Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: OMGWTFBBQ -Vatican Cardinal Says We Should Listen to Science
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174489,00.html

Vatican Cardinal Says We Should Listen to Science
Thursday, November 03, 2005

VATICAN CITY — A Vatican (search) 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 bedeviled 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 (search) was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' (search) 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.


--------------------------------

A fatwa on him!

Why do I have a feeling that the only part of this article that will be quoted in this thread is the last line?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:58 pm
Posts: 1148
Location: Green Bay
Here's the second half of the article.

Quote:
"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 (search) 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."

The Vatican project STOQ (search) has organized academic courses and conferences on the relationship between science and religion and is hosting its first international conference on "the infinity in science, philosophy and theology," next week.

_________________
When the last living thing
Has died on account of us,
How poetical it would be
If Earth could say,
In a voice floating up
Perhaps
From the floor
Of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done.
People did not like it here.''


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Cardinal Paul Poupard wrote:
But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

I don't think religion has any place in science at all.
Quote:
"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."

Is this the only explanation for how religion can aid science?

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
vacatetheword wrote:
Cardinal Paul Poupard wrote:
But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

I don't think religion has any place in science at all.
Quote:
"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."

Is this the only explanation for how religion can aid science?


It's the age old "we can.... but should we?" question that always permiates science. Should we test for genetic flaws and abort babies who have them? How about human-animal hybrids? These must be moral decisions and w/o religion, morals get a bit murky.

I agree that religion should not reject any scientific theory on the basis that it conflicts with that religion's guiding principles.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
broken_iris wrote:
....w/o religion, morals get a bit murky.


Argh, I have to disagree with this. I've known tons of people that aren't overtly religious, but still have a great sense of right and wrong.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
High Roller
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:47 pm
Posts: 13660
Location: Long Island
Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
broken_iris wrote:
....w/o religion, morals get a bit murky.


Argh, I have to disagree with this. I've known tons of people that aren't overtly religious, but still have a great sense of right and wrong.


you're talking about me, right?

_________________
2006-7 NFL Champions!

RM Led Zeppelin Tourney Champ


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Clubber wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
broken_iris wrote:
....w/o religion, morals get a bit murky.


Argh, I have to disagree with this. I've known tons of people that aren't overtly religious, but still have a great sense of right and wrong.


you're talking about me, right?


You didn't immediately come to mind, but I can include you in that group if you want. ;)


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Green Rabbit wrote:

Argh, I have to disagree with this. I've known tons of people that aren't overtly religious, but still have a great sense of right and wrong.



Didnt we have a thread about this recently? Anyway, my morals are NOT deteremined by my religion (as my statement may seem to have implied) as I have no religion other than science. But I do believe that "common" morals are grounded in religion, like the laws of ou society.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Jim's Pal
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:49 pm
Posts: 2525
Location: South Philadelphia
Gender: Male
vacatetheword wrote:
Cardinal Paul Poupard wrote:
But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

I don't think religion has any place in science at all.


i agree with you, but i agree that we must take a good look at bioethics. and besides, i doubt a bishop of the catholic church would support bioethics without mentioning his own church.

_________________
Reading 10.01.04 - Philly 10.03.05 - Camden 5.27.06 - Camden 5.28.06 - Camden 6.19.08


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Thu Jan 22, 2026 7:19 pm