…and this is a 
Vatican watch
Category: Creationism • Religion
Posted on: August 28, 2006 8:53 AM, by PZ Myers
Pope Ratzi is getting ready to get medieval on the Catholic church—he's meeting this week to prepare to smack down those uppity scientists.
There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.
If this happens, there will be much rejoicing in Seattle. The Discovery Institute hasn't made much headway with actual scientists, but they seem to be doing OK with the Big Hat cabal. Pope Ratzi has already falsely claimed that "science supports a reliable, intelligent structure of matter, the design of Creation," so I suspect the deck is stacked in ID's favor at this meeting.
A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
Last week, at a conference in Rimini, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria revealed that evolution and creation had been chosen as the subjects for this year's meeting of the Pope's Schülerkreis - a group consisting mainly of his former doctoral students that has been gathering annually since the late 1970s. Apart from Cardinal Schönborn, participants at the closed-door meeting will include the president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Peter Schuster; the conservative ethical philosopher Robert Spaemann; and Paul Elbrich, professor of philosophy at Munich University.
God seems to have afflicted George Coyne with cancer just in time to keep him away. All I can say is that I look forward to the outcome: they're just going to give me more ammunition with which to condemn the idiocy of religion.
Comments
Oh no, everyone knows that the pope is one of the greatest scientific minds out there, this would change everything and make ID less religious!
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | August 28, 2006 9:22 AM
Being a religious cynic, I suspect that the RC church recognizes, much as the fundies on this side of the ditch have, that accepting evolution casts doubt on the truth value of the Bible. If the followers doubt some parts of the good book, what's to keep them from questioning it wholesale? After a few steps on the slippery slope, the obvious conclusion is that there will be fewer people dropping cash in the collection plate and, well, I think that I've made my point.
Posted by: Pi Guy | August 28, 2006 9:29 AM
Schönborn is quite an interesing person. He succeded Cardinal Groer as the Archbishop of Vienna after it came out that Groer used to f*ck little boys. Schönborn was considered a liberal, but after the death of John Paul II he captured the conservative zeitgeist and showed his real face.
He also published various catechesis where he called the DNA double helix "Darwin's ladder" and compared it to some old testament scripture...really weird stuff.
I am hoping for a good speach from Peter Schuster. He is a theoretical chemist at the University of Vienna and editor in chief of the Journal "Complexity"
Posted by: Chemical Odie | August 28, 2006 9:54 AM
Pi Guy: since Rome hasn't put serious emphasis on Bibilcal literalism for a very long time (if indeed ever) I don't think Pope Benny's motivation is as simple as that. I think it's a more fundamental theological concern, that evolution is seen (rightly or wrongly) as relegating God's role in creation to irrelevancy or non-existence. ID is seen as a way to ensure God's continued employment, thereby preserving a historically popluar class of argument for God's existence.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 28, 2006 10:18 AM
It will be an interesting spectacle. I am curious to see which, if any, actual scientists get invited to this meeting. I believe Ken Miller Catholic, for example.
Posted by: quork | August 28, 2006 10:40 AM
Would this make much difference here? American Catholics are already a pretty unruly lot, as least as far as obeying the hierarchy goes.
Posted by: Theron | August 28, 2006 10:44 AM
Watch the religious types here that pan or flat out ignore what John Paul II said jump on Pope Ben's bandwagon once the official mandate comes down.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Frankly, I'm very disappointed with the Guardian's coverage of the news. Dominique Tassot, a literalist hack whose Ph.D. is in philosophy, is called "A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist." Nowhere is it stated that evolution is part and parcel of the biological sciences and that all biologists accept it, unless you consider Michael Behe a biologist. Creationists' opposition to John Paul II's acceptance of evolution is described using a passive construction.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 28, 2006 11:08 AM
Pi Guy -
In fact, Biblical literalism is a big no-no in the Catholic Church - much of the Bible is meant to be taken allegorically or figuratively. Of course, the way that you decide which is to be taken figuratively and which is to be taken literally is based on Tradition and by the guys in pointy hats at the Vatican telling you which is which. But the idea that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally is a heresy in Catholic doctrine.
And, of course, the Church has tried to stay out of scientific arguments outside of the whole "when life begins" arguments because they've had a history of picking the wrong side and being PROVEN WRONG in the past. Its embarrassing when it happens and it leads to more folks leaving the Church and moving to other Christian denominations (or just leaving altogether). The Church has tried for the last century or so to stick with arguments that can't be refuted by science - like when your "soul" appears, or what happens after you die - rather than jumping into a position where they can be proven wrong.
Personally, I think that this is just simple arrogance on Benedict-Ratzinger's part. He seems to have missed out on the whole idea that the Pope really has no power in the modern world - he's not the old-style Imperial Pope that existed up through the 1800s who could make world leaders jump with a nod. The modern Pope influences through "moral authority" not by decree, and that means he has about the same level of influence as the singer Bono, and he has to cultivate it the same way. Ratzinger wants an old-style papacy where folks jump and do things he says just because he's the Pope - that ship has sailed, but he's too arrogant to think otherwise. Simple hubris is coloring his decisions, and if you're a "Pope-watcher" its easy to see this as just another step in that direction.
Posted by: NonyNony | August 28, 2006 11:17 AM
I think a more appropriate nickname for the pope should be Joey the Rat
Posted by: Bobryuu | August 28, 2006 11:25 AM
So, not only do you gloss over the fact that your previous post about Coyne being fired appears to be completely wrong, you jump into further wild speculation that will most likely prove to be incorrect. I have no problem with criticizing religions when they do stupid things, but criticizing them for things they didn't actually do or probably won't do seems to be borrowing a page from the creationist handbook. You really need to take a step back and apply appropriate skeptisicm to claims made about religion.
Posted by: Tonyl | August 28, 2006 11:39 AM
Perhaps they should reconsider the heliocentric model of the solar system as well, for consistency's sake.
Posted by: boojieboy | August 28, 2006 11:40 AM
As a Philosophy-Ph.D Candidate at Munich University, I would like to point out that Paul Elbrich is not affiliated with Munich University, but with the Jesuit School of Philosophy, which happens to be located in Munich.
Posted by: donpedro | August 28, 2006 11:54 AM
Posted by: Silmarillion | August 28, 2006 12:03 PM
NonyNony:
First of all, there is some power the Catholic Church has. The Church runs a lot of hospitals and medical services in the developing world, and its stance on birth control and abortion can be seen to contributing to these nations' problems with AIDS, overpopulation, women's issues and the like. The UN and other NGOs who want to address these issues can't always call the Church on the carpet, because the Church provides so much basic medical care in these areas. btw, this information is a couple of years old, I think obtained from the Catholics for a Free Choice website, so take it as you will.
Secondly, I don't think Ratzi cares if he drives people away from the Church. I think that's his agenda. He'd rather have a much smaller Church of Opus Dei-style zealots than an inclusive one of "cafeteria Catholics". He and JP II did their best to stigmatize liberation theology in Latin America, driving so many Catholics into Pentecostal Churches. (Liberation theology: the Church should assist the poor in this world. The Holy See: Let them wait for the next one.)
Posted by: False Prophet | August 28, 2006 12:05 PM
Posted by: sparc | August 28, 2006 12:25 PM
Looking at this as a power grab in a conveniently open forum, albeit one populated by fellow traveling loonies, I think that while Ratzi may have his share of arrogance- it seems to be a prerequisite for the job- he views the ID mess as opportunity with no downside. Given that a prime method of extending the tyranny of belief is to demand ever wilder confessions of dogma, this seems to be custom made. ID fits into the foggy, open-ended, interpretation-rich, evidence-devoid vagueness wherein pleas to stop thinking and start believing lend themselves to laziness on the part of the followers. So you have a necessary mass of chanting fools. It also secures the authority of those privileged to interpret the new spiritual insight, so you have a further mysticism, further distance, and further elitism, which also can be contemplated by the chanting masses. If we're talking about the propagation of the faith, this is how it's done.
Posted by: Hal | August 28, 2006 12:31 PM
It has been my observation that the conservatives and liberals have more in common with their like-minded brethren in other denominations than either have with with the opposite pole of their nominal affiliation (for an even more unlikely example, consider the apparent rapprochement between American Protestant creationists and the Islamist Harun Yahya. Birds of a feather....)
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 28, 2006 12:32 PM
Remeber the Guardian is a UK newspaper. They probably don't see any need to state the obvious. At least what is obvious to their readership.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 28, 2006 12:38 PM
It seems risky for the Catholic church to align its self too closely with a weak psudoscience. Facts have a way of being obstinate, will come out, and will undermine the churches credability. As soon as the church makes such a determination as to support ID, something will be discovered that discredits ID, the congregation splits into believers in evolution and believers in ID, and a new kind of wingnut is born.
Posted by: Dennis | August 28, 2006 12:54 PM
If you're going to be in Mr. Ratzinger's line of work, you are necessarily committed to the proposition that Someone Out There is behind it all and wanted it to shake out the way it did. That is not, strictly speaking, a scientific proposition, and many scientists do fine science while believing it, at least on Sunday. It is certainly true, however, that being immersed in science correlates rather strongly with not believing the Someone Out There theory. The real question is whether Mr. R. simply tries to put scientists into what he regards as their "place," or whether he signs onto dubious science. His simply having raised the issue is enough to raise concerns and suspicions about the direction he plans to go.
Posted by: CJColucci | August 28, 2006 1:09 PM
"As soon as the church makes such a determination as to support ID, something will be discovered that discredits ID"
I don't think so. Remember, the biggest problem with ID is that it says nothing that could be falsified or disproved even in principle. Sure, we'll keep finding explanations for specific things that the IDiots insist must be intelligently designed, and they'll simply move on to something else. That's the way it's always been with the argument from design.
For practical purposes these people are uncomfortably close to being IDiots anyway...they're required to believe God Designed man's soul and consciousness, that there was a Purpose and a Plan to it all so that if you started the clock out again you'd still get people and Bibles and Adams and Jesii and such, that God "used" evolution to design life (whatever that means) and so on.
So Ratzi'll go that much further. No-one's ever going to prove that he's a blithering idiot any more than anyone's going to show that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH) isn't real.
Posted by: D | August 28, 2006 1:13 PM
Up front, let me say that I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I hope that won't lead you all to just ignore what I have to say in the following.
For what it's worth I also accept the evolutionary explanation of the origin of species in general and of the human species in particular. At the same time I believe that the universe was created by a loving God and that there is purpose, and in this sense "design" in the universe. But God didn't just create the universe and let it develop on its own -- God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence. This is "intelligent design" only in a sense that, I think, is completely compatible with the evolutionary explanation of the origin of species.
Anyway, I wanted to share some reasons for doubt that the Pope is about to make the sort of doctrinal pronouncement that you seem to think is likely.
First, some facts about the upcoming meeting.
Ken Miller won't be invited because this is a meeting of Ratzinger with some of his former students. He has been having these meetings for years.
The meeting is not meant as some sort of council to define church doctrine. It is more of a get-together with former students to kick around ideas on an important topic. I wouldn't expect a doctrinal pronouncement to come out of it.
Second, some facts about Cardinal Schonborn. He's actually been back-pedalling for a while; in his recent speech at Rimini he said, among other things that his NYT piece was "too much crafted with a hatchet," that "the church teaches that the first page of the Book of Genesis is not a page of science," and that Darwinian theory and the faith can coexist. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604812.htm) He also said some unfortunate things, saying that while evolution should be taught in schools as scientific theory, teachers should emphasize the "missing links" etc.
But his main point seems to me to have been lost in all of this, which is that the truth of evolutionary science just isn't incompatible with a faith in a providential design for the universe.
Finally, something from Ratzinger himself on the same point:
"there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation *or* evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God... does not in fact explain how human persons came to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological development. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Ratzinger, 'In the Beginning...': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of the Creation and the Fall, Wm B Eeerdmans Pub. Co., 1995, p. 50.)
There's a lot that could be talked about in this passage and others by him, and I don't expect all of you to just accept what he says here, but my point is that his position as there expressed is not some sort of simple-minded creationist rejection of evolutionary science.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 1:18 PM
God did it. zzzzzzz. Wake me up when you snap out of it.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2006 1:23 PM
Well, the simple test will be whether respectful references to IDiocy come out of that meeting. That would go way beyind anyting JP II said, in very much the wrong direction.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2006 1:26 PM
Michael Kremer - my quibbles with you and the paragraphs you quote would be largely in the same spirit as similar quibbles I'd have with a deist or a unitarian or agnostic or something - of mild interest, but irrelevent. At least on the science front you sound like you want to keep ID out of schools and universities, and that's good enough for me.
I just hope ratzi et al don't change official policy. Such murmers and silences as have issued from the vatican on the subject since JPII died are far from encouraging.
Posted by: D | August 28, 2006 1:34 PM
Steve_C: I had hoped not to get a response like that. I wasn't, after all, arguing that God did it. I was simply pointing out reasons for thinking that it was unlikely that the Pope would come out with the sort of pronouncement predicted by the Guardian article. Surely your disagreement with me over whether God did it is not a reason to ignore the substance of what I said. But anyway, my view about what will come out of the Pope's meeting with his former doctoral students is going to be verified or falsified soon enough.
Steve Labonne: The problem is, the Pope will very much want to come out with statements like this: the universe is the product of "intelligent design" -- meaning, that there is a discernable purpose in the natural world as we find it, and that this purpose can be attributed to the Creator of the universe. In short, the Catholic Church does teach that there is a God who created the universe, and it would be a real surprise if it stopped teaching that. But if he uses words like "intelligence" and "design", this will then be interpreted as support for what you call "IDiocy" -- but I don't think it will really be support for that. (I think Schonborn has to some extent fallen into this trap, but I don't think Ratzinger will.)
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 1:41 PM
Well, I hope somebody tells the Pope that he needs to be very careful in using those words, lest he, like Schonborn, give himself a black eye for apparent support of pseudoscience.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2006 1:48 PM
Your argument is that god does it all... including evolution.
I could careless about what the pope thinks about science.
Let me know when he endorses contraception.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2006 1:52 PM
Steve_C: You are correct that my belief is that "God does it all, including evolution." But I haven't argued for this here. My argument concerned "what the pope thinks about science," which is, after all, what PZ Myers's original post was about. If you're not interested in that question, why are you bothering to respond on this thread?
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 2:06 PM
Remeber the Guardian is a UK newspaper. They probably don't see any need to state the obvious. At least what is obvious to their readership.
That doesn't change the fact that their coverage is extremely he-said-she-said.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 28, 2006 2:15 PM
My point is even if he comes out against ID (which would be the strategic thing to do) he's still the head of a religion that's just protecting itself.
If he was such a lover of science he would endorse contraception and not shun homosexuals. They too are part of "god's creation".
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2006 2:26 PM
I will be very surprised if anything unambiguous comes out of the papal gabfest. Things tend to happen very, very slowly in the Vatican and many Catholic reactionaries are already disappointed that the pope didn't immediately re-institute the Latin mass and banish altar girls. Benny Hex is not likely to do more than tease the ID people. Popes can be such flirts, you know.
Posted by: Zeno | August 28, 2006 2:32 PM
Michael Kremer: Would you like to expand on your statement that "God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence"? Do you see this as a testable hypothesis (if so, what kinds of data would be useful?), or is it something you accept on faith, while (presumably) accepting limits on the scope of that involvement consistent with (expanding) scientific knowledge?
Posted by: Ford Denison | August 28, 2006 3:11 PM
""As soon as the church makes such a determination as to support ID, something will be discovered that discredits ID"
I don't think so. Remember, the biggest problem with ID is that it says nothing that could be falsified or disproved even in principle."
In principle, if the RC specify ID's designer by accepting it under their image of their gods, it would be predictable and falsifiable. It seems they will adopt the Cosmic Cheater variant, it has been mentioned several times.
"But God didn't just create the universe and let it develop on its own -- God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence."
"The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God... does not in fact explain how human persons came to be but rather what they are."
Outright denying evolution and promoting the infamous Cosmic Cheater theory - bad theology (lying gods hiding behind seemingly natural explanations), bad philosophy (no parsimony, level errors) and bad science (supernaturalism necessary, doesn't use simplest theories). Is that the best RC can dream up after using scores of manyears on the task? What a waste, and how typical for a major religion to hurt good people or good science without hesitation. Better keep on dreaming.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 28, 2006 3:52 PM
Michael Kremer:
I sympathize. You were trying to provide your impressions as a Catholic as to what new developments, if any, might be forthcoming with respect to the Church's position on evolution. You were hoping to get feedback and questions on that topic. Instead, you're being asked to defend your faith.
Hey, join the club. If I had a dollar for every time this happened to me at Pharyngula, I'd have to give PZ a piece of the action. It's just the way things are here. You would've been better off not even mentioning your beliefs, since they really weren't central to what you were saying and simply identified yourself as someone who has been following the issue closely.
BTW, I appreciated your post for its intent, and hope that your appraisal is correct. The late John Paul II's endorsement of evolution is a fine talking point for me as a high school teacher, to the extent that I put the big quote up on the overhead and ask students if they can guess who said it. It would be a shame if his successor attempted to undermine him.
Sincerely....Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 28, 2006 4:02 PM
Uh... Monday temper tantrum. I completely forgot PZ's new policy!
Well, then:
"The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God... does not in fact explain how human persons came to be but rather what they are."
Pardon me, friend, but are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic church will outright deny evolution? And isn't the suggestion that "God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence" instating the Cosmic Cheater argument instead ? Can you expand on this as a deeper theological, philosophical and scientific point?
(Whew! This is hard when you are grumpy and impatient. Now, where did I stack the empty bottles for headbashing...?)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 28, 2006 4:05 PM
The problem sadly, Michael, is that if you make any statement more vague than, "God might sort of, somehow, be involved.", you start making testable predictions. Ones that have failed to bear any fruit in the past. At best, any statement sufficiently vague as to *not* place oneself in the position of having to defend "how you know" God is doing anything, must be so inspecific, vague and pointless as to render it meaningless from the perspective of ID (and especially to science), **or** is lends support to the unbelievable bad non-science involved, which basically says nothing other than, "We don't like your interpretation, so we think its our right to throw out any theories, facts, evidence or research that might annoy us and replace it with, 'God did that!'".
There is no middle ground. Either you are saying something that has no possible meaning to scientific investigations, which doesn't deal with vague statements about 100% undetectable things "nudging" stuff along, but only in what is observable, or you are attacking science "for" its refusal to include things it **can't** observe, on the grounds that somehow accepting them as a possibility will tell you one single bloody thing about how something actually works.
To put it simply, I don't need to know, believe or even be aware that some guy named Fred Johnson helped build my car, so long as I can figure out, based on the car itself, why the engine won't run. Knowing who built it probably won't help me figure it out anyway, especially if I have **no** way to reliably ask them, or they won't reliably provide an answer that's any less vague than, "I hit it with a hammer." (the equivalent of all the making people from clay stuff...). Further, it doesn't even matter if Fred is still building cars for other people. What matters is what is directly in front of me, and "if" I can understand how it works. This wouldn't change one bit, even if Fred was every place at once, invisible, inaudible, but personally holding every molecule of the engine together, but for some stupid reason, not fixing what is wrong with it.
ID, in its purest and least offensive form, worthless. In any form where it isn't completely worthless, its the equivalent of someone trying to find their way through science, as though they where navigating the insides of a natural gas field, at midnight, using matches. At best, it doesn't show you anything useful, while at worst, it burns modern biology to the ground, leaving nothing but ashes in its wake.
Its hardly a suprise that this fact makes people that recognize this either wonder what the point of mentioning ID is at all, in the meaningless form of it, or would ask you do defend why the heck you actually think it is even remotely useful, in its destructive form.
Of course, this is what the strongest backers fear. Religion doesn't provide "any" useful information to science. Its not even all that likely to provide moral guidence to it. Thus, its much easier to claim that evidence "must" exist, and keep pulling things out of the hat and going, "This irreducibly complex right?", and blaming every stupid thing imaginable on atheists, than admit that the hat isn't bottomless, nothing pulled out of it has been the least bit useful to them, that nearly everyone misusing science, or that a majority of those bulding the stuff being misused, are not atheist. Its much easier to simply deny the failures, claim that its all the fault of unbelievers and rant about vast, nonexistent, conspiracies to undermine the believers. Its like a strange form of high stakes poker, only.. in this case, we have people that are not even at the table, claiming that "they" have a royal flush, and that everyone at the table is lying, because they refuse to "see" the protestors invisible cards, and "insist" that the cards needed to make a royal flush have already been played two rounds earlier anyway.
Dishonesty, even if you are merely the guy standing next to the real culpret and saying, "I don't know why he would lie!", is a damn good way to find yourself being asked to defend your beliefs, either in his invisible cards, or why you think he might, despite all evidence to the contrary, be telling the truth.
Posted by: Kagehi | August 28, 2006 4:59 PM
Michael Kremer:
This is not "Intelligent Design" (TM). It is probably theistic evolution or directed evolution. Here's a nice tabulation at the NCSE.
As for the rest, I hope you are right that His Royal Popeness does not make any unfortunate official-sounding pronouncements i the ID direction coming out of this. It would seem dumb to me if they didn't invite any real scientists. What's the point of a bunch of non-scientists sitting around talking about what real science is? I do not share your religious beliefs, but I would prefer that the world's largest Christian* organization doesn't lead the way back into the Dark Ages.
* You may or may not be aware that some Protestants, notably some Southern Baptists I have met, do not consider Catholics to be Christians. That's a different topic though.
Posted by: quork | August 28, 2006 5:58 PM
Fred Denison: I am not going to try to expand in detail on my claim that "God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence"? I don't think that this is the place for me to try to write a theology textbook, and anyway I don't have the expertise. But I will answer your other questions. You ask if I see this as a testable hypothesis, or if it is something I accept on faith. I would say that it is not an empirical hypothesis to be tested as scientific claims are tested. I would also say that I accept it on faith. But I would deny that this means I can have no evidence for it, or that I have to deny my reason in order to believe it.
You suggest that if I accept this claim on faith, I must accept "limits on the scope of that involvement consistent with (expanding) scientific knowledge." I don't know why you think that. It is not as if I am talking about a limited involvement here, one which amounts only to the bringing about of miracles. What I meant is that God creates and conserves in being everything that there is. Including everything that science can explain. My reasons for thinking this have nothing to do with "gaps" in scientific explanation.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 6:47 PM
And that's based purely on faith. We only know what god let's us know.
Fabulous!
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2006 6:55 PM
Torbjorn Larsson: I don't understand much of what you say.
You quote from Ratzinger: "The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God... does not in fact explain how human persons came to be but rather what they are." You say that this involves "outright denying evolution." I think you've misunderstood Ratzinger. The "story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God" is the Genesis story, and he is saying that that is not a scientific account, that it is up to science to determine the correct story of the origins of life and of the human species. He is saying that the Genesis story nevertheless communicates truths to us about the human condition, that we are dependent beings, also material beings, but nonetheless conscious and alive, and so capable of becoming aware of our dependence and responding to this awareness, etc. So how, here, is there a denial of evolution (you boldface "the story of the dust of the earth" as if that were a reference to evolution, but it isn't).
You mention the "Cosmic Cheater" argument -- I am not sure what that is -- and then go on to accuse me, or Ratzinger, or both of: bad theology (lying gods hiding behind seemingly natural explanations), bad philosophy (no parsimony, level errors) and bad science (supernaturalism necessary, doesn't use simplest theories).
I don't understand these charges. I never said that God lies or hides behind seemingly natural explanations. The Genesis story is metaphorical and communicates truths. That does not make it a lie (it was no lie of Romeo to say that Juliet is the sun rising in the east). Natural explanations are perfectly adequate on their own level but that does not mean that God hides behind them. In my view God is manifest in his Creation. But this is not a scientific hypothesis. I don't think I commit the levels error you attribute to me, and Ratzinger's whole point is to distinguish levels. I certainly don't make a claim for the necessity of God as a scientific hypothesis, so there is no question of introducing supernaturalism at the level of empirical science. As to parsimony, you need some argument to establish this as a basic ontological principle, rather than a good methodological principle within empirical science.
Obviously these issues could be discussed at greater length, but I don't think this is the time or place (and anyway I have other things to do).
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 7:10 PM
Kagehi:
I am not sure what to make of most of what you say. I don't see how it has anything to do with me -- or even with the Pope. I certainly never backed ID (the pseudo-scientific theory called "ID" I mean). But why should I, or the Pope, allow the pseudo-scientists to hijack the terms "intelligence" and "design" when referring to my own belief about the origin and purpose of the universe? Does the fact that some cranks have made up a bad "theory" and called it "ID" forbid all discussion intelligence or purpose in the universe?
You say that my claim is either meaningless or a piece of bad science. This amounts to the false view that every meaningful assertion must involve empirically testable predictions. That's just bad philosophy of language. It is perfectly meaningful to claim that Bach's Brandenburg Concerti are beautiful pieces of music, and yet that is not an empirically testable proposition.
You seem to claim that I am either dishonest, or aiding and abetting dishonesty. I would like to see some evidence for this.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 7:21 PM
quork:
I agree that my view is in some ways a version of what's called "theistic evolution" at the NCSE site you link to. According to them, that's the official Catholic position, so it's not surprising it's my view.
But the point I made above is this: Just because some folks have labelled their own view "ID", it doesn't follow that there can be no other view holding that the universe exhibits design and purpose. Any Christian is going to have to believe in the intelligibility and purposiveness of the universe. Even an evolutionary theist.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 7:25 PM
This is my last post, I promise. I wish I had more time for this, but I do have responsibilities calling me away...
Steve_C: It was nice discussing things with you too. Thanks for your insights.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 7:27 PM
You've witnessed for it. You've also stated that such is your belief, then argued for the idea that you've accepted science.
You don't even know what science is.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 28, 2006 7:37 PM
Not much different from M Petersen who couldn't even pereceive the glitch in their perception.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2006 8:06 PM
On a new track -
Actually, favoring ID would be quite problematic for the RC Church on religious grounds. Let's think about this logically:
- The notion of "irreducible complexity" is central to ID. This notion posits that there are features in living things that *could not* have got there via accretion of changes, i.e., evolution. The "could not" part of this notion is vital; if reduced to "did not" or "likely didn't," then it is obvious we're just talking about opinions, not a tool that, it is claimed, is capable of demonstrating evolution (or "macro" evolution, or "Darwinism," or what have you) cannot be true.
- Yet it is this very "could not" that is the undoing of irreducible complexity on religious grounds. If God created the Universe, including living things, then saying various features of living things *could not* have occurred through evolution is the same as saying that God was incapable of creating a Universe in which these features evolved. Thus, the truth of irreducible complexity depends entirely on a less-than-omniscient, less-than-omnipotent God.
Somehow I doubt the Pope wants to declare a not-too-bright, not-quite-all-powerful Deity to be in charge of Creation.
Posted by: Jud | August 28, 2006 8:56 PM
Caledonian remarks (with reference to Kremer):
"You don't even know what science is."
Pretty strong words, podhuh! So I have questions: is there evidence for that claim in this thread? If so, what is it? If not, is there something outside of this thread that leads you to that conclusion? If so, what is it?
Skeptically...Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 28, 2006 9:16 PM
Jud- exactly, ID is almost as pathetic theology as it is science.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2006 9:32 PM
The Pied Poper
Posted by: Phunicular | August 28, 2006 9:39 PM
Michael:
"Torbjorn Larsson: I don't understand much of what you say."
I'm sorry, I will try to make a better effort now that I have more time.
"I think you've misunderstood Ratzinger. The "story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God" is the Genesis story, "
Yes, it was, and he unequivocally states "And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological development." I'm sorry, I made a blindingly stupid mistake, apart from being unnecessary grumpy at first. Mea culpa!
But Ratzinger also states "But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature." So instead it is a lot of question begging here, such as teleology, about development, and soul dualism. Ie, what does that mean, why does it apply for humans as apart to say monkeys, and are teleology and souls necessary in any explanations of what we know?
"You mention the "Cosmic Cheater" argument -- I am not sure what that is"
That is the argument that behind what we can observe and find out as laws of nature hides gods that continually works to "create and conserve". The question then is why they would make such an effort to fool us, ie lie to us about how nature works.
"I don't think I commit the levels error you attribute to me"
It seems so when you claim things such that "But God didn't just create the universe and let it develop on its own -- God's creative activity is involved at every moment of the universe's existence." and "God creates and conserves in being everything that there is".
That seems to be claims that gods continually affects the universe by supernatural means, which is the level where we usually look for scientific theories and natural means.
"As to parsimony, you need some argument to establish this as a basic ontological principle, rather than a good methodological principle within empirical science."
If we are discussing science and its areas the analog area in philosophy is epistemology, not ontology. Parsimony is a principle in epistemology.
To summarise, your language makes it seem like you are making the larger claims of continuing supernatural intervention and teleology in the universe, while you also say "that God creates... in being everything that there is" which is the smaller cosmological creationist claim. It is still encroaching onto science though since we have several cosmologies that obviates we need for creationism, and in fact both the current Lambda-CDM cosmology and string theory has as trivial extensions the same such cosmology.
Finally I will cite a cosmologists view on your discussion of origin, purpose and "that God ... conserves" and how they are debunked as level errors in the science you say you accept.
"From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so." ( http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html )
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 28, 2006 9:47 PM
One scientist will be at Pope Benedict's seminar to discuss evolution. He is Peter Schuster, a molecular biologist who is the President of the Austrian Academy of Science. There is an interview with him about the upcoming meeting here.
Posted by: Dendroica![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 28, 2006 9:52 PM
Torbjorn Larsson:
You accuse Ratzinger of question-begging -- on the basis of one paragraph which I excerpted from a longer work only to prove the point that you've now granted, namely that it is unlikely that he will be arguing that evolution is not established science.
Let me note now (I didn't say this before) that the passage I quoted came from a *sermon* -- it wasn't intended to be an argument set out to persuade skeptics, but rather a meditation on the meaning of the Genesis texts for believers. As such it is pretty unreasonable to accuse Ratzinger of question-begging on the basis of this one passage.
But furthermore -- what exactly is question-begging in bringing in talk of "teleology" for example? You ask -- are teleology and souls necessary in any explanations of what we know? It sure seems so to me -- for example, if you explain my recent behavior on the basis of my intent to hide from myself the falsity of my religious convictions, you've appealed to teleology (my purpose in doing what I did) and I don't think this explanation can be reduced to a non-teleological one. I admit that there is a level of description of what I did at which you can explain everything without reference to teleology, but that is to replace one explanation with another, not to show that no explanations need teleology. Moreover I don't think the non-teleological explanation would explain exactly the same thing.
I hold nothing like your cosmic cheater view. It is not part of how nature works that God creates and conserves it. It is rather a presupposition of there being any nature to work at all. The laws of nature are true descriptions of how the nature, that God creates and conserves, works. There is no hiding of anything -- we are given the means to discover the laws of nature, and we are also given another level of description -- the level at which we describe ourselves as persons. At this other level we are given the ability to speak of God -- and God does reveal himself.
It is you who insist on confusing levels, thinking of God's creating and conserving the universe as if it was a matter of God's "affecting" the universe.
As to parsimony: the principle is, I suppose, not to multiply entities beyond necessity (Ockham). This can be read methodologically (I think this is the same as your claim that it is an epistemological principle). There are a lot of questions here, but the basic one is why should I accept this as a general epistemological principle governing all knowledge? (In my view this is in the end to raise the principle to an ontological one, but we can leave that aside.) I agree that for purposes of scientific investigation this is a good methodological principle, but on what grounds do you claim that every search for knowledge must be constrained by it?
I also don't think that my claim concerning creation encroaches on science or scientific cosmology. Suppose that the multiple-universe cosmology is correct -- there is no special fine-tuning required to explain how our universe, which supports the development of intelligent life, came to be chosen over the many other possible universes, since they all exist, and of course we find ourselves in this one. (Like the fact that large cities tend mysteriously to be located on rivers.) This doesn't matter at all to me, because my original claim is not based on any sort of fine-tuning argument. I would say, if this multiple-universe cosmology is true, so much the better -- so much more Creation to praise the Creator for.
The Carroll quote seems to me to make the levels error itself, again. Yes, sure, "from the perspective of modern science" there is no need to postulate a God. But a postulated God wouldn't be my God anyway. The perspective from which I find faith in God compelling is not the perspective of modern science. This does not mean that I reject the perspective of modern science. It simply means I don't accept any claim (itself necessarily extra-scientific) for the intellectual or epistemological hegemony of modern science.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Which believers? Genesis has many meanings to many different groups of religious believers. How do you know yours is the correct version?
Which God and what version?
What other method are you going to use?
Which creator? What version?
This is a nonsensical paragraph. Exactly what does make your version of God compelling and how do you distinguish that version from all the other versions now and throughout history?
Posted by: Uber | August 28, 2006 11:07 PM
Hi Michael--
I seem to be late to this interesting party. It's been a long time. I share your hope that the pope will not hitch his horses to the (thoroughly mired) ID wagon.
I'm a little puzzled, though, about the epistemic commitments lurking behind your defense of religious belief as founded in something more than faith. I see science as a refinement and extension of common sense, whose success as an explanatory picture of the world has been surpassed (some time since) by the concepts and methods of science. Consequently, I'm at a loss (from my own perspective) to see where a set of standards that still have teeth and could justify any religious beliefs (let alone the particular beliefs on one particular religion) would come from.
I gather from some of your remarks that our commitment to teleological talk is important to your views. This brings to mind something Sellars wrote (somewhere in Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man, as I recall), to the effect that (in broad) teleological talk is the last remaining temptation to metaphysical dualism... but it was a temptation he resisted, without becoming a reductionist and without rejecting teleological talk. For myself, I find his approach to these issues much more attractive than any dualism, let alone any doctrinal religion, could be, and I do think that I smell some kind of dualism in the position you've hinted at here.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | August 28, 2006 11:23 PM
Michael:
"I admit that there is a level of description of what I did at which you can explain everything without reference to teleology, but that is to replace one explanation with another, not to show that no explanations need teleology."
I don't understand this. Replacing a dubious concept with a more basic and welldefined, for example here a neuroscientific description of the mind, is exactly to show that the construction was unnecessary. When one constructs models in science one has to use welldefined concepts et cetera.
"It is you who insist on confusing levels, thinking of God's creating and conserving the universe as if it was a matter of God's "affecting" the universe."
I was directly responding to your claims of "God creates and conserves in being everything that there is" et cetera. If you are making them, you are confusing levels.
If we now have moved on to souls or NOMA, I would say of the first that I consider that a dualism, which is debunked by neuroscientists theories of the mind. Nature is nature as observed, not as imagined. Our descriptions of our minds are still just descriptions.
NOMA is a failed concept. If we have a consistent worldview that explains what we see and puts a premium on parsimony in the process, it is impossible to have another alternate one alongside it, while keeping the science intact. It is a compromise any religious may do anyway, but it isn't without sacrificing some of what science has lead us to trust.
But I feel we are mowing in a direction that Scott mentioned as you "being asked to defend your faith". That is not my intention. Perhaps you should not take the discussion as such and phrase it differently?
"There are a lot of questions here, but the basic one is why should I accept this as a general epistemological principle governing all knowledge?"
That is a good question. I believe many philosophers, especially philosophers of science, use it. Here I'm trying to argue the science view, so I took the liberty of pointing out what I thought would be a philosophical weakness. OTOH if you don't use it you are probably, dare I say it, begging the question. (In the sense "raising the question".)
"I also don't think that my claim concerning creation encroaches on science or scientific cosmology."
In an eternal multiverse universe there need to be no 'creation'. In fact, since that principle is both illdefined and supernaturalistic (in effect Last Thursdayism removed to the far past), cosmologies must and can do without it.
"The Carroll quote seems to me to make the levels error itself, again. ... It simply means I don't accept any claim (itself necessarily extra-scientific) for the intellectual or epistemological hegemony of modern science."
Actually, if you follow the link you will see that he is very careful to first establish methodology for deciding between competing pictures, and to model the worldviews of science and religion. Of course, being a scientist and also seeing that the method works, he uses the method of science to describe and judge. But I am most interested in that it is a complete though naive model of science that constrains philosophy with the help of observations. It as usual constrains ideas by pointing out fallacious ones, but it also replaces philosophers metaphysics with the model and its interpretation. This reverses the usual idea of who begs whom questions or equivalently decides levels.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 28, 2006 11:43 PM
"This reverses the usual idea of who begs whom questions or equivalently decides levels."
And my point here is that it at the very least problematices that idea. (But personally, I think he clinched it.)
And if you don't have patience with my strong claims, I see that Bryson above have framed my view on teleology and dualism in a much more general way.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 28, 2006 11:52 PM
Uber:
I don't think you've read the rest of the thread. Otherwise you'd know the answers to most of your questions. The initial post was about the Pope. Ergo, the believers he was addressing in the passage I quoted are Roman Catholic believers. Moreover, I pointed out in my original post that I was a Roman Catholic. Hence my "version" of God is the God of Christianity.
As to how I know that my version of Genesis is the correct one, why I find faith in God compelling, and so on, do you really expect me to answer all these questions in posts on a blog page, in a way that would really convince you? You might start by reading a real work on these matters -- Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, for example.
I agree that my final paragraph was incomplete, but nonsensical? Just because I haven't answered all possible objections, it doesn't follow that what I said made no sense. Again, how much do you expect in such a post?
One last thing: You ask what kind of method there might be to find out the truth, other than the method of empirical science? The method needed is determined by the question whose answer is sought. If I wish to know whether Mahler's music is beautiful, or whether a new colleague is trustworthy, or what caused the fall of the Roman Empire, or what cultural meanings attached to breastfeeding in the Middle Ages, or whether human freedom is incompatible with causal determinism, or whether virtue is its own reward, I will employ different approaches in each case, but in no case will I employ the methods which have been so helpful in discovering the laws of physics or the principles of genetics.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 28, 2006 11:57 PM
Bryson:
(For the rest of you -- Bryson Brown and I were in graduate school in philosophy together. The rest of this post is really just for him, though of course you can read as much as you want.)
Yes, it's been a long time -- good to hear from you. I don't want to get into a dialogue between the two of us about Sellars here -- I suspect that this isn't the proper place. And anyway, the time I can responsibly spend on this debate has already been used up.
So I will just say something rather unsatisfying here. My Christian faith is based in my experience that it "answers to my condition" (as a Quaker friend of mine is wont to say). This faith is for me more like trust in a friend than belief in a scientific proposition. I fully expect that readers here will pounce on me for "wish-fulfillment" and self-delusion as soon as I say this. But I ask you: what are the standards appropriate for determining whether to trust a friend, are they the same as the standards for determining whether to accept a scientific theory, and do they have any "teeth"?
Dualism and reductionism: As you can see, some of my interlocutors here are eliminativists about teleology in a way that Sellars avoids. (See, for example, the last post by Torbjorn Larsson, "Replacing a dubious concept with a more basic and welldefined, for example here a neuroscientific description of the mind, is exactly to show that the construction was unnecessary.") I don't think I am committed to a simple-minded dualism, say of mind and body. But clearly there's a dualism in my view, that of Creator and creature. And I am putting teleology over on the Creator side. But here things get more complicated than I have tried to say in any of the above, for of course we don't know what divine teleology or intelligence is like -- these are terms that we can only use analogically based on our application of them to human purposiveness and intelligence. But now I am getting into deep waters, where I am not really very comfortable anyway and especially not in the context of a blog comment box. Let's just say that the dualism of Creator and creature cuts much deeper than anything Descartes imagined. God isn't anything like a big supernatural entity. But I do know that God loves me, cares for me, knows me -- because I know that I am loved, cared for, known. (That is, I know the relation by being on one end of it.)
Well, this all gets pretty metaphorical and is not meant to convince anyone of anything. It isn't meant as an argument for my beliefs. It is more of an attempt to articulate them a little in a very brief space (and with little time), and really just to satisfy Bryson's curiosity a little. So, dear readers, please treat it as such, and don't go accusing me of begging questions, and so on.
Anyway, I don't intend to post further on this thread. Bryson, if you would like to be in touch with me about some of this, I think you know where to reach me.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | August 29, 2006 12:50 AM
Catholic church?
Hahahahahahahahah.
This is the same organization that got Galileo wrong.
Completely wrong.
What a bunch of morons.
Want to shoot down a catholic? Simply ask, "Say, Why did you get Galileo wrong?"
Watch their face turn red.
It works. Try it.
Posted by: James | August 29, 2006 1:27 AM
What a waste!
All those minds wasting time on a bunch of hokum, that's what bothers me about these Catholics and their serious little conferences.
Endlessly making up b.s. about a deity and his "only begotten son" because they can't think of anything more noble or more honest to do with their lives, never-ending propping up of the religion with conferences and mega-services and pronouncements, and then lying every weekend to a rapt audience of millions who are desperate to believe the b.s. the big hats spew.
I live on Planet Dumbshit.
Posted by: George | August 29, 2006 1:36 AM