As you have perhaps heard, Jose Gabriel Funes, the director of the Vatican Observatory, has gone public with the idea that life may have developed elsewhere in the universe.
There's nothing radical or outlandish about this at all. It's squarely in line with what most astronomers believe, and if anything the AP headline was -- in conjuring up images of Alf or E.T. -- taking an unnecessary potshot at Funes, who has been a credit to his post throughout his brief (21-month) tenure as chief stargazer.
That said, Funes' attempts to reconcile faith and science only underscore how futile -- and moreover, pointless -- it is to try to meld baseless mythological belief systems with systematic, evidence- and trial-and-error-based information gathering. Anyone with a scripted agenda, a touch of verbal dexterity, and a load of wishful thinking can claim that X doesn't contradict science, where X is anything, from a well-defined observable concept to something ludicrous you just pulled out of your own ass.
What's most telling about Roman Catholicism (we'll leave out the "cafeteria Catholics" who make up maybe 90% of the denomination's churchgoers I know personally and who approve of the Holy See's bullshit about as strongly as I do) is the mutability of its tenets, which are both a great strength and a profound weakness. The Church's willingness to revise its positions as humanity becomes more enriched with knowledge is a wonderful thing and puts the frozen-in-time standards of Baptards in ugly BAS-relief. On the other hand, if God was who or what Church leaders claim, there would be no need for this shit and the "unchanging" word of the Bible would not have to undergo constant reinterpretation. And that brings me to Funes' most glaring quote:
Funes urged the church and the scientific community to leave behind divisions caused by Galileo's persecution 400 years ago, saying the incident has "caused wounds."In 1633 the astronomer was tried as a heretic and forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
"The church has somehow recognized its mistakes," he said. "Maybe it could have done it better, but now it's time to heal those wounds and this can be done through calm dialogue and collaboration."
I know Funes genuinely means well here, but who the fuck is he kidding? Right now the Vatican is engaged in various sorts of senselessness that are going to look just as loopy and evil a few hundred years from now as the actions of Ignatius did in the 17th century. Sheltering pederasts from trials in their home countries and maintaining a stoically asinine position on things like barrier contraception in HIV-riddled parts of the worlds are not the deeds of a worthwhile entity; they are emblematic of a tired, bumblefuck dinosaur birthed of lies, fear and purloined legends.
Funes the man is capable of great things. As a representative of the Vatican he can be no more than a cartoon character. Humanity as a whole can do better.
Politics
Comments
That said, Funes' attempts to reconcile faith and science only underscore how futile -- and moreover, pointless -- it is to try to meld baseless mythological belief systems with systematic, evidence- and trial-and-error-based information gathering.
How so?
I applaud Funes and many within the scientific community whose continual work allows us to understand this amazing universe that we find ourselves in, as we are able to learn more about the Creator in the process. Perhaps you could share with us how your "sysematic evidence and trial-and-error-based information gathering" has led to your categorical assertion that any belief system other than the one you hold is "baseless" and/or "mythological."
Posted by: Lofcaudio | May 15, 2008 1:59 PM
I have a better idea: perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your "belief system" is in any way supported by "systematic, evidence- and trial-and-error-based information gathering".
If anything, it appears to require suspension of such.
Posted by: JimFiore | May 15, 2008 2:11 PM
"How so?"
Like, oh, this:
"...we are able to learn more about the Creator in the process."
Bullshit. There is no evidence for a "Creator." You and the other delusionals stipulate a priori that all scientific discoveries reflect the handiwork of some celestial artisan, and try to frame these discoveries in terms of your pre-existing (and yes, mythological and baseless) ideas. but that isn't the same as having evidence.
If I wanted to, I could claim upon, say, the first successful landing of humans on another planet, that this has simply told us more about some Creator in the Sky's powers. But if I did I'd sound like as much of a stammering dipshit as you.
I love it when you wash up here, seemingly 100 percent on embarrassing yourself with the worst conceivable arguments. You make the old saw "give 'em enough rope" shine with million-candlepower brilliance.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 15, 2008 2:11 PM
I have a better idea: perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your "belief system" is in any way supported by "systematic, evidence- and trial-and-error-based information gathering".
Typical. I'm not the one pretending to be a scientist making matter-of-fact statements about what science does and does not tell us. There are plenty of brilliant scientists whose studies have led them to a similar belief system as mine.
Posted by: Lofcaudio | May 15, 2008 2:38 PM
"Typical. I'm not the one pretending to be a scientist making matter-of-fact statements about what science does and does not tell us. There are plenty of brilliant scientists whose studies have led them to a similar belief system as mine."
Bullshit again, and multiple counts of it at that.
The reason observations like those Jim made are "typical" is because idiots like you continue to commit aggravated ignorance in the same exact way using the same examples.
You may not be pretending to be a scientist (not that you could fake it for even five minutes if you so much as opened your mouth), but are in fact making matter-of-fact statements to which you can adduce no evidence at all. As I noted, anyone can do this. I could yammer as loudly about the FSM or Baal or Allah or any other imaginary shitstain in the sky I choose, and I'd be no more wrong or right then you -- we'd both be yammering like unruly infants into a space devoid of all reason.
Finally, no religious scientist you can name came by his or her religious views through a scientific process of inquiry. This is made painfully obvious when, for example, otherwise intelligent people like Francis Collins stammer like buck-tooth mules about the beauty of waterfalls being "evidence" of a divine Creator. Faith is a great leveler in this way -- it turns all of those afflicted by it into the same sort of mental cripple regardless of the faculties they might have started discussions of "gods" with.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 15, 2008 3:11 PM
"The reason...is because idiots like you...are in fact making matter-of-fact statements to which you can adduce no evidence at all."
Oh look, it's the patented KB 1-2 punch--an ad hominem followed by a straw man. Typical. (Is there an echo in here?)
"Finally, no religious scientist you can name came by his or her religious views through a scientific process of inquiry."
Hugh Ross, Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins immediately come to mind. Your matter-of-fact smugness does you no favors when you are shown to be wrong.
"when...people like Francis Collins stammer like buck-tooth mules about the beauty of waterfalls being "evidence" of a divine Creator."
The 1-2 punch again. I guess it's the best you can do on such short notice. Do you happen to have a reference to where Francis Collins stated anything as bourgeois as "the beauty of waterfalls" line or was that a complete fabrication to prop up the straw man?
Posted by: Lofcaudio | May 15, 2008 6:08 PM
Do you happen to have a reference to where Francis Collins stated anything as bourgeois as "the beauty of waterfalls" line or was that a complete fabrication to prop up the straw man?
You don't read much, do you?
Posted by: JimFiore | May 15, 2008 7:13 PM
The only echo in here is you, Lofcaudio. You a re a troubled serial reverberation in this place, a shambling and simpering child among grownups. You also don't know what an ad hominem is. I'm not substituting insults for a dismantling of your scatterbrained bullshit, I'm using them in concert! There's a significant difference among those of us who read for comprehension.
This is all very simple (again, for the average visitor this blog if not to you). You wrote:
"I applaud Funes and many within the scientific community whose continual work allows us to understand this amazing universe that we find ourselves in, as we are able to learn more about the Creator in the process."
The blatant false premise here is the existence of a Creator. As I reminded you, there's no evidence for such a being, and one can substitute virtually anything in place of "The Creator" without losing any meaning. In fact, everything after the comma in your quote is superfluous.
Since you're too damned blinkered to comprehend what I'm telling you without me providing an example, try this:
"I applaud Funes and many within the scientific community whose continual work allows us to understand this amazing universe that we find ourselves in, as we are able to learn more about the three-peckered Koala bears orbiting Altair 9."
The thought-constraining bubble within which you exist prevents you from recognizing the logical parallels between your statement and mine -- and let me remind you, arguments from populism and authority are not valid arguments, so don't go telling me how many smart motherfuckers believe in God (in general, the more educated the hominid, the less likely it is to be fooled) or what fraction of an obviously intellectually challenged society subscribes to shitty ideas. All that does is allow idiots like you to feel redeemed. You shouldn't; you should be ashamed, and pissed off at having your mental machinery hijacked as a young 'un.
Moving on, I wrote that "no religious scientist you can name came by his or her religious views through a scientific process of inquiry," to which you responded, "Hugh Ross, Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins immediately come to mind. Your matter-of-fact smugness does you no favors when you are shown to be wrong." Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. I wasn't asking you to name religious scientists. I was asserting that these scientists did not come to their views by a scientific process. Their beliefs in things that do not exist on the one hand and their demand for evidence on the other requires a compartmentalization of cognition that I find both pathetic and admirable at the same time. Either way, you done stuck your own dick in your mouth agin here.
You wrote:
"Do you happen to have a reference to where Francis Collins stated anything as bourgeois as 'the beauty of waterfalls' line?"
Right here:
Doesn't leave much wiggle room about how Collins "came to believe," now, does it?
I understand your intention here has never been to make sense; even if this were possible for you or anyone else brainwashed into Christianity, your hope is to annoy me. As I have said many times, you should bar in mind that you cannot do this. It is unbelievably funny to watch a hapless bumblefuck repeatedly make the same crippled "points," and then, confronted with this behavior, resort to exactly the same failed tactics with a redoubling of lameness and confusion. It's basically cruel on my part, but what do I give a shit? If my wife were five months pregnant and discovered she had a Down syndrome baby on the way, I might agonize with her over the decision to terminate the pregnancy. But if I knew the kid would turn out to be as addled by religion as you are, I'd jump to wield the flaming coat-hanger myself. Christ in an elliptical orbit.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 15, 2008 7:28 PM
The Russian Orthodox aren't so sure:
Posted by: Bartholomew | May 16, 2008 3:40 PM