Vatican Warns Against Fundamentalism

[Notrump]

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/

An interesting call for reason from a ranking official of a church that at one time favored the burning of those who did not accept orthodoxy. I'd be interested in comments from others, especially current or former Catholics. ;)

[cbish]

The next thing you'll know, groups will start branching away from the Catholic Church to form their own version of Christianity.

[headscratcher4]

Pot...black.

[ceo_esq]

An interesting call for reason from a ranking official of a church that at one time favored the burning of those who did not accept orthodoxy.

Yet the Church has expressed basically the same sentiment, more or less consistently, at least since the time of Augustine (whereas Christian fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon). Sounds like old news to me.

As far as anyone can tell, the Church never burned anyone for any reason having to do with science. Why bring up burnings in this context?

[ruach1]

Am I correct when I read that the RC Church said that there is proof for evolution and that its not just a theory? :confused:

[ceo_esq]

Am I correct when I read that the RC Church said that there is proof for evolution and that its not just a theory? :confused:

Proof is too strong a word, but you're not far off. Pope John Paul II put it in these terms:

...[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

[c4ts]

Says the Pope:

"Look out for Fundamentalism, it just might lead you on a Crusade. And that's bad. In other news, ich bin der Papst! Ich zerstöre die Juden! Sieg heil! Sieg heil!"

[Robin]

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/

An interesting call for reason from a ranking official of a church that at one time favored the burning of those who did not accept orthodoxy. I'd be interested in comments from others, especially current or former Catholics. ;)
You would think that the Vatican telling people to reject fundamentalism and listen to scientific reason might be considered a good thing. But somehow it gets turned into a criticism. When the Pope accepts the theory of evolution Dawkins calls it "obscurantist disingenuous doublethink" and calls SJ Gould a flabby coward for welcoming the message.

When the Pope apologises for the persecution of Galileo some idiot like Massimo Pigliucci says "they've finally admitted the world is round".

Short of "there is no God", is there anything the Vatican could say that would be welcomed in the skeptical community?

[Meadmaker]

Former Catholic here.

I see nothing remarkable here. The church has always been open to science.

Even that famous victim, Galileo, wasn't really a victim of some sort of crusade against science. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not imprisoned for publishing his data about the moons of Jupiter. He was imprisoned for publishing discussions about the theological implications of the discovery.

Also, the Catholic church has never been a staunch advocate of biblical literalism. They always said that the truth in scripture was very difficult to discern, and that the interpretation thereof should be left to the professionals. It was the Protestants who started encouraging people to actually read the Bible for themselves.

[Robin]

Even that famous victim, Galileo, wasn't really a victim of some sort of crusade against science. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not imprisoned for publishing his data about the moons of Jupiter. He was imprisoned for publishing discussions about the theological implications of the discovery.
Well let's not go to far, Galileo was imprisoned for defending a banned cosmological theory - so in this case it really was a crusade against science.

However as I have pointed out elsewhere it was an isolated event and very out of character for the Catholic Church to persecute people for science.

Persecuting people for non-standard religious beliefs - well that was another case entirely.

[Kopji]

And yet at the same time they hold training seminars on exorcisms. What does religion or faith have to do with ethics?
Considering the role the Vatican played in WW2...


But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

“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.”


Science has something they want.

[logical muse]

Am I correct when I read that the RC Church said that there is proof for evolution and that its not just a theory? :confused:
There is proof for evolution, and yet it is just a theory.

Actually not just a theory, it's a THEORY!

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because you're one of the many who have been misled regarding the meaning of the word theory in science.

Theory basically means "the best explanation we have for stuff we know about." It doesn't mean "wild unsubstantiated guess based on one dead guy's fancy."

Evolution (the process) is a fact, and evolution (the theory) is our best explanation of it.

Same applies to gravity, btw.

[c4ts]

Scientific theory tends to be supported by fact, and lots of it.

[Lothian]

Short of "there is no God", is there anything the Vatican could say that would be welcomed in the skeptical community?Use condoms.

[Darat]

...snip...

Short of "there is no God", is there anything the Vatican could say that would be welcomed in the skeptical community?

Stop saying that they know the truth.

[HeyLeroy]

There is proof for evolution, and yet it is just a theory.

Actually not just a theory, it's a THEORY!

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because you're one of the many who have been misled regarding the meaning of the word theory in science.

Theory basically means "the best explanation we have for stuff we know about." It doesn't mean "wild unsubstantiated guess based on one dead guy's fancy."

Evolution (the process) is a fact, and evolution (the theory) is our best explanation of it.

Here, here!

Same applies to gravity, btw.

I'm still tending toward Intelligent Falling.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Also, the Catholic church has never been a staunch advocate of biblical literalism.

Quite true. The Catholic Church liked keeping the people illiterate. Which is why it indexed all vernacular translations of the bible.

[logical muse]

Here, here!

I'm still tending toward Intelligent Falling.

Ha! Yeah I'm all for intelligent falling too. Can't wait till they try and introduce that as an alternative to teach both sides of the debate to let the students make up their own minds.

[HeyLeroy]

Ha! Yeah I'm all for intelligent falling too. Can't wait till they try and introduce that as an alternative to teach both sides of the debate to let the students make up their own minds.

I'd bet a dollar (Canadian) that they'd get all indignant and accuse us of trying to sidetrack the debate!

[tdn]

Short of "there is no God", is there anything the Vatican could say that would be welcomed in the skeptical community?
Sure. I'm not nuts about them keeping the exorcism ritual, but kudos to them for insisting on its being the last explanation for odd behavior. They encourage MDs and psychologists to exhaust every other possibility first. Likewise, when they encounter a miracle, they have very stingent quidelines for testing the phenomenon before accepting it as such. While tons of nutters might say an underwear stain is actually th Virgin Mary, the Vatican is quick to point out that it is more likely an underwear stain.

[tdn]

I'd bet a dollar (Canadian)
What would be the point?

[HeyLeroy]

Well, I'm from Canada.

What would be the point?

To put the FUN back in Fundamentalism!

[HeyLeroy]

Sure. I'm not nuts about them keeping the exorcism ritual, but kudos to them for insisting on its being the last explanation for odd behavior. They encourage MDs and psychologists to exhaust every other possibility first. Likewise, when they encounter a miracle, they have very stingent quidelines for testing the phenomenon before accepting it as such. While tons of nutters might say an underwear stain is actually th Virgin Mary, the Vatican is quick to point out that it is more likely an underwear stain.
The difference between mental illness and demonic possession is the same as the difference between frozen water and ice.

[tdn]

The difference between mental illness and demonic possession is the same as the difference between frozen water and ice.
Actually, it's more like the difference between frozen water and some stupid medieval belief in magical evil pixies, but I see your point.

[HeyLeroy]

Can't sleep, clowns'll eat me.

[ceo_esq]

The Catholic Church liked keeping the people illiterate. Which is why it indexed all vernacular translations of the bible.

The Catholic Church did not "like keeping people illiterate". Where did you get that notion?

As far as vernacular translations are concerned, recall that the Church's favorite translation, the Latin Vulgate, was (as its name suggests) a translation into the vernacular at the time of its creation. As newer vernacular languages became well established, and Latin fell into disuse except among scholars and ecclesiastics, the Church produced for official pastoral purposes translations of the Bible in various European vernaculars: Anglo-Saxon, ca. 1000; Anglo-Norman, ca. 1350; French, 13th century; German, early 15th century; Swedish, 15th century; Italian, 1472; Spanish, 1478; Dutch, 1545.

[Melendwyr]

Short of "there is no God", is there anything the Vatican could say that would be welcomed in the skeptical community? "Only doublethink can make it possible to simultaneously accept reasoned, scientific thinking and blind, evidenceless, put-the-conclusion-before-the-argument faith. It's all a bunch of garbage. Y'all go home now."

[Melendwyr]

The Catholic Church did not "like keeping people illiterate". Where did you get that notion? Possibly from the refusal to permit common people to read the Bible, lest they misunderstand it and fall into heresy or mortal sin.

Good Lord, you don't even acknowledge the reality of the Dark Ages, do you?

[Melendwyr]

Oh, and one last thing:

Since there are no known causes of mental illnesses, and no physical way to diagnose them, it's meaningless to ask medical professionals to rule them out before concluding someone is possessed. There's no way to rule out schizophrenia other than to note that the condition in question lacks the defining symptoms of schizophrenia.

[ceo_esq]

Possibly from the refusal to permit common people to read the Bible, lest they misunderstand it and fall into heresy or mortal sin.

You are misinformed. At no time in the history of the Latin Church was there a general prohibition on common people reading the Bible. There have been occasional restrictions imposed (usually locally) in order to combat the proliferation of unapproved vernacular translations (as with the Albigensians and Waldensians). At any rate, there were never any Church policies designed to discourage literacy, and quite a few enterprises to promote it.


Good Lord, you don't even acknowledge the reality of the Dark Ages, do you?

The so-called "Dark Ages" are a pet subject of mine, actually. I daresay there are few, if any, posters here who have devoted as many posts to the topic as I - usually in the context of the early history of science and technology (a hobby) or early legal history (a professional interest). I surmise, however, that our opinions on that period diverge.

[Melendwyr]

You are misinformed. At no time in the history of the Latin Church was there a general prohibition on common people reading the Bible. There have been occasional restrictions imposed (usually locally) in order to combat the proliferation of unapproved vernacular translations (as with the Albigensians and Waldensians). At any rate, there were never any Church policies designed to discourage literacy, and quite a few enterprises to promote it. I believe leaving the Bible in Latin counts.

[Nick Bogaerts]

The Church produced for official pastoral purposes translations of the Bible in various European vernaculars: Anglo-Saxon, ca. 1000; Anglo-Norman, ca. 1350; French, 13th century; German, early 15th century; Swedish, 15th century; Italian, 1472; Spanish, 1478; Dutch, 1545.

The Council of Trent affirmed the Clementine Vulgate as the only authorised version of the Bible.

[Nick Bogaerts]

There have been occasional restrictions imposed (usually locally) in order to combat the proliferation of unapproved vernacular translations (as with the Albigensians and Waldensians). At any rate, there were never any Church policies designed to discourage literacy, and quite a few enterprises to promote it.

Careful! The Cathars used the Vetus Latina.

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE=Robin;1256443]Well let's not go to far, Galileo was imprisoned for defending a banned cosmological theory - so in this case it really was a crusade against science.
QUOTE]

That is, at best, a gross oversimplification of what happened. Galileo's chief crime in the eyes of the Vatican was in saying
1. Heliocentrism is true. and
2. The passages in scripture that contradict heliocentrism are wrong.

It was number 2 that got him into real trouble. Here is one passage I found in a quick google on the topic.

http://www.meta-library.net/ghc-hist/galil-body.html

Cardinal Bellarmine, chiefly responsible for dealing with Galileo for the Vatican until his death in 1621, was not a bigoted cleric either, but an open and thoughtful one, keenly concerned with astronomy. Bellarmine’s approach emerges in passages like this one from a letter to Foscarini:
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great caution in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. <../ghc-hist/galil-ref012.html> <../ghc-hist/galil-ref012.html>

Galileo didn't want to proceed with great caution. At least for a long time, he simply said they were false. That was heresy.

ETA: Compare that with recent pronouncements regarding evolution. The Vatican is now saying that evolution is true. But suppose someone were to come out and say, "Evolution is true. Therefore, the Bible is a bunch of fairy stories." Benedict XVI and friends can't clap someone in irons these days, but that sort of thing could still get you excommunicated if you said it in the right places.

[logical muse]

In 1600, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was "Inquisitioned" due to his heretical belief in an infinite universe, an idea which was anathema to the Church. He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant.

Burned at the stake!

Can you conceive of this?

Galileo Galilei was 36 years old at this time. He had already demonstrated his support for a heliocentric system, so the events surrounding Bruno's trial were of no little concern.

He was friends with Cardinal Barberini, who was elected Pope Urban VIII in 1623. It was this friendship with the Cardinal (later Pope) that gave Galileo the confidence to proceed with the writing of his book Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in 1632. Unfortunately, the Cardinal was under the impression that Galileo would present his thesis as a hypothesis, and not as fact.

As Pope, he was convinced that Galileo had deceived him, and hence Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in 1633. He was threatened with torture and burning at the stake if he did not recant his ideas that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Galileo did recant, and was spared the great wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. At the age of 69, he was however placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. His book was placed on the banned book list.

In case you're wondering, no, I didn't copy that out of wikipedia. And it is a simplification. The longer story would tell how Galileo's book had a character represented as a fool who espoused Pope Urban's argument which was then demonstrated to be false. No wonder the Pope was pissed off.

[Meadmaker]

In 1600, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was "Inquisitioned" due to his heretical belief in an infinite universe, an idea which was anathema to the Church. He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant.

Burned at the stake!

Can you conceive of this?

I can conceive of this. However, it is false.

His book on the belief on an infinite universe and worlds was a book in which he espoused pantheism.

Now I'm not for burning pantheists at the stake. I sometimes call myself a pantheist. However, pantheism isn't Catholicism; Bruno was not teaching Catholic doctrine. And in those days, that could get you in a lot of trouble.

I'm glad those days are over, but Bruno wasn't burned for his scientific beliefs, but for his religious teachings.

Here's a link:

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Essays/Bruno.html

[ceo_esq]

I believe leaving the Bible in Latin counts.
You believe that leaving the Bible in Latin (as opposed to what - removing it from Latin?) counts as a Church policy designed to discourage literacy? Recall that the Church in different places and times produced a number of authorized translations into vernacular languages, several of which I already identified.

When the Vulgate first appeared and for centuries afterward, it was a vernacular translation. Why, in your view, did the Church produce it?


The Council of Trent affirmed the Clementine Vulgate as the only authorised version of the Bible.More accurately, it affirmed the Vulgate as the only authentic version of the Bible. This explains why, ever since then, the only authorized Catholic Bibles besides the Vulgate have been approved translations from the Vulgate (many of which had already been produced). However, according to the online Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm) article on the Council of Trent, "[n]othing was decided in regard to the translation of the Bible in the vernaculars."


Careful! The Cathars used the Vetus Latina.

Yes, and one of the chief ends for which the Cathars used the Vetus Latina (not to be confused with the Vulgate) was the production of unauthorized translations thereof into French and other languages.


That is, at best, a gross oversimplification of what happened. Galileo's chief crime in the eyes of the Vatican was in saying
1. Heliocentrism is true. and
2. The passages in scripture that contradict heliocentrism are wrong.

It was number 2 that got him into real trouble.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=201982#post201982) is an an older post which, I hope, sheds additional light on the central issues underlying the Galileo controversy.


In 1600, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was "Inquisitioned" due to his heretical belief in an infinite universe, an idea which was anathema to the Church. He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant.

Meadmaker has already pointed out the falsity of this claim. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1171353#post1171353) you can find additional research and discussion of Bruno's case. Robin also contributes some cogent observations on the topic in the same thread.

[HeyLeroy]

[QUOTE=Robin;1256443] but that sort of thing could still get you excommunicated if you said it in the right places.


Not exactly true. A friend of mine has been trying to get himself excommunicated from the Catholic church for quite some time, to no avail.

Theology for Tricky Times (http://matthewstamand.com/supplemental/theology.htm)

Bishop's Dance -

A Letter from Xavier Lipshitz to the Vati'con' about Being Pope (http://www.journalofmodernpost.com/amand_lipshitz2.htm)

[ceo_esq]

Not exactly true. A friend of mine has been trying to get himself excommunicated from the Catholic church for quite some time, to no avail.

Theology for Tricky Times (http://matthewstamand.com/supplemental/theology.htm)

Bishop's Dance -

A Letter from Xavier Lipshitz to the Vati'con' about Being Pope (http://www.journalofmodernpost.com/amand_lipshitz2.htm)

Your friend is probably already guilty of heresy, apostasy and/or schism, in which case he has already incurred an automatic excommunication according to the Church. Considering that baptism apparently can't technically be voided, I don't think he can hope for much better than that. I can't think of a reason, apart from vanity, why he would care about getting a formal sentence of excommunication pronounced against him - although I once knew a (lapsed) Catholic who also looked into that possibility.

For a Catholic, though, this fellow doesn't seem to have a very solid grasp of Catholic teaching (e.g., "The Church denounces gambling, yet buoys itself with basement bingo").

[Nick Bogaerts]

Yes, and one of the chief ends for which the Cathars used the Vetus Latina (not to be confused with the Vulgate) was the production of unauthorized translations thereof into French and other languages.

I've only located a single translation by the Cathars, in Occitan, which it would be (number FRBNF35955539 on Gallica). I doubt any French translation exists, though I'm willing to be corrected.

[HeyLeroy]

Granted, but his application for pope is kinda funny, no?

Religious exercise equipment (http://eyeshot.net/cruciflex.html)

[ceo_esq]

I've only located a single translation by the Cathars, in Occitan, which it would be (number FRBNF35955539 on Gallica). I doubt any French translation exists, though I'm willing to be corrected.

This seems right. I must have either been thinking of Waldensian translations, or else unconsciously fixating on the fact that I've only studied Cathar texts in French (but of course those were recent translations). The Cathars themselves used a translation in the regional vernacular.

[Lothian]

Considering that baptism apparently can't technically be voided, I
Perhaps not but the NSSS offers a free certificate for anyone wishing to declare that they renounce the baptism forced upon them. Link (http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/35426dd6941fa1b960869923.pdf)