

If science was to eventually prove life after death and stumble into immortality, the church would probably protest saying this is gods realm.
President Bush's attitude against cloning etc. almost seems like a lie or coverup.I suspect they don't want us to know they already can do this for their elite.

Much of what some might refer to as Christs abilites to manipulate DNA and to heal people would also seem anti-christ science and pushes the christ figure out of the spotlight, or suggests fraud in the first place.

Maybe the real problem is that all thought systems can be used by individuals to acquire power. Once the power has been amassed, a structure forms around the source of the power to protect it and disseminate its message to acquire still more power, a bit like a bee hive.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by Silenceisall]

Science is good. Sciene has helped us "evolve" but I won't be entirely surprised if it backlashes(?) on us. The same thing goes with technology.

We, as human beings, depend on it way too much. So in a way, being all "evolved" might not be that good of an idea.

reply to post by xDove007


Dependence on technology is a big theme of mine. I've thought about it a lot, but I still do not know what to make of it. Clearly technology has given us more space to be "lazy" and contemplate the universe, practice art for art's sake, instead of having to spend all our time hunting and gathering or farming. Strangely though, in more recent times, technology seems to be consuming our time. When paired with capitalism, we are being encouraged to buy technology time savers (like cell phones, etc...), but we never seem to have that much more time. Maybe because we are being convinced we need more technology time savers that themselves consume our time.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Silenceisall]

At the end of the day, Religion is Social Control

It was devised as a means of keeping a semblance of law and order at a time when there was very little means of enforcing it - so religions were invented to control the populace and to maintain the status quo.

There are many examples of this throughout history.

However, I would also point out that some people desire control, and turned to religion for the role it would play in giving them order in their life, not to mention hope.

As we have seen the rise of a more secular society, we have also seen the rise of spirituality which is gradually replacing organised religion in western countries, along wth a belief in the infallibility of science.

Sometimes, it seems to me that we are just replacing one flawed ideal with another.

reply to post by budski


Budski: I think social control is only part of the story of religion. Scientists and atheists like to point to religion as a means of control to explain its existence, while saying nothing about other possible reasons for its existence, such as the spiritual side of man. There is some good in religions still. As they begin to shed their social influence, that basic core of spirituality may be revealed again.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by Silenceisall


Which is why I made the point about spirituality rising as secular (organised religious) society breaks down.

reply to post by budski


I definately see a rise in spiritual awareness, and things do seem to be breaking down.

I think genetic altering is perfectly fine, It will help us learn about who we are. It could save lives. I think religion hurts us more than science does...At least science brings us things like the computers we use, the cars we drive and the planes we climb aboard to visit other areas of this planet. I don't think religion could have taught us any of that. Science makes you think, it makes u question things. Religion doesn't make u think rather makes you accept whatever they say is truth. I think the pope knows religion is going down hill and is trying to save it. Religion will fall soon, and so will its brainwashing.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by RandomThought]

reply to post by RandomThought


I could also be argued that pure science is not soley responsible for bringing you the computer, and a lot of other goodies. Human imagination, which I believe is linked to our spiritual side, has played a major role in it as well.

reply to post by mr-lizard


I think you have to be careful about making statements that people, even the pope, should stay out of what is not his business. If you believe in freedom, then everyone has the right to express his or her opinion. You certainly can disagree with that opinion, but to silence someone, is certainly not desirable in a free society.
Remember that the Nazis wanted to create the "master race" and used "scientists" to support their opinion.
Yes, it is possible for science to be misused. Anyone can call something science, but eugenics is bad and immoral science.

until the average IQ of humans is 50

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Maybe the real problem is that all thought systems can be used by individuals to acquire power. Once the power has been amassed, a structure forms around the source of the power to protect it and disseminate its message to acquire still more power, a bit like a bee hive.

Sure, I have no problems with that premise. Without science however, we would not be communicating right now (no computers), we'd probably be in a darkened room unable to read (electricity), we probably actually would not even be here (infant mortality was massive before medical science overcame it). But what exactly has religion done for us in the last 2000 years?

J.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by Silenceisall]