Comments on: Praise for the Pope http://www.thoughtcounts.net/2009/01/praise-for-the-pope/ critical analysis and interesting ideas Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:49:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: <img class="identicon" src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=cf61c9e9b047e545593d54bfe9dcb3fa&size=48&default=http://www.thoughtcounts.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-identicon/identicon/bc24cae38a7bb97.png" alt="John Armstrong Identicon Icon" height="48" width="48" /> John Armstrong http://www.thoughtcounts.net/2009/01/praise-for-the-pope/comment-page-1/#comment-1928 John Armstrong Identicon Icon John Armstrong Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:07:32 +0000 http://www.thoughtcounts.net/?p=321#comment-1928 If you actually read the catechism you'll see that by now they take great pains to twist around in such a way to avoid conflict with scientific statements wherever possible. Take, for example, the whole rigamarole about transubstantiation -- the philosophical doctrines of "substances" versus "accidents" -- which allows them to keep the scientific truth that the consecrated wafer is still bread and the (to them) spiritual truth that it's the body of Christ. A violation of Ockham's Razor? Sure. But at the end of the day from a scientist's viewpoint it comes down to this: the Catholic Church believes that the scientific method is a perfectly valid epistemology, and doesn't deny the truth of what science finds. They don't ask to make policy based on denial of science, and they don't ask for their alternative to science to be taught in science classrooms. If you actually read the catechism you’ll see that by now they take great pains to twist around in such a way to avoid conflict with scientific statements wherever possible. Take, for example, the whole rigamarole about transubstantiation — the philosophical doctrines of “substances” versus “accidents” — which allows them to keep the scientific truth that the consecrated wafer is still bread and the (to them) spiritual truth that it’s the body of Christ.

A violation of Ockham’s Razor? Sure. But at the end of the day from a scientist’s viewpoint it comes down to this: the Catholic Church believes that the scientific method is a perfectly valid epistemology, and doesn’t deny the truth of what science finds. They don’t ask to make policy based on denial of science, and they don’t ask for their alternative to science to be taught in science classrooms.

]]> By: <img class="identicon" src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=8572ca0c7489aa87b9e3e0092a9a6b87&size=48&default=http://www.thoughtcounts.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-identicon/identicon/bfccdb62ed3a627.png" alt="Z Identicon Icon" height="48" width="48" /> Z http://www.thoughtcounts.net/2009/01/praise-for-the-pope/comment-page-1/#comment-1911 Z Identicon Icon Z Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:22:51 +0000 http://www.thoughtcounts.net/?p=321#comment-1911 I'm surely not an expert in Catholic doctrine, so I apologize for missing the nuances. I guess those particular examples overstepped a line. I don't understand how the idea that knowledge can be gained from both reason and from faith says that the Bible is not literally true. Wouldn't believing the Bible to be true be gaining knowledge from one's faith? At any rate, Catholics must believe that the Bible is more than a nice parable. Clearly they take Jesus's existence literally. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I don't think you'd argue with the basic point that Catholicism teaches things that are plainly inconsistent with scientific evidence. I’m surely not an expert in Catholic doctrine, so I apologize for missing the nuances. I guess those particular examples overstepped a line. I don’t understand how the idea that knowledge can be gained from both reason and from faith says that the Bible is not literally true. Wouldn’t believing the Bible to be true be gaining knowledge from one’s faith?

At any rate, Catholics must believe that the Bible is more than a nice parable. Clearly they take Jesus’s existence literally. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but I don’t think you’d argue with the basic point that Catholicism teaches things that are plainly inconsistent with scientific evidence.

]]> By: <img class="identicon" src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=cf61c9e9b047e545593d54bfe9dcb3fa&size=48&default=http://www.thoughtcounts.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-identicon/identicon/bc24cae38a7bb97.png" alt="John Armstrong Identicon Icon" height="48" width="48" /> John Armstrong http://www.thoughtcounts.net/2009/01/praise-for-the-pope/comment-page-1/#comment-1910 John Armstrong Identicon Icon John Armstrong Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:04:42 +0000 http://www.thoughtcounts.net/?p=321#comment-1910 Good, but you're still making the mistake I complained about: confounding Catholics and fundamentalists. Benedict continues to follow the official dogma outlines in <i>Fides et Ratio</i> that "faith and reason are different methods of coming to knowledge, and as such cannot directly contradict each other". That is, the scriptural texts about "talking snakes and men surviving for days inside the stomachs of enormous fish"? Metaphors. Just-So Stories. I'm going to say this on its own line because it's an important point that many people <em>still</em> do not get: <strong>THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TAKE THE BIBLE AS BEING LITERALLY TRUE!</strong> Good, but you’re still making the mistake I complained about: confounding Catholics and fundamentalists. Benedict continues to follow the official dogma outlines in Fides et Ratio that “faith and reason are different methods of coming to knowledge, and as such cannot directly contradict each other”.

That is, the scriptural texts about “talking snakes and men surviving for days inside the stomachs of enormous fish”? Metaphors. Just-So Stories. I’m going to say this on its own line because it’s an important point that many people still do not get:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TAKE THE BIBLE AS BEING LITERALLY TRUE!

]]>