Slashdot Mirror
Pope Cancels Speech After Scientists Protest
Reservoir Hill writes "Pope Benedict XVI canceled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza university in the face of protests led by scientists opposed to a high-profile visit to a secular setting by the head of the Catholic Church. Sixty-seven professors and researchers of the university's physics department joined in the call for the pope to stay away protesting the planned visit recalled a 1990 speech in which the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, seemed to justify the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633. In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was 'rational and just' and concluded with the remark: 'The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason.' The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini who wrote the rector complaining of an 'incredible violation" of the university's autonomy. Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.'"
OK, I think the previous comments were off-the-hook, and indicated just how conservative this new pope is when compared with the previous. That said, I'm not sure what the physicist in question was trying to accomplish.
Did he want the Pope to visit? Why complain when he cancels? He pretty much admits that any move the Pope made would have been viewed as some sort of ploy or insult. And he complains about the Pope not wanting a dialog? And what dialog? Why does the Pope need a dialog with this University?!
because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way.
the following two actions are SOOO the same
1) Tell someone they're not welcome because they're asinine bigoted ideas
2) Pass laws against someone, condemn them to hell,etc because they don't live by your rules and therefore are second class citizens
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
In a local article about this, I read that a former Pope FOUNDED the school, which I find quite ironic.
he is the catholic pope. the 17 century would be an improvement. Pope John Paul at least publicly forgave Galileo though. Benndict seems to be on a mission from god to undo everything that Pope John paul did.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
This is Ratzinger we're talking about here. He's not even a figure of universal acceptance in love *within* the Church, let alone outside it. He's considered a stiff, uncompromising, ultra-conservative with all the delusions of his predecessor but none of the charm.
No, it's a statement by Galileo's intellectual heirs that the Church committed a crime, and that the current Pope is one of those group of modern Catholic apologists who are trying to make the Church look good.
Indeed, I don't think a guy who claims to get his instructions from God has any business showing up at a university.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, I understand the counter-argument that science can explain the origin of those feelings, but cannot explain "how it feels" or "what it means to feel that." The usual argument is that those questions are then the domain of spirituality or religion. However it should be noted that the existence of "meaning" beyond what can be measured and/or predicted is itself debated. See, for example, the philosophical disagreements about qualia. It only makes sense to study spirituality based on spiritual methods just like we study science scientifically. It's worth noting that some people (e.g. Sam Harris) are actually calling for spirituality to be studied scientifically, in order to learn more about the human condition and in order to rationally work towards human happiness.
I don't claim to have all the answers here... I'm merely pointing out that it isn't a foregone conclusion that there is "something" (spirituality, etc.) that is actually beyond the realm of science. (Note that I do of course agree that science cannot decide things like ethics. Personal choices will always remain separate, but there again ethics doesn't require spirituality/religion/explanation.)
To say that religious discussion at a University is unwelcome because scientific lectures are not welcome in church services is displaying both ignorance of the functions of both venues and intolerance.
Our local Uni regularly has theological discussions open to the public. It drives our local token athiest nuts, but at least people get to hear the ideas and judge for themselves.
So, taking the article you link to at face value -
Galileo Myth:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, monolithic church for disagreeing with religious dogma.
Galileo Reality:
Galileo persecuted by a powerful, conflicted church for disagreeing with religious dogma when his political enemies raised enough of a stink.
I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to get the Church off the hook. Plus, Goldberg's attempt to minimize house arrest by saying "which is where he did all of his research anyway" is absurd.
As for the pope's comments, he essentially says that persecuting Galileo was justified because materialism is evil. Also, it seems to agree with someone that links Galileo to the atomic bomb, presumably on some form of "secularism/materialism is evil" theme. Ratzinger has always (incoherently) argued that reason based on faith is somehow a higher form of reason; the basis generally being something like the problem of induction. I still don't know how he fails to realize that religious faith - and especially Christian faith - doesn't solve this at all but simply adds a few more assumptions to the pile.
I don't see that much of a problem with the Pope's visit, but given the Pope's seeming support for arresting someone for disagreement on a scientific or philosophical point, their motivation is somewhat reasonable.
Do we even know what the Pope's speech was going to be about? Who said it was going to have anything to do with either a) faith or b) science?
1)He could have just wanted to talk about being a good scholar.
2)He could have just wanted to assure people that he wouldn't interfere with science...people are allowed to change, he made that comment in the early 1990's, and honestly-weren't some of us wearing ponytails and huge flannel shirts around our waists back then? Also: didn't he recently give a "official pope statement" that tried to re-affirm the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution...mainly, that it accepts it as true?
3)He could have just given a very general, non political or religious speech, like one we see at university commencements.
It seems to me that the university, particularly this one professor, is the one starting the fire. I don't think that "the pope is being intelligent by cancelling", I think the professor is attempting to be manipulative of public opinion by making that statement, and the pope probably just didn't want a rock or whistle thrown in the direction of his pope-mobile. I mean, that thing costs money.
I'm not religious, I don't go to church every week, and I believe strongly in science. I'm actually really dissapointed with the way in which this Italian professor acted. It doesn't further the goals of science or faith-which are distinct. One deals with facts (science), and the other, belief.
I think Ratzinger wasn't even making a hard point in his speech in the 1990s. He is very much a scholar- his mind wanders this way and that, considering many options. There is no hard conclusion to his speech, which is a mistake on his part-it lets other people interpret it as they wish. Like said professor. In Ratzinger's comment on the citation he made in his speech that this professor seems to take issue with, "it makes his conclusion all the more drastic" , my translation of drastic was "irrational". I don't think that Ratzinger thinks Galileo "caused the atomic bomb". I think he thinks quite the opposite.
Ok, done.
The Pope doesn't particularly talk about the actual mechanics of science as much as the philosophy that it is connected to. And a lot of scientists simply "do" science without ever thinking about the philosophy which comes first: is science the ONLY way to attain knowledge?
Oh, and the Pope (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has written hundreds if not thousands of pages on that topic.
Define "ultraconservative". JPII was as liberal as a Catholic could be without being a heretic. Ratzinger was considered a liberal in his day as well.
If by "ultraconservative", you mean he took the line that EVERY pope in history took that Catholic dogma cannot change, maybe you're right.
I don't expect you to subscribe to Catholic beliefs, but this idea the the church should "change with the times" is silly, at best.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
This is extremely misunderstood. Gallileo was told not to teach his theories as fact until they could be proven, and to not contradict the church in theological matters, not matters of science.
One also forgets that the Church was Gallileo's employer (he taught at a Catholic university.)
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith. Defiling Galileo is not a "matter of faith".
Your statement strikes me as quite silly. I don't believe that any member of any religion believes everything that religion teaches 100% and without question. In fact, if someone did hold this view that their religion was perfect, I'd argue that he still had some way to go on his religious journey.
Obviously, you've got to make up your own mind to some extent. In Catholicism, that process is called discernment.
You have part of it.
What problem does religion (and belief in general) solve?
Bonus: Can you formulate an answer that does not make you inherently superior to religions people? See this as a challenge befitting your superior intellect. (Then once seen, unsee.)
I can't... I've just used my brain, seen that comparing religion to science rationally makes science stand out as the superior tool, and feel pity and contempt for the myriads of people who live their whole lives believing those delusions and living in accordance to them.
It is an waste of effort of apocalyptic proportions and infinite stupidity; I can't see it any other way. Even if I try to imagine "all the good religions have done", I view it as an oasis in the midst of the pile of all corpses, all the witches and the dead in the religious wars... Religions are only peaceful when the people are. If they need a reason for war, they'll listen to the priest telling them to go die for God.
All those conditions, environmental switches, species-specific behaviors, is a sort of social game that us primates play unconsciously and collectively.
Million of years of evolution can't be changed, but, just suppress the environmental conditions that flip the behavioral switch to "war mode", and the dire consequences of religions will all be avoided : they won't be the xenophobic meme that mediates the dehumanization of the people's perception of their neighbours, if the conditions in which xenophobic memes thrive (impending lack of resources) just never happens anymore.
See? No flames
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
He didn't want the pope to cancel, he wanted the school to rescind the offer. Now the school does not have to face the protesters' challenges.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
With that in mind, I personally have no sympathy for the "but it makes them happy" argument. There is much more at stake here than the happiness of a bunch of hoi polloi... especially when that (delusional) happiness can be more than replaced with (rational) wonder at the mystery and beauty of the natural world.
The two need each other no more than a fish needs a bicycle (to quote u2 quoting irina dunn quoting a philosopher). Religion with or without rationality veers towards superstitions & sorcery. A all-knowing being in the clouds, or virgin birth, or a nine-armed elephant god have *absolutely* no more superstitious sorcery than leprechauns, unicorns, evil wizards and the flying spaghetti monster. I actually have a very hard time even imagining what you mean by religion with rationality, as most religions involve, if not focus highly on, the supernatural (defying rationality almost by definition). Morality without rationality makes a bit more sense as a notion at least, but trying to equate morality=religion is a jump I simply don't accept.
Science without religion, is still just science. It is a process for rationally understanding the natural, and has no requirement, need, nor even desire for religion (or frankly even morals). I fail to see any reason that science should be guided by religion. Morality ought to guide people in everything they do, but that is unrelated to either religion or science. Trying to join together something used for understanding the natural world and something intimately related to the supernatural is bound for failure.
Also, regarding the You see, the vast majority of catholics in the world are poor, uneducated people for whom religion is a refuge from the usually harsh reality of existence.
It is a pretty well established fact that as a country becomes more industrialized, wealthier & more educated, the religiosity of its citizens decreases (the US is a huge outlier in this trend). So while the gp's statement is probably a bit strong to be totally accurate, there is a verifiable basis for it.I'm going to have to ask you to prove that one to me
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
I don't know, what is inherent within their faith that makes them a threat to you or society? And please stick to the faith, not some interpreted interpretation of some historic event. I mean what is inherently threatening about about Gods word that you need to stop people from following it?
That's probably because "beliefs" don't take up much time in the day of a rational, sane scientist. Either you know something (and can "prove" it) or you don't. Everything in between is called the scientific method (and that includes mathematical reasoning from principles, such as Einsteins relativity theorems).
Making up (or "believing", or getting handed down from ancient texts) some absurd, senseless claims about the world being under effect from an unseen being who "created" a universe larger than human conception to play a sick version of SimCity with us to justify a predefined ending in which billions of people get sadistic torture in hell "for ever" because they "believe" otherwise, is just stupid. It's not just about coherence - it's way beyond that. It's comical. The whole idea of "belief" itself defies reason. And when it involves gods with the minds of six-year-olds, it really does not make sense for educated, mature people to listen to anyone trying to speak with these "beliefs" as a platform. We have better things to do, frankly. Like playing beach volleyball, and reading slashdot, and doing science. Anything that doesn't involve drama and bizarre scenarios with unseen beings and fucked up philosophy.
Plus, most deep thinkers, esp. physicists, do have a coherent view of the world, or at least SEEK, through science, a coherent view. Science aims to remove mystery. Religion thrives on mystery. The two don't mix.
Some questions are simply wrong. Asking "why" presupposes a reason and in a lot of cases there isn't one (on the level people are looking for - people still don't seem to accept the possibility that humanity's whole existence did not serve a higher purpose).
Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The point is that the world does not need religion, it is evil and serves no purpose but to perpetuate its self and get in the way of rational, proper thinking.
However much you or anyone else think you believe in some sort of god doesn't change the fact that there is no god and that you have simply been deluded either by yourself or by your parents or elders into believing that nonsense. Imagine a family of dole bludging crack addicts, assuming any children survived they would be convinced that leeching of the state and undertaking petty crime to pay for their crack is perfectly normal behaviour and something to be applauded. The fact is no matter how much they might believe in that it still doesn't make it right and society has a duty to get involved when things go wrong like this and put an end to the problem.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter that most peoples actual belief is more or less half hearted and innocuous in order to target the real criminals, priests, nuns, monks and evangalists etc they must be brought to understand that supporting religious activity is no longer an acceptable behaviour. Without their 'flock' the real work can begin; taking down the organisation and infrastructure of relgion. There is no real need to imprison any but the most hardline extremists ( who will undoubtedly turn to terrorism to maintain a grasp on their power ) it will be enough to make sure that no religious nonsense can ever be taught to children and no religious organisation can be allowed to operate, eventually with a lack of support and aggressive teaching about the fallacy of religion it will wither and die a natural, but long overdue death.
Man, just because you were born in a world where practically anyone claiming to have a science degree is considered infallible by the media doesn't make Galileo's imprisonment unforgivable.
...and so on...
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Man, just because you were born in a world where practically anyone can claim freedom from slavery doesn't make slavery unforgivable.
Man, just because you live in a world where rape and murder are illegal, doesn't make rape and murder unforgivable.
See I can justify any action with handwaving.
He wasn't imprisoned because of his scientific findings, but because of his behavior that implied an unacceptably belligerent stance against his intellectual opponents. He not only insulted his scholarly peers, but also certain religious authorities (e.g. the pope) who were the very people trying to defend him.
In some ways that is much WORSE. It means the very people who claim to be the protectors of mankind from all things evil were quite happy to trash scientific truth just to put down anyone that would question their authority.
I also hear this argument a lot and it simply doesn't hold true. You do realize that Copernicus held off publishing his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until he was old and close to dying for fear of retribution from the church? He didn't go around insulting the pope now did he? His works were still banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
First of all, I doubt that the pope at the time ever threatened to order bodily harm against Galileo, but you're welcome to enlighten me on that point.
You DOUBT? You mean I'm having this argument with someone who doesn't even KNOW the history, but is happy to rabbit on about things he knows nothing about? If you're actually interested in what really happened I can recommend a couple of good books I studied as part of my History of Astronomy subject when I did my Astronomy Masters. Never mind...I'm wasting my breath, aren't I? You're prepared to repeat whatever you've heard without examining it at all.
I didn't say the pope threatened Galileo with anything. I said the current pope condoned the actions of the inquisition that did threaten. Go look up a biography some time.
Now, I wonder whether it's even worth while arguing about excommunication with you, given that apparently you do not accept it as anything other than a cruel expulsion.
Again you show your ignorance. It's more than just a "cruel expulsion". A man who is excommunicated became a pariah, often had his belongings stripped from him, and was threatened with the fires of hell for eternity. This was no mere slap on the wrist.
I wonder if you could at least accept that the a person whose actual beliefs do not jive with his professed belief system would be foolish to remain within that system, or that said belief-system would be quite self-destructive if it allowed dissenting members to continue on acting as members.
Ahhh so it's a form of control. A man's life, livelihood, and beliefs mean nothing because he dared to make fun of the holy church. This is no defence. You clearly have no conception whatsoever of what excommunication meant in the 1600s!
Yet we haven't addressed the central issue: was the former Cardinal defending the debilitating life-long house arrest of Galileo, or was he merely saying that the trial itself was a rational response (if harsh for our standards) against one accused of heresy under the authority of the Church, and that it wasn't an attack on Science at all?
The pope was condoning torture, forcing a person to recant deeply held beliefs, interference of the church with scientific freedom and publication.
But yes strictly speaking you're right. If you're running an evil and descructive totalitarian organisation it is rational to cond
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Contraception policies of the catholic church (instigated by JP II) are killing people today.
But there are people still defending these bozos. Amazing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do you 'believe' in cause & effect? it can never be proven. What about the basic postulates that ALL of mathematics are based upon... which have yet to ever be proven? Both are just things believed to be true.
The axioms in mathematics that you refer to are assumptions. No one "believes" them in any real sense - they're chosen because they are useful in some way.
And I'm not sure that scientists particularly believe in cause and effect, beyond that which is empirically tested and proven (and quantum mechanics shows that some things don't have a cause).
The OP didn't say that scientists don't have any beliefs, just that their beliefs are nothing more than those than can be proven, and everything else is the scientific method.
It's a common tactic to claim that the non-religious also hold beliefs without evidence, but I've yet to see it, and your two suggestions are not examples of this.
When scientists themselves can hold mutually exclusive theories about something, it holds to reason that science isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be
Examples? If there are mutually exclusive theories, then that's great - it means we can test it, and find out which is correct. It's not a matter of "belief" - it's not something to fight wars over, or condemn the other point of view as immoral, for example.
If any of you have children, perhaps you can relate to an example. You tell small children not to touch sharp knives. You might tell teenagers who are making dinner to be careful with small knives. You make no mention of being careful with knives to your spouse, because s/he knows that already. Does that make you somehow illogical or fallible or whatever to suggest one rule to your 2 year old, one rule to your 18 year old, and not mention any rules at all to your spouse? Of course not - you are giving circumstance-specific rules.
This is easy to understand - God's unchanging nature is irrelevant to the circumstance-specific rules He may choose to give to someone.
If you think I'm wrong, explain to me why God cannot give circumstance-specific rules if He so desires.