I generally don’t talk too much about religion, unless I’m handing creationists their head as they so richly deserve. But sometimes an official religious figure says something so dumb and so ironic that I have to speak up.
I have always felt that of all the religions in the world, Catholicism is one of the ones that is more supportive of science (barring that whole 400 years to pardon Galileo thing). However, that is rapidly changing. If you’re Catholic, and you think the Pope is infallible, then you may want to stop reading this now. I’d prefer that you don’t, though, since really that’s the whole point of what I’m writing.
Pope Benedict (neé Ratzinger), who has single-handedly reversed many a stance of the previous infallible Pope, has decided that science is too arrogant. Basically, it seems to me that he’s a little ticked that so much science (that is, reality) tends to conflict with dogma. This has prompted him to compare scientists with Icarus, the tragic Greek figure whose curiosity led him to build wings so he could fly. But he made his wings from wax, and when he got too close to the Sun they melted, and he fell to his death.
I infer this from a recent statement he made:
“Letting yourself be seduced by discovery without paying attention to the criteria of a deeper vision could lead to the drama the [Icarus] myth speaks of,” he told the Pontifical Lateranense University at the inauguration of a new academic year.
What he is really saying is that scientists should be mindful of god. We should not poke our nose into places where we might be on touchy ethical ground, like when life begins, or what happens after you die, or, I suppose, whether Intelligent Design is garbage or not. We might find out the truth!
Heaven forbid.
But it’s funny, actually. I’ve known the Icarus myth my whole life, and I’ve always thought Icarus the fool, as the Pope so clearly does. But my reasons are vastly different: Icarus didn’t test his wings first. He had so much arrogance, so much faith that he was right, that he didn’t bother to apply any sound scientific or engineering principles to his work.
Icarus died because he was blind to reality, blind to his own weakness, and blinded by the idea that he was right, no matter what. He wasn’t infallible. So he fell.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Not that it takes anything away from the substance of the post, but Catholics don’t claim Papal infallibility to apply to everything the Pope says. Wikipedia, or other sources, can be consulted for details, but the bottom line is that the Pope only speaks “infallibly” in rare, and generally very explicit, circumstances.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Oh, I’m glad they have a nut spokesmen again. It takes a lot of effort to blind yourself from all the evidence and facts that contradicts your world view. Razinger does it extremely well. Or he’s a great at faking it.
I don’t think your avarage catholic actually accepts everything the current pope says. Hey, most of the catholics that I know rarely pay attention to what he has to say.
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Hey, in all fairness, Icarus made it all the way to the sun. His design just needed some tweaking.
I can’t stand it when mythological characters get a bad rap like this!
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
You’re really singling people out unfairly.
Why should being addicted to cats be such a bad thing? Justice for cat-holics.
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
One, as JC already pointed out, the pope only speaks infallibly on rare occasions. Generally they concern very specific matters of faith. For example, the Catholic Church’s stance against artificial birth control like condoms and BC pills is not something that’s spoken from the position of infalliblity. This would be another one of those things that isn’t spoken from the position of infallibility.
Two, as I recall the Icarus myth, he didn’t make the wings. His father Daedalus did. The wings weren’t badly designed, Daedalus’ functioned just fine. The problem was that Icarus forgot his father’s warning about flying too high high being a bad thing. It wasn’t that the wings weren’t tested, it was that they had a known design flaw that limited the region they could operate in and Icarus attempted to leave the safe region. Do you blame the designers when someone takes a submarine too deep, a plane too high, or tries to use a car underwater? No, you blame the operator.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Maledict is sort of doing the rest of us a favor. No, really- I mean that.
I grew up Catholic, and even after I moved away from deism I somehow managed to maintain a skewed conviction that Catholicism was one of the more ‘rational’ religions- this despite the fact that I had realized that religion itself is irrational and that Catholicism’s effects (encouraging uncontrolled population growth, etc.) appalling. Pope John Paul II did a very good job of portraying and reinforcing that veneer of rationality- which is only a couple of atoms thick and a complete lie.
Having an irrational, political, grasping Pope take the reins reemphasizes all the awful things about the Catholic church, and reminds all the marginally rational people out there how that whole imperial structure actually works. That’s a very good thing.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:55 am
icarus would have found that the higher you fly, the colder it gets, not hotter.
apply a little science to religion and the whole damn thing falls apart. (not just the wings)
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:27 am
Bad Astronomer: This has prompted him to compare scientists with Icarus, the tragic Greek figure whose curiosity led him to build wings so he could fly. But he made his wings from wax, and when he got too close to the Sun they melted, and he fell to his death.
Slightly off-topic: Actually Icarus and his father Daedalus, the architect of the Minoan labyrinth, were imprisoned by King Minos who didn’t want anyone who knew the labyrinth to go free. Daedalus, a resourceful inventor, built two pair of wings–one pair for himself and one pair for Icarus. They escaped using the wings, but before that Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too close to the sun. Icarus forgot his father’s advice as he became too curious.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 am
Icarus’ story is just a tale, a myth if you will, not religion! Whoever reading this thinks scientists are not arrogant, please try getting a few ramdomly choosen physicists, say four or five, to agree on anything!
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:39 am
Is he really saying be mindfull of God? To me that comment seems to mean only “be carefull”. I.e. When discovering nuclear nuclear fission be carefull somebody doesn’t go and make bombs. It seems fine to me.
About Icarus, I love that myth. It’s one thing that got me interested in science when I was small. Flying!
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 am
As others have already mentioned the Icarus myth isn’t about flawed design, and it’s not really about curiousity. I’ve always thought it was about respecting rules and trusting your elders (with a heavy dose of “don’t kit your children out in things that will kill them if they do what children do”).
The other quote in that article goes “… thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness” which is interesting. Ignoring the slant the pope intended here I’m forced to wonder if all science should safeguard mankind, have we not made great discoveries in pursuit of science that directly endangers mankind. I don’t really know.
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:38 am
“Icarus died because he was blind to reality, blind to his own weakness, and blinded by the idea that he was right, no matter what. He wasn’t infallible. So he fell. ”
Daniel H has the myth right and in every version I’ve heard, he got caught up in the feeling of flying and just… kept going up.
As for an argument that could maybe have been used? “Icarus, having been taught to fly by his father Daedalus, was destroyed by his rashness. I fear that the same fate may overtake the populations whom modern men of science have taught to fly.” Bertrand Russell – 1924 (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Icarus.html#firstnote)
Not appropriate as his belief in god and religion are well known, but still.
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 am
[...] “Pope of Wax“, no Bad Astronomy. O que se vai dizendo em blogs mais ligados a Astronomia, dos dislates que Ratzinger vai averbando semanalmente. [...]
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 am
So true. I never liked the other pope even though most medias and people would prefer have me think of him as mr. awesome, but it seems I dislike the new one even more…
I’m not much for religious leaders as a whole but since he’s the one we hear the most about, he needs to have his own ideas thought over. They are prehistoric.
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 am
I was going to make the “ex cathedra” clarification, but I see other people have already pointed that out. If the pope wakes up and thinks it’s Wednesday when it’s actually Tuesday, Catholics are not required to believe that it is Wednesday. This is an unfortunate and somewhat bigoted misconception of Catholicism.
I haven’t clicked through to the pope’s broader comments, but I’m not reading the excerpted statement as a warning that science has become too arrogant, specifically where it comes into conflict with dogma. Seems to me that it’s a warning against pursuing science without any thought to the consequences. How many members of the Manhattan Project expressed remorse at seeing the application of the atomic bomb? And how many scientists had no qualms about diving right into the development of the bigger and better hydrogen bomb? Certainly, seeing fission and fusion taking place on a large scale as a result of careful and deliberate design is a remarkable thing. But it has also led to A.Q. Khan selling nuclear technology to anyone with enough cash, Kim Jong Il’s nuclear threats, and the loss of (at least) hundreds of billions of dollars of resources that were poured into the Cold War. Getting the wings your daddy made for you melted by the heat of a big ball of fusing hydrogen (which he warned you about, dammit, weren’t you listening?) is an imperfect but fairly apt analogy in the case of nuclear weapons.
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:48 am
“Letting yourself be seduced by discovery without paying attention to the criteria of a deeper vision….”
Deeper vision?
So, what deeper vision should we seek in the discoveries that are made on Mars? What deeper vision is there of the discoveries of the Galileo probe (aside from going deeper into Jupiter)?
Is there a deeper vision with the discoveries made by Cassini?
And what about the discoveries made by those that have worked on the ISS, Mir, Spacelab, Apollo, ect? What deeper visions are we supposed to pay attention to?
What’s amazing (and contridictory to the vision of futurists) is how much science has taken a beating in the 21rst century. If it gets any worse, say hello to the Dark Ages again.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:00 am
Actually Icarus fell because he failed to follow his father’s (scientific) advice on how to use them properly. Kullat is right to point out that Icarus was not the scientist, his father was (I know the myth very well, being Greek and all, hehe) and I agree with Dan. This quote can very well be applied on listening to someone who really understands what he is talking about. A lot of great inventions in the light of recent discoveries found to have ill side effects. Shouldn’t we listen to Daedalus when he warns us?
On the other hand though, I am not exactly sure the Pope meant that, it could be more along your interpretation, but he even unknowingly made a good point!
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:02 am
Now think about this- the Jesuits (S.J.) who run Georgetown University (IIRC, as well as a couple others I just don’t know the names of off-hand) are considered to be one of the most academically-oriented sects in the Catholic institution. If they succumb to this rhetoric, then anyone educated at their universities stands to lose more than just the cost of tuition.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:03 am
oh- forgot to mention that they have a reputation for rigorous academic standards.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:44 am
eh. Papal authority is not what is used to be.
We can point out his ignorance now without fear of being burned at the stake. The only reason that previous popes have jumped on board with science is because they see their church as becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:53 am
1st thought: Icarus just needed solar panels and a decent radiation shield.
2nd thought: Much of what Harold said, except that it doesn’t quite fit with the article Phil cited, which is very short, btw:
Being that the Pope in this article is talking about artificial intelligence and stem cell research, I agree with Dr. BA; the “deeper vision” has to be guided by something, and coming from a Pope that can only mean a spiritual vision. That’s not necessary to avoid scientific hubris.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 am
Harold
Says:
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 am
Getting the wings your daddy made for you melted by the heat of a big ball of fusing hydrogen (which he warned you about, dammit, weren’t you listening?) is an imperfect but fairly apt analogy in the case of nuclear weapons.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I thought you were going to say it was an apt analogy for “when your daddy helps buy you the presidency and warns you not to go to Bagdad you probably ought to listen to him since you’ve never earned anything on your own merit ever.
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:25 am
The temperature increases with increasing altitude (though I don’t know how long this lasts), though the heat decreases, there being less density. What does that mean for Icarus?
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 am
@Christian Burnham:
It means Icarus needs a space suit and a jet pack.
I find it ironic and amusing, in a bittersweet way, that our favorite parable about the hazards of curiosity is itself based on scientific knowledge two thousand years out of date. The people who first told the Icarus myth were bards paid by kings; they did not see the Sun as a mass of incandescent gas but as a ball of fire pulled by Helios and his chariot. Guess what? They were wrong.
Now why are we still using a myth which in no way corresponds to physical reality as if it were a valid argument? Does it speak to some deep, essential truth about human nature, or is it merely a convenient tool which authority figures have close at hand to help them make the hackneyed, sophistic “argument” curiosity is hubris, and hubris leads to retribution?
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:11 am
LOL – After all, he is the Pope! By default his organisation is resistant, though not completely opposed, to changes and anxious to secure some kind of compatibility between their teachings and the ‘outside world’.
To use analogies from the bible, he’s the shepard that tries to convince the members of his slowly-shrinking herd to stay on the safe green, as thought the grass might be greener on the other side, the path there might proove to be deadly.
Ah, and I feel a bit stupid to defend the catholic church, as I do not believe in something like a higher being, however I think the BAs criticism ( hope I spelled that correctly ) was a bit too harsh
I reckon the catholic church is far less endangering science than the average ID follower ..
English’s not my mother language, I hope you guys understand what I’m trying to say, otherwise I’m truely sorry. Typos belong to me, all rights reserved!
ME
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:20 am
Here’s a funny web comic about the Icarus myth:
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2203
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:31 am
I’m sorry, Phil, but you’re bigotry is showing. There is nothing in the Pope’s statement that says should do anything except consider the consequences of their research.
Are you really saying that scientists should ignore the environmental, or ethical, implications of their work?
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:56 am
As an aside, “Pope of wax” is one of the most poetic titles for a blog post that I’ve seen in quite a long time! (-:
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 am
[...] Let’s start with Bad Astronomy and his latest regarding the current infallible Pope’s overturning of the previous infallible Pope’s attitude toward science. http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/10/22/pope-of-wax/ [...]
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:28 am
The post-title can work with the intransitive verb of wax. Subtle, but I actually thought of that first, as I was recently discussing the Pope’s wanting to revise the concept of limbo (which some conservative Catholics do not want to do, even though it’s a cruel concept to begin with). Now the Pope is waxing about wax…. (-8~
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
For all those who think these issues are a bit academic…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 am
Just as a minister or rabbi totally unfamiliar with science usually sounds foolish discussing string theory or evolution, you also sound very foolish when you take swings at the Catholic Church with little regard for some basic facts. As previous posters have pointed out, and as you yourself could have discovered with just a few minutes of research, Catholics do not believe that everything a pope says is infallibly true. (There have been exceedingly few utterances given that label, and none about science.) Comments on the relationship of reason and faith are not infallible utterances to anyone at all. The old “let’s laugh at the infallible pope” scenario was once very popular with anti-Catholic hate groups, but was abandoned by most of them years ago. Bad Astronomy serves a useful purpose; don’t allow your sloppiness to make this site truly “Bad Argumentation.” You owe the Church an apology on this one. Let’s hope you are as willing to accept criticism and to own up to mistakes as you are to point out “bad” thinking on the part of others.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 am
I didn’t know that the Pope could be infallible only when he wanted to. That’s very [church lady voice]convenient[/church lady voice].
Seriously, I’ll read more on that.
As for Michael, who said, “I’m sorry, Phil, but you’re bigotry is showing. There is nothing in the Pope’s statement that says should do anything except consider the consequences of their research.
Are you really saying that scientists should ignore the environmental, or ethical, implications of their work?”
First, I am not bigoted. As I said, of the many christian religions, from what I have read Catholics tend to be among the better supporters of science (though there is significant room for improvement, such as in the area of stem cell research). Second, this Pope has already made it clear that he is anti-evolution. Therefore his stance on science is suspect to say the least.
Third, where did I say that scientists should ignore the implication of their work? That’s a ridiculous logical fallacy on your part, and unfair to me. Don’t put words in my mouth. The thrust of my entry was that the Pope has no business telling scientists what they should or should not study, not that scientists should just do whatever they want and ignore the consequences.
Of course scientists need to understand what their studies mean, both scientifically and socially (or politically, ethically, or any other adverb of your choice). But people with known anti-science bents shouldn’t be telling scientists what is appropriate or not.
And Christian, thank you for that link. Michael J. Fox makes an excellent point.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:04 am
I agree with what you say about the pope’s come-back-to-dogma, but have to agree with others that you’re mis-reading this quote. I’d look at the “deeper thought” thing, and interprete this as an instruction to look at the consequenses of your science (in the “if I put this product to market, will I be increasing global warming” sense).
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:14 am
Religion is just scared that science might prove it wrong. Why do you think they almost brainwash their followers to believe that science is wrong?
I feel sorry for religious folk, not that they’re stupid or anything, but if religion ground crumbles as we know it their reality, their belief system is destroyed. Some people will take that very very bad. Thier motivation to be good people is gone, they realize that people’s lives are very insignificant. There is no final judgement so why be bound to the rules you worship yet hate? Pure chaos right there!
In my opinion, let everybody dwell in their deluded reality. Ignorance is bliss.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 am
Never mind the distinctions over whether a particular statement was stamped “ex cathedra” or not, the very idea of a person whose speech can be “infallible” is unscientific. No, “unscientific” is too weak a word; blatantly anti-rational is better.
You can go into the history and say that papal infallibility is actually a relatively recent invention, that the conflict between the Rome and Avignon papacies made the Church decide that it could “deselect” popes, and so forth. While such observations are interesting as history and illustrative of human behavior, they miss the important point entirely. In science, you don’t get the privilege to put on a funny hat and declare that your statements today will be inviolate, incontestable truth. That option is simply not available — either for the entirety of your speech or some arbitrarily chosen “ex cathedra” subset.
I can sympathise with how Richard Dawkins might feel these days, asking the big questions and prodding people to check Step One in their arguments. Meanwhile people keep replying, “But you haven’t read what the Councils of Trent and Nicaea said about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin!”
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
I’m very religious and have a fondness for science. There’s nothing wrong with viewing and understanding the wonders of creation.
On the other hand, I’ve always thought Catholics were insane and I can’t see past things like Counsils to make up their religion as they go. The Pope is just a really old man that generally makes bad decisions (cough cough cruisades) and I can’t understand how anyone in that position could ever have been seen as infallable.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:31 am
Bad Astronomer: “Icarus died because he was blind to reality, blind to his own weakness, and blinded by the idea that he was right, no matter what. He wasn’t infallible. So he fell. ”
Isn’t this the Pope’s point about science?
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
Oops– I forgot to add that the comments here on the Icarus myth itself are interesting. I knew that Daedalus warned Icarus, but didn’t remember (or never knew) that the wings were created to escape the king. I’ll have to dig out a copy of Edith Hamilton and check it out.
Still, one beauty of myth is its ability to withstand re-interpretation. There are many morals you can glean from a myth, and Icarus is no exception. I could push the analogy farther, saying that Icarus had no time to test the wings so it wasn’t really a failure of engineering tests. But he did use the wings in a manner not recommended by the manufacturer, which can result in catastrophic failure (and abrogate his right to sue).
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:02 am
I thought that the Montgolfier brothers were the first to….. ah, never mind.
The pope never liked men using balloons in any form….
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 am
JCF scrawled:
What’s the difference between myth and religion?
Ans. A religion is a myth that YOU believe in.
Anyone who isn’t christian views the story of christ as a myth.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Quoth Blake Stacey: “Never mind the distinctions over whether a particular statement was stamped “ex cathedra†or not, the very idea of a person whose speech can be “infallible†is unscientific. No, “unscientific†is too weak a word; blatantly anti-rational is better….”
No kidding. Nevertheless, the BA was perpetuating a common and incorrect view of Catholic doctrine. There are those of us who are nonreligious, yet still want to keep everyone’s facts straight, whichever side one may stand on.
(Incidentally, could someone tell me what the quotation syntax is? With no preview, I’m reluctant to experiment.)
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:10 am
would the comments be the same had the (very short) quote been attributed to someone e;se?
As Harold points out, there is a place for reflection in terms of scientific inquiry. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should … sometimes you shouldn’t at all (“Science in the concentration camps or Tuskegee Air group), sometimes it means not yet… until safeguards or ramifications are dealt with, and sometimes proceed slowly…. letting the wisdom as well as the ramifications unfold……
Yes there are scientists who are risk takers and rush into new discoveries buoyed by the thrill of discovery. There are also those who cautiously explore the terrain mindful that there may be pitfalls and dangers. And I suppose there are those who stay in safe mode working on problems that have been solved trying to tease one more insight out of them…
And yes, I am a Catholic.
I don’t care for this Pope — he often says foolish things — remember his comments about Islamic evangeilism by the sword — (and did he forget the Crusades.)
And I was taught by Jesuits – taught to think – to weigh and question, to examine and explore…… to learn about the world thru science and to learn about other things thru philosophy and faith and most of all to keep reflecting on what I “know”.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 am
Mr Bad Astronomer,
as a French speaking person, I must tell you this:
would you believe you made two mistakes in a simple three letter word? First, “neé” is spelled “née”. Then the pope is a guy, so it would be “né”.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:48 am
It’s very interesting that the Pope is infallible “sometimes.” How is the Flock to know when those moments of infallibility have arrived? Are they to be informed of it by the Pope? If so, then how are they to know if the report of infallibility is itself an instance of infallibility? One then may respond, “Instances of infallibility are defined by a set of postulates, the ex cathedra. If a papal decree meets these conditions, then it is defined to be infallible.” But of course, how are the flock to know that ex cathedra is itelf an infallible definition?
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:19 pm
lee struz said:
>would the comments be the same had the (very short) quote been attributed to someone e;se?
Interesting question. Can we really separate the message from the person giving it? In this case, can we understand what the message is intended to be, without understanding who is saying it? How do we interpret the meaning of such a short comment?
When trying to understand someone’s intent, is it unfair to take the bulk of their comments and previously stated positions as context for the current remarks? Or is every statement to stand in pure isolation?
I think what we’re arguing over here is very much the context of the remarks and interpretations of the intent of Pope Benedict. I suppose only Pope Benedict can truly tell us his intent. The rest of us have to guess from the context of the remarks and previous statements by him.
Given:
1. The commentor was Pope Benedict, a religious figure (Head of Church), not a secular title of authority (King, President, Dictator-for-Life, Chairman of the Board, etc).
2. He was speaking as the religious leader (if not in “infallible” mode).
3. He was speaking to academics and students at the Pontifical Lateranense University (a Catholic university) in Rome.
4. He has previously advocated Intelligent Design (at some opposition to Pope John Paul II).
5. He is opposed to stem cell research, regardless of the potential outcome or the source of the stem cells.
Now interpret the following remarks:
A. “Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental techniques, thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness.”
B. “Letting yourself be seduced by discovery without paying attention to the criteria of a deeper vision could lead to the drama the myth speaks of.”
These are the two excerpted quotes we are presented in this article. The article attempts to contextualize them with comments similar to what I said above. Given the context of who he is, is positions of record, and his job description (Pope), how is one to interpret his remarks?
Option 1: Scientists should be concerned when researching and developing technology about the ethical and social considerations of their research.
Option 2: You students who may one day become scientists should constrain your science to fit God’s will. Don’t violate church doctrine.
Or did I just set you up with a false dichotomy, and the answer is an Option 3 that is somewhat in the middle of the two?
I can see why some of you can take the remarks on their own merit, given just the little bit given, and take them in a general way. Perhaps that is all he intended. But I can see why Phil and others take them in the context of who he is and his previously stated opinions, and thus take them as strongly negative. YMMV.
What I find funny is the Pope calling upon Greek myth rather than his own particular Roman lore – er, scripture. What, did Jesus not have a parable for that?
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
“ioresult
Mr Bad Astronomer,
as a French speaking person, I must tell you this:
would you believe you made two mistakes in a simple three letter word? First, “neé†is spelled “néeâ€. Then the pope is a guy, so it would be “néâ€. ”
PWNT
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
The Icarus problem was not a design problem. Icarus the test pilot simply flew well outside the design parameters. The wings were not designed to go to the sun and, if he’d read the test procedures and the underlying requirements, he would not have exceeded the test plan.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Confuddled:
I’m just trying to help…
sorry for not respecting the general subject of the discussion.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Irishman, that’s a nice exposition, but I think he’s simply means what he says. Whether scientists create robots, bombs or use embryonic stem cells, all he is saying is to think of the deeper vision. What’s the deeper vision? For a religious person this would be something involving God, most often; and what’s “authentic goodness” as opposed to “fake or phony goodness”? I think it’s just fine that he used the tale of Icarus as an analogy–why not? It’s a good one, except who or what is Daedalus”? Again, the “deeper vision.” Maybe in the full context of the speech to this group, we’d see exactly what he meant by “deeper vision” and “authentic goodness,” but I *think* I know where he’s going…or where he went with this. I don’t see any longer articles about it.
Its the word: “blockquote” then “/blockquote” where the quotation marks are the > Some people call them arrows, I call them divets.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
We Americans don’t always stick to perfect French!
. Merriam-Webster’s says it’s OK to use nee for everyone:
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
“ioresult
Confuddled:
I’m just trying to help…
sorry for not respecting the general subject of the discussion. ”
No, I ment that you totaly owned the BA
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
First: ALL organized religion is a ripoff. They exist for one reason alone: To consolidate their(the folks at the top of the hierarchy) power. Priests, mullahs or anyone else who purport to know the “TRUTH” dispense “knowledge” of something they have never experienced, which in the old mystical tradition would be direct union with the godhead. As such they have nothing of consequence to say,,,yet they want us to pay them for their ignorance.
Second: Scientists are usually much more concerned about the misapplication of their work than are the people who pay for that research. All knowledge is apolitical. How we use it determines the Good.
I am an agnostic mystic, as were Bhuddah,Christ, Mohammed and thousands of others throughout history. Many tried to share their insights. The misunderstanding of their words lead to the formation of religion. Everything goes downhill from there. Again, organized religion is the classic example of the misapplication of knowledge.
If I were God, I would NEVER forgive the Catholic church the Inquisition and murder of millions of native Americans, Africans, etc. in J.C.s name. The leaders of that church would spend quite a few million years in hell for THEIR arrogance.
Scientists base their lives on the knowledge that what is learned of the natural world is always incomplete, so there must always be an inherent humility. If we are at all arrogant, it is in the belief we are CAPABLE of knowing the truth. I like that,,,
Gary 7
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
This blog is insane…. you guys bash Republicans all day, but say something about the Pope, and all hell breaks loose…. LOL
October 24th, 2006 at 7:15 am
As this is coming at the end of many comments, I may have to go off topic on a more recent blog:
It has been reported that Pope Benedict XVI has fired his chief astronomer Father George Coyne from his job as Director of the Vatican Observatory in August. It seems that Father Coyne repeatedly contradicted the Pope’s indorsement of “ID” creationism.
I’ve emailed Father Coyne and waiting for his reply.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:59 am
I’m more worried by this Pope’s rantings about Islam & calling for another crusade ..er ..revival .. But its all part of a pattern of intolerance.
Catholicism strike sme as on eofttheworst fvariants of Christianity – itshistory of persecuting scientists, indigenous people, supporting slavery, creating powerful hierachies thathave frequently abused their positions and their parishoners … ad nauseam.
I don’t view Christ as a mythological figure like say Daedaleus & Icarus. He was a historical figure with a real history that is hard to verify; one of many “false Messiahs” being sought for by the Jews of Plaestine in Roman times. He was probably born of a illict affair with Mary & a temple guard, certainly charismatic and rebellious against established Jewish orhodoxy which he rightly criticised as hypocritical (the money-lenders, pharisees, etc ..) was seen by theJewish and Roman authorities as a trouble-maker and executed by crucifiction for that.
What is mythological or at least unverifiable is the stories about his miracles and return from death. The Bible was – & clearly is – propganda designed and spun by the later apostles and followers particlularly Peter and Paul to suit their own purposes and interpretations of what he said. The whole notion of an 80-year old virgin male with the sexual perversion of celibacy, who has deliberately limited real-life experience, and absence of scientific knoweldge and a predilction for fanaticism being “infalluible” about anything would be laughable were it not for theact that toomany people take it seriously.
The last Pope was quite intolerant and right-wing, he left alegacy of overpopulation, misery and increased AIDS and human suffering. Healso made the Vatican “a saint factory” and glorified thefounder of Opus Dei and aformer Pope who did little if anything to oppose the Fascists during the Jewsih Holocaust.
The current Pope is an arch-conservative, fantical former Hitler Youth member who has already killed many people and incited religious violence with intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical remarks about Islam. He has, as far as I’m aware, never studied or followed science, supports creationism and is keen to stick to his predecessors cruel and ineffective policies.
If you think I dislike catholicism and the Popes generally you are right. If you think I’ve got good reasons for thinking that and make a valid case against that whole anachronistic, illogical and, frankly, stupid overgrown cultthen your even more correct.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:25 am
CORRECTED VERSION : Of above typo-riddled mess.
———
Memo to BA – Could you please, please, please find some way that enables us to preview and better yet edit these posts?
———-
I’m more worried by this Pope’s rantings about Islam & calling for another crusade ..er ..revival .. But it seems all part of a pattern of intolerance. The old “One True Faith” li(n)e coming out again – Ratzinger wants people to reject Science, reject “secularism” (whatever that means) & return to a worldview that reveres the ideas & quotes as modern fact the opinions of medievial bigots and bloodthirsty inquistors & crusaders.
Catholicism strikes me as one of the worst variants of Christianity – itshistory of persecuting scientists, indigenous people, supporting slavery, creating powerful hierachies thathave frequently abused their positions and their parishoners … ad nauseam.
I don’t view Christ as a mythological figure like say Daedaleus & Icarus. He was a historical figure with a real history that is hard to verify; one of many “false Messiahs†being sought for by the Jews of Palestine in Roman times. He was quite probably born of a illicit affair between Mary & a temple guard. Jesus was certainly a charismatic rabbi-philosopher and a rebel and dissenter against established Jewish orthodoxy which he rightly criticised as hypocritical and clashed with often. (The money-lenders, pharisees, Caiphas view of him as a reliogio-polical rival, etc ..) He was seen by the Jewish and Roman authorities as a trouble-maker and executed by crucifiction for that.
What is mythological or at least unverifiable is the stories about Jesus’ miracles and supposed return from death. The Bible was – & clearly is – propganda designed and spun by the later apostles and followers particlularly Peter and Paul to suit their own purposes and interpretations of what he said. Exactly what went on afterwards and whether anything can ever be known about it other than through personal belief experiences is doubtful. That aspect is myth – but myth based around a kernal of historical reality.
The whole notion of an 80-year old virgin male with the sexual perversion of celibacy*, who has deliberately limited real-life experience, and absence of scientific knowledge and a prediliction for fanaticism being “infallible†about _anything_ would be laughable; were it not for the fact that too many people take it seriously.
——-
* Footnote : At least the perversion of celibacy -an abnormal sexual practice. Given the number of paedophiles and sexually atypical people who have been closeted & protected by Catholic authorities other perversions maywell be suspected if as yet unverifiable.
—————-
The last Pope, Karol Wotjtyla / John-Paul II, was quite intolerant and right-wing, he left a nasty legacy of overpopulation, misery and increased AIDS and human suffering. He also made the Vatican “a saint factory†and glorified the founder of Opus Dei and a former Pope who did little if anything to oppose the Fascists during the Jewish Holocaust. He also took undue credit for bringing down the Soviet Regime – ceredit better awarded to Mikhail Gorbatchov without whoem we’d almost certainly still have a Communist Russia.
The current Pope, Benedict / Ratzinger is an arch-conservative, fantical former Hitler Youth member who has already killed many people and incited religious violence with intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical remarks about Islam. He has, as far as I’m aware, never studied or followed science, supports creationism and is keen to stick to his predecessors cruel and ineffective policies.
If you think I dislike catholicism generally you are right. If you think I’ve got good reasons for thinking that and make a valid case against that whole anachronistic, illogical and, frankly, stupid overgrown cult then you are even more correct.
——————————–
Sorry if this breeches netiquette with the .. sorta .. double posting but I really wanted to express my views in a clear and understandable, typo-free fashion. Please BA – let us have editing capability!
October 24th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Phil,
As a practicing Catholic and a practicing amateur astronomer I wonder what, if anything, did any Catholic do to you?
Really buddy, you should leave your Anti-Catholic ranting at home or at least before you get onto the computer.
Now, as to Infallibility, I will say that I couldn’t expect such an Anti-Catholic to understand but I will try again.
The Pope is ONLY infallible in MATTERS OF FAITH ALONE!
That’s it…that’s all she wrote!
I gave you a second chance but Phil you have failed me again.
I wish you the very best and I will keep you in my prayers.
Sincerely but sadly,
P. Edward Murray
Bucks-Mont. Astronomical Assoc., Inc.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Though I generally concur with the sentiments expressed above by ‘mungascr’, I am curious as to a couple of points. First, the mention of Jesus’ father. This is the first time I’ve seen it postulated he was (allegedly) a temple guard! Any references for that would be appreciated. Secondly, an age of 80 years is mentioned. I guess that refers to the pope. From a quick read, it seems to refer otherwise.
I also believe that “Religion” is an outdated concept. I feel it should be placed on a restricted list. Not censored or prohibited, but its adherents should be truthfully advised to think for themselves. Abject following of another’s direction has led to too many of this world’s wars. Mutual tolerance, and also consideration for another’s reasons for being different, should be the norm.
Let’s get on with living and learning.
Ivan.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:33 am
BA,
You assert:
I generally don’t talk too much about religion, unless I’m handing creationists their head as they so richly deserve
I don’t know your writing well enough to tell – were you trying to be humorous, or was this unintentionally “dumb and ironic”?
October 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Hmm well I’m not a big fan of the papacy, and watching their succession ritual just about made me laugh but I have to say the pope and in large part catholics are pretty innoculous when it comes to science. The entire Vatican is mostly pomp, circumstance and ritual. Very little substance and even less fire in the belly, and as my genetics prof pointed out they’ve been pretty quiet about science since the Galileo fiasco. In my opinion the myth is possibly a good lesson for scientists. Science is our communal intellegence but where is our communal wisdom? Scientists often have this wisdom but neither the charisma nor the interest in instilling it in the populus but it is an important responsibility. I think the BA is misinterpreting the myth: In modern terms it would be Dad-alus giving Icarus the keys to the Porche and warning him not to drive too fast on the freeway, he gets caught up in the moment the reving and the acceleration and crashes into the median. It’s about the wisdom of parents and the impetuousness of youth, not about faith in ones equipment. So anyway could Daedulous be say Carl Sagan (et al.) and Icarus our fickle representative goverment? The pope wasn’t saying that but it bears contemplation.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:10 am
[...] Bad Astronomy Blog » Pope of wax Pope is at it again. Scientists not tempered by faith before knowledge are being like ‘Icarus’. (tags: pope catholic religion science) [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 4:55 am
@ Vigilant20
If you accept the Bible as it stands as the only word of God, and the Concept of the Trinity, that means you accept the decisions of the RCC up to the council of Trent in the 1500s… I’d have to know which Protestant sect you are to be able to point up Post-Trent Councils you accepts as an article of faith.
But to say the RCC make it up as they go along it to level an accusation that can be applied to every Christian sect I’ve encountered, and probably every sect after ~AD36, and there’s no guarantee that the son of man was doing anything more than winging it while reforming Mosaic law…