Edited to add: I’m getting quite a few emails and comments stating that Greg Laden’s conclusions are pretty far off-base here. OK then, that’s why I asked for comments! I found his take on it to be interesting, certainly, but if it’s in error that’s a different situation entirely. I’ll look into this more when I can. I’m learning quite a bit about Catholicism, and I enjoy learning things. So thanks to everyone who’s taken the time to discuss this.
Y’know, when the news hit that a Vatican astronomer was amenable to the idea of aliens, I wasn’t overwhelmed. Without breaking a sweat I can think of about forty astronomers who could write a similar article, so it didn’t seem like a big deal. However, not being raised Catholic, I may have missed some import to the words, of course.
Greg Laden over at Science Blogs has a really interesting take on this that never would have occurred to me. It’s worth reading, and I’m curious to see everyone’s thoughts on this. Feel free to comment there (be polite! Thank your host! Wipe your feet before you step inside!) or here.
And he has a bonus Talosian* picture there. Exxxxcellent.
*Extra ironic moment: the person who played that Talosian was a woman, Meg Wyllie. She was in "The Last Starfighter", too. I am a major science fiction geek.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
The Talosian was a woman? My mind is blown.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Actually, this really is a “so what” moment.
The post you linked to has some very disturbing untruths in it. Fr. Coyne did not get fired (the reason I heard from other Vatican Observatory members was that he’d been sick for some time), and Jose Funes (who I know personally) was not some “more conservative” replacement.
sigh….
(I worked at the same university where the Vatican Observatory holds its US offices, so I was able to get to know most of the priests and brothers involved.)
[As a Catholic Astronomer, I just had to respond.]
May 14th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Laden’s take is interesting and would have been fairly accurate a century or so ago. The Catholic Church has grown and changed since its famous fight with Gallileo.
Gallileo’s heresies stemmed as much from his telling the church how to interpret scriptures as his attacking medieval Aristotlean philosophy. He was a pushy, opinionated know-it-all.
Astronomy is not new to the Vatican. They have a fine observatory based at Castle Gandolfo (the Pope’s summer house), with a facility in Arizona. Check out their website.
There have been several advances in the rapproachment between religion and science. And the Jesuits are at the forefront. Many educated Catholics raised in the modern church view the Bible as a social history and collection of morality tales. There are, of course some young earthers and reactionaries of all stripes, but what is to be expected considering the millions of Catholics around. Granted, the Church has a long way to go. But it is not the heretic burning institution it was back in the medieval days.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:49 am
The Vatican is just catching up with the beliefs of Mormons that the galaxy is a widespread network of polygamy and breeding, and that Jesus and his daddy were once regular men who got promoted to godhood. Mormon women are still expected to be baby factories for eternity: don’t let Mitt Romney fool you about all that “I don’t believe in polygamy” stuff (if he becomes relevant again as McCain’s choice for vice-pres.) Polygamy is still talked about, promoted and encouraged in Mormon temples where the government can’t interfere. That polygamy is condemned by the church publicly is a “render unto Caesar” political concession, not a disavowal of belief in polygamy in the mainstream church itself. I’ve heard the polygamy talk in the temple myself, and talked with so-called pillars of the community who probably still look forward (once Jesus comes to Earth and makes mincemeat of the rest of us) to having a harem of baby factories and ruling their own planet for eternity. Heaven to mormons is an intergalactic network of Wal-Marts.
Greg mentions the warning that you should never leave your non-Catholic child with a Catholic (I know a lot of Catholics who wouldn’t dream of it, but they’re “old money Catholics” and not the idealistic “new money” fundamentalists you might find in Africa or South America.) Ask that nice mild-mannered Mormon you work with if he’s looking forward to stealing your wife from you, or stealing you from your husband, to add to his eternal harem. He’ll tell you he isn’t, but from what I’ve heard in the temple he may be lying. Joseph Smith married young girls and other men’s wives to pad his harem, and a lot of mormons revere Joseph Smith over Jesus and his daddy (who technically isn’t “God” since he’s just “a god.”) All they need is for the law of the land to be changed, and the church could one day command enough lobbying power to do so. Mormons still believe themselves to be “in the world” and not “of the world.” It’s still a young idealistic religion with very little “old money” adherents who accept that the millennium is just a fantasy. Mormons had the market cornered in extraterrestrial weirdness long before the Vatican opened up to Galileo and evolution.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:13 am
You know, this may have exceptionally far-reaching consequences. There are over 1 billion people in the world who identify as Catholic. If the church begins endorsing the idea that we are not alone, it could actually generate enormous amounts of support for SETI and similar projects, particularly in Western nations.
That is, if the pope decides to go with Funes’ ideas…
May 15th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Catholics, and most religious people for that matter, believe that if you’re not baptized/ born again/ accept their religion, you go to hell or purgatory. If you didn’t even heard of their religion is not an excuse.
So my question is: why don’t all of them push for a much better-funded space program? Shouldn’t we try to find the aliens and show them the error of their ways?
At least they should try a reverse SETI-like program, broadcasting the bible or whatever, so the possible aliens all over the galaxy might go to heaven.
Ohh, that’s right, maybe the aliens are born without the original sin, so we don’t need to do anything. Bummer!
May 15th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Sorry, but I think Greg Laden is wrong. The press release about aliens strikes me as absolutely typical of the Catholic Church’s attitude. In case you haven’t noticed, the modern Catholic Church has been quite friendly towards science in their own sort of way. You’ve got your Christianities mixed up if you thought otherwise.
Go ahead and criticize the Church’s relationship with science for being self-serving, or wrong-headed or whatever. But don’t mischaracterize the relationship as being antagonistic, because it’s not like that at all.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Well at least Fune doesn’t have to worry about being burned alive like Giordano Bruno was 400 years ago for having similar thoughts. Wonder if they have ever admitted that was a bad thing to do.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Greg Laden is really into the area of Urban myth here. I don’t know what sort of catholics he knows. And no, catholics do not believe that you go to hell if you are not baptised. In fact unbaptised persons have been canonised (the Martyrs of Uganda) as saints. So really, that blog entry is beyond silly.
Earlier this moth the Vatican waded into your US culture wars (which are almost incomprehensible to those outside the US – I watch it like an addictive soap opera – I am in Africa), by having one of their leading science consultors affirm human evolution from precursor species, and that on the pages of the Vatican’s own daily. Of course there is a theological twist to the acceptance, on the other hand there is a firm slapping down of the ID notions as well. Refer English report of Italian story.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Sorry BA, the linked article is off the mark a good bit. Pope Benedict has said as recently as his US visit that evolution (Darwins evolution) is the how. The “why” is Gods will, which is something outside the realm of science. And ID or creationism has been firmly rejected. Pope John Paul II famously said that truth cannot contradict truth, meaning that faith must adjust to what science discovers.
Also, no practicing Catholic believes you automatically go to hell if not baptized. I’ve met a lot of priests and not one has ever taught that.
A common problem is that many people don’t want to let go of their prejudices and accept the fact that their are religious people who also are science friendly. They like to lump everyone into their preconceived category of religious = anti-science. And in the process reject a lot of people who share the same concerns about ID and creationism who might want to help.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am
My opinion is that the vatican is precluding (sorry
I hope this is the right word in this context).
The chances are really high that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe. The chances are slightly lower to find it, but maybe someday we do. And some people claim that this would be the end to all religions and believes because no religion “includes” aliens.
But if you don’t include something that doesn’t mean that you exclude it – and maybe that’s what the vatican tries. Just in case we’ll find extraterrestrial life then we don’t have the trouble.
Btw: Being german I have the advantage of a (let me say it that way) “grown up” catholic and protestant church which does not have such big problems with science as some “churches” have in the US. I must ask my local priest what he thinks about science and I can ask him what the “catholic” opinion is about it
May 15th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Sorry for the double post, but:
Phil, your linked article… well… I have never seen or heared that catholics baptize you imediatly when they found out that you are not! That do only very FEW and do not represent the majority!!! That’s crazy!
May 15th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Will the logical fallacies ever cease? Will there ever be a time when science will rule? I think this is a precursor of things to come. I think “holy war” will be raining across the globe for a while to come. At some point in time, this will flame-out, leaving the rational people behind.
That’s the kind of left behind I can get with! lol
May 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Plenty of Catholics at least *want* to baptize those who aren’t, though the “drive-by” baptism isn’t something their churches would approve of. My gf is more of a lapsed Catholic, and she’s still mentioned that she needs to baptize me sometime when I’m asleep and can’t prevent it.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:37 am
I think everyone is missing the most important point here, which is:
If we do find extra-terrestrial life, and the Catholic Church goes on an intergalactic crusade to convert them, then the Pope will actually be Emperor Palpatine – instead of just looking like him.
Like I didn’t see that coming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7WcGvxQ9w
May 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I’m sorry for my bad English as I live in Montenegro and English is not my native language.
It is big misconception that unbaptized in catholic faith go strait to hell.
In catholic doctrine to go to hell you must commit a mortal sin. And to commit one is quite difficult as to make one you must meet all this three condition:
1. its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.
Even if all this conditions are met you still have opportunity to confess hence avoid damnation.
Now here is trap for non baptized as those people can not confess properly to authorized priest (which by catholic doctrine must be a catholic priest). This is the only unfair thing about catholic baptism.
Unbaptized people can in theory go strait to haven if they live pious life and are unaware of possibility to adopt Catholicism. The worst scenario for unbaptized (and catholics the same) is period of time in purgatory before ascending to haven (providing no mortal sins were committed).
When you exclude mythology Catholicism can be an interesting subject of study because of very intricate bureaucracy which is a science of its own.
And yes, when we talk about Catholics and science, anybody remembers Pope Gregory XIII or Middle ages scriptoriums. I think as much evil deeds were done in name of catholic faith against science so much good things were done also. Lots of classical and Arab science was preserved thanks to catholic monks. I think many people underestimate those achievements.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Original sin is an important part of Catholic teaching, so I can understand theologians discussing whether aliens would be subject to it. Personally, I take a less literal view of original sin. IMHO, the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for our capacity to know good from evil. Original sin is the fact that we have the innate tendency to choose evil when it suits our pernoanl desires. Perhaps alien life, even if it is human-like, lacks this tendency and is indeed free from “original sin.” I wouldn’t bet on it, though.
I tend to agree with the BA’s original assessment that this is not a big deal.
As a side note, Catholic baptism, while often involving an elaborate ceremony, does not require it….water isn’t even required. If I remember correctly, all that is needed is for a Catholic to trace the sign of the cross on the person’s forehead and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
May 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am
That woule be “personal desires” above. Why do I always spot these things *after* posting them?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Sigh, I give up. I just can’t type today.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am
BadeMart:
I did not say that you go to hell for not being baptized. You need to go back and re-read my post.
As to what sorts of catholics I know, that would be me, having been raised in a catholic family. I was an alter boy and everything. Each and every thing I say about the Catholic way is what I learned from my parish priests, the nuns in my catholic school, my uncle who was a priest, my cousin who was an arch-bishop, my two aunts who were nuns, and my fifteen other aunts who were various cousins.
These things were taught to me by people who made it clear that these were immutable truths. Therefore, they are the immutable truths of my religion.
The fact that I gave up my religion years ago is really not the point. I’ve heard that the catholic church has “changed” but how do you change immutable truths? Perhaps the catholic church has lost its way. I don’t know. I. just. don’t. know…
I don’t know anything about any moths.
By the way, I was named after a Pope. That must mean SOMETHING!!
May 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Now who was the biggest pushy, opinionated know-it-all?
The guy who said And still she moves, or the organisation which threatened to kill people, and sometimes did kill people, who happened to disagree with her?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Gee, Greg, that’s an…interesting sounding family.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
This is just a TAD off-topic … but for a really interesting science fiction take on how the Vatican might end up financing a expedition to an alien world, read “The Sparrow” by Mary Doria Russell.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Does anyone else find it ironic that Phil Plait, who has spent much of his life trying to debunk misconceptions, fabrications, and myths about astronomy in a passionate and spirited manner, is equally as passionate and spirited about prolonging and proliferating misconceptions, fabrications, and myths about other topics, like the Catholic faith?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Bonogamy
>> Mormon women are still expected to be baby factories for eternity
I have to disagree with that statement. The only Mormon women who feel they are expected to be baby factories are the ones who don’t put forth the effort to understand their faith.
True, Mormonism highly promotes procreation and the family. But anyone who has more than an elementary understanding of Mormonism knows that personal choice (free-will) is promoted even more. The number of children you have is strictly between you, your family, and God. As a Mormon, I would thoughtfully consider but initially defy any church authority who thought it appropriate to tell me how many children I should have. That’s mine and my family’s decision, not theirs.
Bonogamy
>> I’ve heard the polygamy talk in the temple myself, and talked with so-called pillars of the community who probably still look forward (once Jesus comes to Earth and makes mincemeat of the rest of us) to having a harem of baby factories and ruling their own planet for eternity. Heaven to mormons is an intergalactic network of Wal-Marts.
Bonogamy
>> Ask that nice mild-mannered Mormon you work with if he’s looking forward to stealing your wife from you, or stealing you from your husband, to add to his eternal harem. He’ll tell you he isn’t, but from what I’ve heard in the temple he may be lying.
Please, take your straw man arguments elsewhere.
Bonogamy
>> a lot of mormons revere Joseph Smith over Jesus and his daddy (who technically isn’t “God” since he’s just “a god.”)
What’s sad about this statement is that this just confirms how little you know about Mormonism and how much of any of your apparent involvement in it must have been quite ill informed. It’s exactly this kind of ignorance and intolerance that causes much of the strife between groups with differing opinions (either religious or secular). Please, put forth the effort to understand something before you attack it.
It’s exactly putting forth that effort that has allowed me to align myself with the truths of science while maintaining resolve in my faith. If I had avoided studying science on a personal level I would have ended up like many narrow-minded religionists who forget that the ultimate goal of both religion and science should be the pursuit of truth and that what’s important is accepting truth wherever it came from.
On a side note, I did notice this statement from the article:
“The worst thing you can do as a Catholic is to die without Baptism. This is why, if you are not a Catholic and don’t want your child baptized, don’t leave the child in the care off any Catholics, even for a few minutes, alone. Your baby will be baptized. (I am not making this up. I’ve seen it happen.)”
While I don’t disagree with him that he has seen Catholics do this (remember in any major religion there’s the whole spectrum of humanity from good to bad), I do disagree with the sweeping generalization that every Catholic would do this. Generalization aside, what interested me in this was that Mormonism has a very unique (and philosophically intriguing) belief that addresses this. That is that anyone who dies before having the opportunity to accept Christ by their own free will and choice will have that opportunity after they die. In other words, nobody will be condemned for something they had no knowledge of.
From a philosophical point of view, this solves many of the soteriological problems that have plagued Christianity for centuries. I’ve always thought that any god who would condemn 99.99+% of his children by no fault of their own must be a pretty vindictive and crappy god.
Now, explain this to theologians of different Christian faiths and any who are worth the air they breathe will agree that that would be a very crappy god and would propose their own unique solution (some better than others).
Again, any Mormon who knows their religion (looking at you Bonogamy), also knows that the Mormon faith do not claim to have a monopoly on salvation as salvation is God and God’s alone to give.
Sorry for those who aren’t interested in theological discussions as I know this site is more about astronomy. However, it is quite disheartening to see people like Bonogamy spout juvenile garbage–and worse, to think that some people will see it and buy into it without informing themselves.
I don’t claim to be an expert in Mormon beliefs. However, as a Mormon, I’ve dedicated a good portion of my life to really understanding my faith. However, I am careful to temper that with the study of other faiths and with the study of science as well. In doing this I’d like to think that I’ve avoided falling into the ignorant and intolerating trap Bonogamy, and other’s, who rely on their straw man arguments to spread misinformation and hate.
Now, who’s up for some astronomy? Keep the posts coming Phil.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Mark T, as I clearly stated in my post, I said I wasn’t raised Catholic, so I don’t have the intimate knowledge of the religion others might have; that’s why I posted this and asked for opinions. Sheesh.
And Halcyon Dayz, Galileo uttering “And still it moves” is a legend; it’s unconfirmed. And in point of fact, Galileo was an utter jerk and antagonized the Pope (who used to be his friend and supporter before becoming Pope), insulting him in print. He practically begged the Pope to imprison him, the way he acted.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Incidentally, I too heard (unconfirmed) that Coyne was forced out due to a difference of opinion, but I have no knowledge at all of Funes.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The funny thing is, this is a sort of replay of a dispute that went on within the Catholic church several centuries ago.
It was well known (Aristotle, before 322 BC) that the earth was round. Some within the church theorized that there might have been a continent on the other side of the earth (the antipodes), and that if this were so there might be people living there. The big questions were whether those hypothetical people were part of the original creation, whether they had souls, whether they had original sin, etc….
The more things change …
May 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Coyne could have been forced out, but the idea of theistic evolution has been around for a long time….at least since I was in CCD (Sunday School) because I got kicked out of class for arguing a similar viewpoint…though the term wasn’t known to me then. I was forced to meet with our priest, who agreed with me and ended up giving the lecture to the teacher.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
It’s all part of the plot to eventually reveal the existence of alien life on Earth, their close connection to global leadership and their plans for the rest of us. This is just the “acclimate the Catholics” stage. The black helicopters have been seen dancing with the UFOs, and the owls are not what they seem.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:20 am
With respect to Greg Laden’s reply to Bademart, I too was raised in a Catholic family, went to Sunday School etc…
and the Church described by Laden (and most but not all ex-Catholics I know) is completely unrecognizable to me.
It certainly does not describe the current church, nor does it describe the church I knew 30+ years ago either.
Maybe I was lucky WRT the parish I grew up in, or Greg was unlucky, or one of us has faulty memories… (or more likely both of us are selectively editing our memories)
May 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I have been a regular reader of this blog for over five years. This is the second website I launch every morning, right after CNN.com. I don’t comment very often, but when I do, it is usually on the subject of religion.
I have been raised and am a practicing Catholic. Despite what many of the anti-religious people who comment on this site might think, I know and understand that Evolution is fact, the Creationism and Intelligent Design are wrong, and that the Earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.
Nor do I preach the correctness of Catholism over all other faiths or Atheism. When leaving a dinner with some of the non-Catholic couples that my wife and I are friends with, never have a turned to my wife and said, “You know, it was great to see John and Tami again. It is a shame they will burn in the fiery depths of Hell for all eternity.”
I do not want Atheists to be offended by my term of anti-religious, for that was not directed at all Atheists. I consider Phil an Atheist, because while Phil does not believe in God, he does respect other people who do. When Phil criticizes religion, any religion, he attacks the acts that are wrong and the people who commit those acts. I have never felt he attacks all people who belong to that group.
The same can not be said of some of the people who post comments. There are people who are so adamantly anti-religious, they are insulting towards people of faith. I also consider them hypocrites, because while they will condemn people of faith for discrimination against people of different faiths, they themselves will attack people of all faiths, just because they are religious. Is that not also discrimination? Again, I am not accusing Phil or Atheists in general, but there is a select group who I am referring to.
In the article Phil linked to, Greg Laden was, in my opinion, insulting. I have never kidnapped children of non-Catholics and secretly baptized them. He claims to have seen it, but I will venture a guess that I am around Catholics more than he has been, and I have never seen it. To even make a joke of it was in bad taste. Sure, you can tell me not to let it bother me or that I am being too sensitive and I should just live with it, but I thought in the new great era of Political Correctness, jokes about a person’s race, religion, or culture was suppose to stop. I guess I was wrong.
In any event, the main reason I am posting this is because most Catholics know the Creation stories of Genesis are fables, used by the early authors to explain a topic they themselves did not understand. Most Catholics know that these stories are versions of stories that had been written and told by various civilizations over hundreds or even thousands of years. From posts left here before, I have no doubt there is a group of individuals who, upon hearing that you believe in God, will immediately discount anything you say, even if they have previous agreed with you.
While I am Catholic, I do not agree with the entire Catholic Canon. In regards to Heaven and Hell, I do believe good people, regardless of faith, yes even… gasp… Atheists, will go to Heaven if they lead moral and ethical lives.
I have been accused in the past by some of the anti-religious people who post here, that I am wrong. That it is impossible to believe in God and know Evolution is correct. That in trying to do so, I am neither true to my faith or my knowledge and understanding of Science. Talk about a closed mind. Its like we are going to play a game and I am being asked to pick sides. Just because you can not justify it, don’t deny the sincerity of others who have. I have found that balance in my life and am satisfied.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I think the ‘more chosen’ analysis is a little naive.
Looking at history and human nature, I think another option is more likely. Aliens are animals and do not have souls. They don’t go to heaven, and enslaving them is an amoral act.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Tony
>>There are people who are so adamantly anti-religious, they are insulting towards people of faith. I also consider them hypocrites, because while they will condemn people of faith for discrimination against people of different faiths, they themselves will attack people of all faiths, just because they are religious. Is that not also discrimination?
Right on. I’ve always felt that holding any belief REQUIRES tolerance towards others with differing opinions because your ability to act on your beliefs hinges on the tolerance those same people have towards you and your differing beliefs. To hold a belief (whether religion or secular) then seek to deny or attack those with different beliefs is fundamentally hypocritical.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am
First of all, I, too, was raised Catholic. I was an alter boy, much to the shock of those who know me now. My father was in seminary for a while before meeting my mother and my uncle is a priest. I’m an atheist now and have been for 2/3 of my life, but I still know many, many Catholics, including my family. Most of us get along just fine, even when the topic of religion comes up. Now, I’m sure that there are many Catholics out there who are out to convert the world by hook or crook, but it’s a very big religion and all groups larger than about 5 people have their fringe lunatics. So using them to brand the Church, as Greg Laden has done, seems very unfair. How would any of us like to be known by the craziest atheist post they’ve seen in this blog?
For the record, I have never heard of a modern case of a Catholic trying to force-baptize someone else’s child or an adult. As far as I know, lay people can’t baptize anyway: it’s a holy sacrament, and my recollection is that that requires a priest. (My uncle, who was almost ready for ordination, but not yet there, wasn’t allowed to baptize me as a matter of fact.) I’ve known a few Catholics who thought that the unbaptized would go to hell, but they were contradicted immediately by priests, incidentally.
May Greg Laden grew up with a very different bunch of Catholics than I did, but the picture he painted is really, really far from the reality that I have seen, both personally and from watching the global news of the Church.
I’m going to quibble on this one, Phil. The facts are more or less correct: Galileo did quote the Pope in his Dialogs on Two World Systems via the mouth of Simplicio. This can be taken as insulting, but it isn’t remotely clear to me that Galileo meant to insult the Pope. They were, after all, friends at that time. That particular Pope was actually fairly liberal and forward-thinking. Moreover, remember that the Church authorities read and approved the book before it went to print and saw no problems with it. It wasn’t until later that someone pointed out the passage to the Pope, who then got (understandably, when considered from his perspective) upset.
At the same time, it is eminently clear that the Inquisition had it out for Galileo. The records of the trial show that they violated their own meager rules left and right in their handling of the case and they’d been after him for some time, so the effect of offending the Pope (accidental or deliberate) was probably one of the the least of Galileo’s worries and the Inquisition probably would have gotten the Pope to let them take Galileo in no matter what.
Galileo was many things, including a firebrand and quite obstinate. That’s part of what makes him so sexy, after all. Diplomatic he never was, which certainly didn’t help him against the Inquisition. But it isn’t clear that he was being a jerk or just accidentally stepping on some Papal toes, especially since he repeatedly said (before and after his trial) that he was trying to save the Church from embarrassment down the road when the Ptolemaic model became obviously wrong.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Thanks, Tony for a great post. It is refreshing to see someone stand up for their views here, WITHOUT CALLING SOMEONE STOOPID OR IGNORANT. Yes, it is possible to believe in God (or some similar concept), and believe in evolution, too. The two are not mutually exclusive, despite what man y would think.
And Thanks, BA, for a rather balanced presentation of this subject—we all know how religion can get you riled up.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
@ Tony, Greg Laden, j Foudy…
Being also raised a catholic, I can tell you that each of you are right, and each of you are wrong. My experience with the catholic church, as an alter boy and regular parishoner throughout my youth and early teen years, aligns much with what Greg Laden expresses.
However I also know of many catholics who have had far different, more encouraging experiences that may be more familiar to Tony and j Foudy and others who have come here to express their displeasure with Greg’s opinions.
I think, as with most other things in life, your experience in growing up a catholic will be as varied as the persons in charge of nurturing that upbringing. My priest, and most of the priests in the diocese to which my church was a part of, were crotchety, grumpy, ill-tempered irishmen, who were into “old school old testament” wrath and fury biblical interpretation. If you want to get a clear picture of what I mean, use Peter Griffon’s father from “Family Guy” as a measuring stick. THAT guy was my window to catholicism. So I’m sure it’s tainted my views on catholicism as a whole (but not on the religion part… I’ve rejected that through my own questions and reasoning over time).
So, J Foudy, because that church is foreign to you, and your experience is good, I wouldn’t assume Greg Laden’s experience is unique and over-dramatized. I’d be willing to believe if anything, he’s probably under-exaggerating based on his own experiences.
And similarly, Greg, it is probably unnecessarily generalistic to make the statement you made about “leaving your kids with a catholic family”. Even if you’ve observed it, that only makes the evidence anecdotal to you, and I know personally, despite my own experiences, most catholic families I know (and there are several, both in and out of my own family), would never do such a thing without consent.
So I guess what I’m saying here is I don’t necessarily see this as an issue of religion, per se… and that both sides could maybe scale it back a bit here and use a little perspective. It’s easy to see why Greg might feel the way he does given his experiences with catholocism, and it’s similarly easy to see why Tony and J Foudy and others would be insulted by the insinuation that such behavior is “foreign” to the catholic church they know. Believe me… that side of the church *does* exist… but I’m also pretty sure it’s not the overwhelming majority, based on what I’ve heard, read, and observed personally.
So I would agree with many of the posters here that the modern catholic church does, at least on the surface, have a more progressive view on science and nature than many Chrsitian sects, BUT, I would also state that over the centuries, the church has been known to adjust its doctrines using questionable motives… not sure any of you can argue that. So I think Greg is using that as a platform to question the veracity of the catholic church’s apparent position on this topic. He is of the opinion that there are other motivations at work… and that is his poinion, and his right to say as much on his blog. As it is the right of the rest of the posters here to take him to task on it.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@ Tony
See… this is part of the problem… you are confusing your own experience with statement of fact. I can just as easily counter this by saying in my experience, most catholics view the creation story as infallable and unquestionable truth. Reagrdless of the current publicly statted position of the Vatican, most of the catholic families I knew and grew up around would yell “balsphemy” and spit at me for even questioning anything written in “the Good Book”. That’s just the way it was where I grew up.
Now, much older and wiser, I would not use that experience as “proof” that all catholics are that way. I know this not to be true. I can’t make any statement whatsoever on what “most” catholics know or don’t know, accept or don’t accept as far as creation and other stories written in the Bible. And frankly, I don’t think you can either.
I only make this point to ask you not to disregard Greg’s experiences regarding catholicism as complete fallacy anymore than Greg should have generalized all catholics the way he did.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
ugh… more typos… I won’t bother correcting them… you get my point…
May 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I won’t argue that you may have been told that by one or two in here… but it’s been my experience that the vast majority of posters here don’t believe that at all. I am not religious. Don’t believe in God… but do not in any way think it impossible to both believe in God and accept evolution.
To any of the truly scientific minds here, we view the two as completely mutually exclusive. One truly has no bearing on the other. The conflict only arises when the ID side of religion comes into play, because it is in direct conflict with scientific observation… and again, I think the vast majority here are of that mind, and only even care about religion when it goes out of its way to push an anti-science agenda on the public.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
John Weiss: For the record, my catechism teacher (back when they were real nuns!) taught us that a lay person could perform a baptism in emergencies and taught us how to do it. That being said, I never heard of anyone spiriting kids away to baptize them. (I could imagine mother-in-laws thinking about this, though). In any event, the Church wouldn’t really consider this to be a valid baptism since it wasn’t by choice (when a baby – the parents choice. The whole rationale behind Confirmation is that you essentially ratify your parents choice for you when you are older). The next time I see my priest, maybe I’ll ask him about it. He’s also a canon lawyer and one of the coolest people I have ever met.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I have long since stopped arguing about such matters as I truly believe it just comes across as petty and is pointless, let every man believe what they can. So why am I continuing, I don’t know.
How can there be a conflict between God and evolution, science did not exist then. The Bible as all religions was written by a man not the hand of God.
There is truth of course (theology) a good start, and a good example of this would be: and God created two great lights in the sky, well of course the Sun could be described as a light but the Moon, well that’s more of a mirror, but changes little when looked at in the context of the language etc.
Be honest with yourselves being atheist requires as big a leap of faith as being a believer, as there is no empirical evidence either way, other than we are here and reality is very real, and Christians among other people of faith tend to be open minded and in my opinion can make and have made some of the best scientists.
As for the unbaptized go to hell, well if you think about this logically as we are taught, how about people who have never had a chance to know God, tribal people for example well they too are God’s children, and surely some and/or many are good people. I don’t actually believe anyone is in Hell no matter what they have done, they are held in purgatory maybe for an unimaginable time and will eventually make it through.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Commenters on this blog often ask, “Where are the reasonable Christians to counter the loud fundamentalists?”, but then when one speaks out with a pro-science message, he still gets little respect from the peanut gallery. Well, I’m also a “reasonable Christian” and I also speak out on topics in a pro-science way. Just wanted everyone here to know that I’m doing the best that I can.
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/may/14/catholic-church-faith-in-god-alien-life-ok/
And before anyone points it out, yes I know I screwed up my geocentrism analogy, but you know what I meant.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Celtic, I don’t mean to generalize and lump all Atheists in a group that attack religion. My personal experience is that most Atheists do not attack religion or the belief in God, though some would like to debate the issue.
My comments were targeted at the select few, a small minority I am sure, of those people who attack all that has anything to do with religion and the followers of religion, simply because they themselves subscribe to an unfounded belief that all people who believe in God are idiots.
All faiths, at some point in the past, are guilt of terrible crimes and actions. As a Catholic, I do not stick my head in the sand and ignore those events. I am also not happy with the Catholic Church’s stance on many issues today, but my hope is that the Church will adapt to the modern world. Though many would argue that will never happen, the Church has done so in the past, even if it was at a slow pace. While such changes may be viewed by non-Catholics as small and insignificant, within the Church they are ground-breaking. The Church has in the last few decades moved in more or less the right direction, even if it is not as fast as some of us would want.
I also know, having read some history on the Catholic Church, that many of the current or former practices of the church, such as not eating meat on Fridays, was started for non-religious reasons.
But you can not ignore the good that the Catholic Church and other faiths have done in the world. Those anti-religious people I refer to earlier do just that.
I totally agree with on the point of experience. I had the fortunate situation of being part of a very modern parish. That was all I knew. Everyone was active in the CYO, and the Pastor, while in his sixties, was very approachable and easy to talk to. He did not condemn people for their beliefs, even they went counter to Catholism. I never thought much about this, because this was how I thought all Catholic parishes were. I am sorry that was not the case.
I also agree with your point about how Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. I get annoyed and angry when I here people trying to disprove the existence of God through the use of Science. But I get equally angry when I hear religious people try to use science, history, and archeology, to justify their beliefs. If you believe in God, then you do not need to prove it. If you prove it, then it’s not faith any more.
I do find it interesting to try and found the historical events that may have been the basis for say, the story of the Great Flood. But to use that as evidence that God flooded the entire world to do away with sin is wrong. The Great Flood story is a biblical myth, probably based on some true story thousands of years ago. People of faith should stop trying to prove it and instead focus on the message of the story.
You see, this is why I don’t post too often, because then I get started and can’t stop.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“Looking at history and human nature, I think another option is more likely. Aliens are animals and do not have souls. They don’t go to heaven, and enslaving them is an amoral act.”
After all, what is an Ood except a reflection of ourselves?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Tony, I completely agree with you about “If you believe in God, then you do not need to prove it. If you prove it, then it’s not faith any more.” I might add that I have always felt that those who tried to prove God’s existence probably don’t have half of the amount of faith they claim too. It’s the religious version of a Napoleon Complex.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
A moment fro clarity of language.
Two posters have referred to science and religion as “mutually exclusive” when what they meant to say was that they were completely separate. To say that they were mutually exclusive would mean that if one is true the other must be false, and from the context that is not what the poster meant. As an English teacher I consider this important if only because as there are people who do argue that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for 12 years. (60s and 70s) I was most definitely taught that those who were not baptized couldn’t get into heaven. If they were bad people, they went to hell. If they were good people, they went to Limbo. (I don’t think the church claims the existence of Limbo anymore.) I was also taught that it was my duty to baptize a child if their parents would not.
I was taught by Marionist nuns and brothers. Other orders may have taught different things.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Peggy, thank you for the clarification. I certainly do not mean one is true and the other is not. I simply mean that it is possible to recongnize the truth and knowledge of what Science, in all of its forms, has taught us throughout the centuries, and still believe in a Supreme Being and subscribe to a religion or faith.
Papabear, I agree with your addition as well. People of faith who are looking for proof of their faith probably do not have the amount of faith the claim to. Thank you for your comment.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Generally speaking, Catholics who have Jesuits in the family are a different breed of cat from Catholics who have diocesan priests in the family which are yet a different breed of cat from general Catholics in the US, general Catholics in Europe, or any of the newer breed of Catholics. And all of those are wayyyy different from the pre-Vatican II folk.
People confuse public statements of their local priest or bishop as Catholic dogma; this is not necessarily the case. Unlike many other Christian denominations, local priests and bishops don’t have declarative authority, that comes from the Pope. And the Pope himself doesn’t generally *declare* dogma, he interprets it. Major tenets of the faith can’t be changed except by declarations of papal infallibility, and has happened only once since papal infallibility was established as part of the canon in 1870 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility for more on that).
Think of the Pope as the Supreme Court, the catechism as the Constitution, and you’ll get the idea. Catholic dogma is a “living document”, as each Pope interprets scripture differently.
“Forced baptism” would actually be a crime in the church. Not that priests haven’t done it, I’m sure it has happened. But it’s definitely the sort of thing that would get said priest in very hot water with his bishop.
The entire Catholic catechism is available at the Vatican web site, and I guarantee that 95% of Catholics today haven’t read it, don’t understand it, and assume that what their priest taught them in Sunday school 40 years ago was in fact dogma… when it wasn’t.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Phil, regarding the original sin of extraterrestrials, I remember a nice story by Ray Bradbury, The fire balloons, from The Illustrated Man. It’s about some blue spherical martians and a priest that goes to Mars to evangelize them. I read it 30 years ago, as a kid, in Spanish; I should get it in English to read again. It’s amaizing how I remembered it after so long when reading about Father Funes. Read it, as a major sci-fi geek, you should.
Regards,
Guillermo
May 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Tired of the anecdote wars, but having been raised catholic myself, I figured it was time to clear some things up with facts.
It is simply a matter of research to find out what the *official* stance of the church is. The catechism of the catholic church is available online from several sources (also as a big honking book – not *that* one)
to wit:
“In case of necessity, anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize”
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, … [various arguments] … allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” [similar arguments exist in this section regarding the fate of others including "good" people who are not Catholic or even Christian - no mention of hell or burning ]
“In order to discover the … authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
Google “catholic literal bible” to see what their stance is on literal interpretation of the bible. [the church *warns* that the bible should *not* be taken literally]
With the exception of some misguided induhviduals, these Catholics are not the fundamentalist idiots you’r looking for.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I will join the bandwagon of being raised Catholic. Did the CCD and parochial school thing – was asked to leave ’cause I just didn’t believe enough (asked to many unanswerable questions – like where did the wives of Cain/Able come from) My sister is a lefty and she was repeatedly had her left hand slapped by a ruler to force her to write with her right hand. She put up with this for about a year and when my mom finally noticed that she was writing with her right hand, the truth came out. Only after when my mom threated to removed her 3 kids and the tuition from the school, did the nuns/priest relent. This is in 1979/80.
I am personal friends with one gentleman who was sexually abused by a priest in Chicago. He reported the priest to his parent, who took him out of school. The priest remained in the parish. The parents then wrote to the diocese bishop, who lovingly called the boy a liar and a heretic. This is in 1984.
The family left the church and has remained religious, but refuse dogma of any sort. They only attend mass.
It is interesting to note how different each person experience with the Catholic church has been. Science on the other hand lays down rules which can be tested and read by anyone without the need of ‘special’ interpretation. E=mc2 is pretty straight forward, even if you don’t understand the implications therein. Forgiving the Church because each Pope can ‘interpret the canon as they see fit’ is unforgivable and misleading and just crazy.
IF the church discredits the bible as just a metaphor, then why use that book as a reference for life. I think “Green Eggs and Ham” is a blast to read, but I don’t base my belief about food on it.
All of this is meaningless. Dr. P stated that he was looking for opinions – they is also not science. While I find the article interesting, it too is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. With approximately a billion people giving the church money every Sunday and then some, I have no sympathy for nor agree with arguments to support it.
I do not condemn faith, but it isn’t science. Ardent, fire-breathing belief in god, in my opinion is personally limiting and self-indulgent. It is driven by fear via the ego (pardons to Freud) to do the right thing or be punished. My 4 year old son knows that without god, thank you very much.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Let us hope that any truly intelligent beings out there are
far above the human superstitions and cults known as religion.
At least Einstein was smart enough:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24598856/
May 16th, 2008 at 6:27 am
@BA, regarding your first comment: I suppose what’s frustrating to us Christian readers is that you link to this kind of bottom-of-the-barrel fodder, which is grossly inaccurate from a Christian/Catholic standpoint, but don’t stand for similarly “grossly inaccurate” misunderstandings of science on the internet.
It’s fair that you don’t have the background in Christianity that you do in astronomy/science. This article is a blend of the two, and I appreciate your “disclaiming” comments upfront. It’s certainly an *interesting* viewpoint, even if it’s not representative of the Church or many of its members.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Thank you ARP1234 for proving my point. Your comment clearly communicates your opinion of the intelligence of people who believe in God. I knew someone would not let me down.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
So a bunch of guys from some tribe in the Middle East claim
some other guy claims he is the Son of God and most everyone
falls for it for the next 2,000 years and that everyone who does
not buy into this story is a fool, a heretic, or worse.
Meanwhile a select number of so-called Christians have made a
fortune and wielded serious power over the ages all because of
this one claim.
Man, how can I get in on this scam?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
ARP1234:
I’m going to feed the troll, but what the hey. Let’s say I like the color blue, and you like the color green. Now, the fact that I like the color blue, and may think your opinion of the color green incorrect in my case, I can grant that people is people and indeed for you the color green may be better. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the price of rice in Peoria remains unchanged.
The moderate religionist like Tony will go “well, I’m a Seventh-Day-Bah’ai-Tantric-Catholic, and you’re an Agnostic-Atheist-Freethinker-Skeptic-Cynic-Solipsist, and the price of rice in Peoria remains unchanged.” Despite the fact that he has a religion, he can see it as a personal choice that, should people disagree with him cordially, it doesn’t much matter.
Then along comes someone with a bucket of tar and a broad brush who declares that all religionists are fundamentalists and, when a moderate religionist politely disagrees, complain that the religionist isn’t fundamentalist enough.
I’m a deist, and I don’t consider you a fool for being an atheist any more than I consider Dr. Plait a fool for being an atheist or I consider Tony a fool for being a Catholic. I consider people fools not based on their ideology, but on their actions. You can believe in the Great Turtle A’tuin or even the Warhammer Chaos gods if you really want to but as long as you’re civil and you don’t try to teach science as religion or religion as science, I don’t much care. When you go about stereotypically painting others as a stereotype due to the Great [Un]Holy Culture War when there’s evidence not more than a few scrollwheel turns away to disprove said sweeping hyperbole, on the other hand, I can’t be quite so forgiving.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
> Meanwhile a select number of so-called Christians have
> made a fortune and wielded serious power over the ages
> all because of this one claim.
This is a gross mis-characterization of history. A sociologist would say that this statement is bad science.
While it is true that a number of “so-called Christians” have leveraged the dogma of their particular religious denominations to increase their own political or economic power, this is also true of every other religion… and (more to the point), every other sociological construct that involves enough people to abstract and distill power from a group of individuals and embody it in a leader or cabal of leaders. This includes guilds, democracies, theocracies, clans, business organizational units, political action committees, *any* grouping of people that allows trust to be transitive or distributive and power to flow outside individual responsibility.
Now, a libertarian would argue that this means that essentially just about every social construct is bad because it can be misused, but this completely ignores all of the advantages of people working in groups.
Abstracting power from a collection of individuals and putting it at the control of one (or a few) leaders allows an economy of scale and efficiency that does not exist among a collection of complete equals. This is why people band together in social constructs in the first place. And while there are plenty of horrible examples of misuse of power by social constructs, there are also plenty of examples of brilliant use of power by social constructs. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
No trolling here, I am stating my views. If you think I am harsh,
then you haven’t been reading other forums on the subject.
Probably the other reason you and people such as Tony are in
shock at my bold statements is that for most of the history of
christianity and just about any other religion, anyone who dared
to disagree ended up in serious trouble or outright dead.
And don’t worry, I know it isn’t just the christians doing this -
draw a picture of Mohammed and get instant death threats and
an airliner full of passengers into your skyscraper. All in the name
of a loving God, of course.
Already I can feel the hatred, pity, fear, anger and whatever else
from every religious person who reads my words, despite their
claims to be about peace and love. You’ve had 2,000 years of
domination in the world, of course it is shocking that someone
dares to stand up to your mythology and dictatorship – not only
because someone is going against the grain, but also because
you have been brainwashed for so long that saying the Emperor
Has No Clothes is a real culture shock.
So say what you will about me, but I am no troll. I am just speaking
for so many who can’t or won’t say what they are really thinking -
that religion is an outmoded concept based on ancient misinterpretations
of the world and psychology that has been hijacked and cleverly
utilized by those in power over the masses, so many of whom
just blindly accept what they told.
The Matrix is more right than ever about how the world works.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I? Shock? Sir, you assume too much. This is the Internet, and I haven’t lived in a cave. I’ve seen this before, and I’ll see it again. Still, no reason for me to not call out extremism when I see it.
Of course, that assumes two things:
1) that all people who have faith in irrational concepts are beholden to a religion or ideology external to themselves,
2) that leaders of said religions are cynics and opium-peddlers in the Marxist sense.
Assumption #1 is false because there are many irrational beliefs, such as my own, which have very little to nothing to do with organized religion. Assumption #2 is false because, for good or for ill, the leaders of such things really do often believe what they say to be The Truth. Osama bin Laden, for example, probably fervently believes that he is the Fist Of God. As alien as that concept is to products of Western Liberalism and the Enlightenment, it’s not so hard if you step back and think of secular idealists driven by the same sort of insanity: Che Guevara is a good example, or Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, militia survivalists, so on and so forth.
I’m not Christian, so your arguments of brainwashing have little to no effect on me. If people want to pretend, like me, about universe fairies, so be it. In terms of scientific, objective, naturalistic reality it is hogwash. That’s identical to saying, however, to saying that pork isn’t kosher. It’s hogwash and non-kosher by the definition of the analysis scheme being used. This also doesn’t prevent universe fairies and pork from serving beneficial pragmatic uses when applied appropriately.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
– Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
May 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Certainly it’s enough… for some people. If someone wants to see fairies at the bottom of it too, however, it’s that person’s problem and not Dawkins, so long as the person who wants to see fairies recognizes that they want to see fairies and realizes it’d be somewhat nutty to try and convince everyone else there’s fairies too.
Some people want to believe in the delusion of beauty; some want to believe in the delusion of equality. Some things need not be 100% objectively true to be worth believing in.