Re: Religous debates and questions [2]

by halfwise Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:20 am

There's a whole raft of articles about the Pope's recent statements on Science and Religion, but what I can't understand is what exactly he meant by the statement "God is not divine." He also said God is not a magician, which makes perfect sense, but perhaps there's a translation error in the use of the word 'divine'?

Here's one sample of the countless articles:

Pope Rails Against Intelligent Design, Says God Isn't "A Magician"

George Dvorsky

Pope Francis has declared evolution and the Big Bang theory to be real, while adding that God isn't "a magician with a magic wand." The comments, while not completely unprecedented for the Catholic Church, goes against the "pseudo theory" of intelligent design encouraged by the previous pope, Benedict XVI.

The Pope made the comments while addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."

"God is not a divine being or a magician"

He explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator, arguing instead that they "require it."

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God as a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one so they would reach their ffulfillment

The beginning of the world, he said, was not a "work of chaos," but created from a principle of love, adding that competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

Burying the "pseudo theories" of creationists

This shouldn't come as a surprise to Catholics. Back in 1950, Pope Pius XII said there was no opposition between Catholic doctrine and evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II re-affirmed Pius's statement.

But things shifted under the previous pope, Benedict XVI. Writing, Religion News, Josephine McKenna explains:

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not."

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis' comments, saying he had buried the "pseudo theories" of creationists.

"The pope's statement is significant," Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. "We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation."

Yup, it's still creationism

As many of you are probably thinking, Pope Francis is still advocating for a kind for creationism. And you're right. It's a view that's intertwined with a kind of soft deism, the belief in the existence of a supreme being, or creator, who does not intervene — or intervenes very little — in the unfolding of the universe. After kickstarting the universe and establishing its fundamental laws, this supreme being just sits back and invokes a hand's off policy.

Deism appealed to the theists of the 17th and 18th century who were desperately trying to reconcile the teachings of the Church with the findings of modern science. They accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason, while rejecting belief in a supernatural entity who interacted with humanity.

Unfortunately, creationism, or deism, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't jibe well with scientific naturalism, the powerful idea that the universe and all that's within it can be explained without having to invoke an architect or overseer. All the evidence currently points to this conclusion, and until science reveals any hint of supernatural meddling — which it has not and likely will not – we will continue to have to accept naturalism as the ongoing scientific paradigm.

by halfwise Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:38 am

Got my answer from someone in the great electronic zeitgeist who pointed out that the more precise translation was 'demiurge', not 'divine being'. A demiurge is the creator being...higher than other beings yet still a being. As other commentators point out, God in the highly abstract medieval theology (far beyond what often passes for theology in modern churches) is not a being, but being itself. This is ultimately what Francis must have been alluding to.

As Father Barron points out in a lecture on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God cannot be compared to the F.S.M. because the F.S.M. is a being and therefore can be categorized with other beings; God cannot be so diminished.

I think this may be related to the famous incident when Bertrand Russell ordered the first edition of Principia Mathematica destroyed before distribution because he had not realized that the set of all sets was itself a set. God refuses to be so easily classified.
EDIT: this is a story I've heard, but cannot find any clear reference to it.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:03 pm

So who is the guy in the burning bush that gives his name then if God is not an entity?
Whose the guy that gives Moses the Commandments?
Who is Jesus talking to on the cross?
For that matter how can Jesus be the son of something that is not an entity, let alone be a normal human as well as an incarnation of the God entity and the Holy Spirit?

Seems to me the Pope wants to have his Holy cake and eat it. I think they just make it up as they go along.

by halfwise Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:10 pm

Oh but you see, those are just manifestations of God. Nod

(You can always pull another word out of the hat. Works like a charm.)

by David H Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:13 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Seems to me the Pope wants to have his Holy cake and eat it. I think they just make it up as they go along.

Of course they do, like all governments. The Pope's job isn't to define God once and for all, his job's to govern the Church (which is facing some serious issues in case anyone hasn't noticed! Shocked

)
You can't expect him to govern effectively with his theological hands tied behind his back, can you? Suspect

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:22 pm

those are just manifestations of God- Halfy

How can something with no substance and no individual identity manifest anywhere?

'You can't expect him to govern effectively with his theological hands tied behind his back, can you?'- David

Ideally I dont want him to be effective, I want the whole disgusting bloated mess to collapse on itself and be consigned to the scrap heap of history along with all the other Gods who have come and gone.
They can take Allah with them too.

Just think what the world could be like if all that energy poured into hating people with different beliefs, all the killing the forcing people to conform, was replaced by using the same energy to help each other as equal human beings.

And that way, if it turns out their is a God then if its a God worth jack they will be a lot happier with us rejecting religion in favour of creating peace and helping each other than the bitter violent shit hole religion is currently turning the world into.

by halfwise Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:37 pm

The Pope is trying to move his religion away from the doctrines that lead to hate mongering. At least give him credit for that.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:50 pm

After nearly two thousands years of lies, politics, mass murder, persecution, wars and child abuse you will forgive me for thinking it might be too little too late.

If he really wanted to move away from doctrine he could try telling the truth- that they have been making it up to suit themselves since the beginning and that at best Christianity is a structure of moral and ethical guidelines collected over the centuries in the form of invented stories.
And that taking any of it seriously, especially as fact is ridiculous and shouldnt be encouraged.
And that at worse Christianity is a means of political and social control for the few over the many using everything from propaganda and fear to mass murder.

Then I might admire him.

by azriel Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:01 pm

I agree that The Pope isnt there to define God, He needs to keep the sympathetic idea of a God very much alive. I think thats what made "Father Ted" so loved and amusing ! it was an honest parody. But I do strongly agree that if only the power & energy & force was put into humanity as a generous way of life, what a wonderful world with lovely people this could be ? Oh fook it, Mad

sounds so schmaltzy, as if eh ? This aint Utopia, its not Nirvana or any kind of heaven on Earth, to many people with hard aggression burned into their DNA proves that, sadly.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:25 pm

sounds so schmaltzy, as if eh ? This aint Utopia- Azriel

We might not be able to reach a utopia, but we might just end up with a better world if we at least tried for it.

I am off the belief it starts with the individual. If we taught our children that we are the sum of our thoughts, that as Shakespeare put it "Nothing is but thinking makes it so" and that it takes just as much energy to tell yourself the world is awful and out to get you as it does to tell yourself its beautiful and full of wonders, then maybe we would have better individuals and so naturally a better world.

We are what we think we are, we are the narrative ape, the story teller, our whole world is made up of stories.
I was recently reading the excellent second Science of Discworld book and they use the point of humans odd causality.
The example they use is of the person who gets up at 6am in order to be at work at 9am. This appears to be the future influencing the actions of the past.
But its not really, what is happening is that story is influencing the past. In this case the story of the person who was late for work and got fired.
Our actions are based on the stories we tell.

So perhaps what we need is to teach ourselves is to tell ourselves better stories.
Our idea of he world and life is constructed out of words afterall.

by azriel Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:10 pm

Good thinking batman ! No, Im not taking the wee, your quite right. Its the "is my glass half full ?" syndrome. Im all for a better way of life but, I cant help being a little cynical ? A bit of paranoia is a pocket guide to survival Very Happy

by David H Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:52 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Just think what the world could be like if all that energy poured into hating people with different beliefs, all the killing the forcing people to conform, was replaced by using the same energy to help each other as equal human beings.

Possibly. But more likely the energy would just go into more intense football rivalries.

Humans! What can you do? Shrugging

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:19 pm

Humans! What can you do?- David

Exactly. I share the humorous sentiment but thats is my point. What is the story we tell of ourselves to ourselves every day? We tell ourselves what its like to be a human. But we arent we a big moving blob of matter made of energy wandering through fields of energy. But we have a really complicated story called 'humans'.
And we all tell ourselves and each other that one continually, reinforce it continually through stories.
And among it is the basic assumption humans are basically bad (I blame Christianity quite a lot for that one in the West) and we shouldn't ever expect it to be otherwise.
Thats seems to me both a rather powerful and a rather stupid story to tell ourselves about ourselves over and over.
We could instead emphasis the story about compassionate, sharing, looking out for each other, hoping for the best in people, exploring, wondering humanity instead.
Its not about denying any part of our nature, just maybe if we accentuated the importance of the positives and downplayed the negatives in the story of ourselves, it might happen (News channels would have to go!).

Afterall there is stuff on the moon from earth that nature would never have put there but because we told ourselves stories about the moon it became inevitable we would have to try to go there and we went. Its powerful stuff story.

by halfwise Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:38 pm

And among it is the basic assumption humans are basically bad (I blame Christianity quite a lot for that one in the West) and we shouldn't ever expect it to be otherwise.
Thats seems to me both a rather powerful and a rather stupid story to tell ourselves about ourselves over and over.
We could instead emphasis the story about compassionate, sharing, looking out for each other, hoping for the best in people, exploring, wondering humanity instead.
Its not about denying any part of our nature, just maybe if we accentuated the importance of the positives and downplayed the negatives in the story of ourselves, it might happen

Sounding awfully politically correct there, Petty. But I largely support the PC movement, as I think it has had a positive effect on our kids. There has been some over-the-top-deny-reality moments, but a new movement needs to work out the kinks.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:51 pm

The much vilified Allistair Crowley once came up with a simple demonstration of just how often we reinforce our own idea of ourselves to ourselves in our internal dialogue.
Its simple, pinch yourself hard enough to hurt every single time you think that a thought containing a self reference- so I, me ect anything directly referring your idea of yourself.
It gets quite sore surprisingly quickly!

I think what we tell ourselves is very powerful. Not all powerful, I believe positive and disciplined thinking can help you through an illness, but not at the expense of medicine and scientific knowledge, and it still might not be enough to save you.
And I think we should teach our children both the importance of what we say to ourselves, and teach at a young age how better to have some control and discipline over how we think about ourselves.

And I think what we tell ourselves collectively is powerful too.

I have a theory that the opening to John in the Bible is actually referring to the spreading from one mind to another of ideas through the most powerful invention of all human time, the written word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Imagine spreading your idea of God, not to a tribe, but to thousands of people you never have to meet. You can set down your thoughts and ideas, your very beliefs, and strangers in place and even time can read them straight into their own thoughts.
I honestly believe we continually and daily underestimate the power of that act.

by chris63 Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:19 pm

by azriel Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:52 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:08 pm

by **Orwell** Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:19 pm

Oh Chris, you've done it again! cheers

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:33 am

by Eldorion Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:34 am

Saw that recently; it cracked me up. She's so earnest. lol!

Unleash the Beast!

by azriel Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:49 am

I know, bless her ! What I find troubling is that you can use that idea with every product or item going, if you look hard enough, & some people are willing to do that to the point of brainwashing. Gives me the shudders. All this on something that may not even exist or ever has done.

by Ringdrotten Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:49 pm

by Bluebottle Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:26 pm

There's a reason fjordlandian art is world famous. Razz

by bungobaggins Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:49 pm

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-fatwa-banning-snowmen-triggers-heated-debate-1.1439821

Manama: Saudis in the northern areas drew on their imagination and sense of fun as they braved the cold weather to build snow camels in a rare tribute to the local culture.

One citizen in the Province of Tarif used his snow camel to promote the colours of local teams, drawing praise from the fans, while another opted for the traditional ghitra and agal to cover the head of the snowman he built.

However, it was not all fun for Saudis after a religious scholar said that building snowmen or snow animals was not acceptable in Islam.

The fatwa, by Mohammad Saleh Al Minjed, said that building snowmen or any replica of an animal, even if it is for fun or recreation, could not be condoned. Only lifeless things, such as ships, fruit and buildings could be imitated, the fatwa said.

No date was mentioned about when the fatwa was issued, but it was widely circulated on social networks, triggering a wide and often heated online debate mainly among Gulf nationals.

Those who supported the fatwa said that building snowmen was a crude imitation of the West.

“It has no value in our traditions, and those who are fascinated by the West should emulate their inventions and sciences, not their culture,” a blogger said, Al Marsad news site reported on Monday.

However, Mishaal, an angry blogger, blasted the fatwa.

“We have snow for fleeting days, maybe even hours, and there is always someone who wants to rob us of the joy and the fun,” he posted. “It seems that the only thing left for us is to sit down and drink coffee,” he said.