Science Receives A Benedict-ion

This is brilliant:

Pope says science no threat to faith

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Science made such rapid progress in the 20th century that people may sometimes be confused about how the Christian faith can still be compatible with it, Pope Benedict said on Friday.

But science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth, he told the Vatican's doctrinal department. [ . . . ]

"The Church joyfully accepts the real conquests of human knowledge and recognizes that spreading the Gospel also means really taking charge of the prospects and the challenges that modern knowledge unlocks," he said.

The dialogue between religion and science would actually help the faithful see "the logic of faith in God," said the Pope, speaking to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"Joyfully." If faith means anything, it should be that sort of proactive fearlessness, no? This Pope isn't just holed up in the Vatican grudgingly accepting the primacy of science outside the walls. He's striding out to meet it, embrace it, and direct the ethics of its uses. The tough, capacious old Church has been a major player in so many eras, and it isn't about to shrink from this one.

Benedict keeps surprising people, showing more warmth and compassion on sex and divorce than anyone knew he had in him. It's disarming, even to those who disagree with his immovability on homosexuality and on married and female priests.

Comments

[Mark Daniels]

This is a great statement from the Pope and one with which I, as a Lutheran Christian and a pastor, can heartily agree. I'm something of an ignoramous when it comes to science, frankly. But the more I read of scientific discoveries and theorizing about our universe, I find my faith strengthened. Likewise, science plays an essential role in many of the good things we enjoy in the world. Good for Benedict!

Mark Daniels

[realpc]

Yes, but he is probably not talking about the brand of science promoted by Dawkins and Dennett, which is not compatible with supernatural beliefs. I'm sure that brand is dying out, but it might be a long wait before Intelligent Design and New Science can become respectable enough to get funding.
The doors might remain shut until Dawkins and Dennett and all their devoted followers have retired.

The Pope might not be entirely aware of this problem. As a life-long Intelligent Design advocate, I have found that people either find it perfectly obvious and therefore not worth talking about, or they are completely sold on neo-Darwinism, and won't consider alternatives. The Pope might not be aware that, for devout scientific materialists and secular humanists, religion is still the number one enemy.

Ken Wilber's book "The Marriage of Sense and Soul," was supposed to solve the whole problem, but it doesn't. No scientific materialist would be convinced by any of his arguments. I don't think believers in the supernatural (whether New Age or traditional) spend a lot of time debating with non-believers, or reading their books. If they did, they would know that a reconciliation of science and religion is a long way off.

[karen]

I think the reasoning behind the sterness of the Pope (any Pope) and the Doctrine of the Church is due mostly because we- the lay people- are somewhat impatient when it comes to the ~why~ of the Church. We are more intent on the ~why not~.

I got an annulment, and at times I get the meaning of the Sacredness of marriage and the Triage of God involved- and sometimes i'm confused. It's a Sacrament, for crying out loud.

As for science- well- anyone looking at the growth of something and disconnecting *God* from it- is missing an important angle through which to glorify Life. Or- at the very least- to enjoy it.

[sleipner]

Frankly I don't buy it. Sure, regular science is fine - as long as it doesn't contradict anything the Church says.

The moment sociological or genetic studies say homosexuality is a normal, healthy, and sociologically acceptable state for a portion of humanity you'll see how quickly he'll disagree.

Any studies that say having abortion or birth control being available as a choice is in any way positive for society, of course he'll disagree.

Frankly I just think he's trying to gloss over the very real conflict between religion and science with platitudes, so that people who are confused about it but know nothing of science will "take his word for it" that there is no conflict.