The Pope speaks, John Wilkins replies. Wilkins is sufficient, but I just had to comment on one silly thing the pope said about the consequences of evolution.
Man, "would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless," said the Pope.
This is terrible news. Forget evolution; I am the chance result of one out of trillions of my father's sperm meeting one out of hundreds of thousands of my mother's ova. And, oh no, the allelic content of each of those gametes was the result of chance molecular events in meiosis. And each of those gametes contained a handful of random mutations. I can see in my brothers and sisters that chance could have resulted in rather different outcomes.
Whoa … my exalted manliness was also the result of a roughly 50:50 chance—it's like one of the primary qualifications for Ratzinger to have become pope was little more than a coin flip.
So chance makes everything meaningless? I guess my life must be nothing, then, and the papacy too is just random noise. I guess in his recent get-together with his students on evolution, his reported willingness to listen was all a sham.
- Log in to post comments
Isn't this pope supposed to be some sort of "expert" in philosophy? But this remark would seem to indicate rather the opposite. Only a philosophical neophyte would suggest that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with meaning or value in life...
Apparently God puts meaning into everything and leaves nothing to chance.
God decides which sperm and ova are viable. It's all his will.
Remember?
For someone who decided everything and has an ultimate plan, God sure likes the shotgun method of procreation, eh?
Every sperm is sacred...
Thankfully it's millions rather than one olive sized sure thing.
I think most men would curse god at that moment.
What are the odds that the words coming out of the Pope's mouth will add up to a load of horseshit?
The same odds on Bush.
Ah, the old "if X were true then life would be meaningless, therefore X can't be true" "argument."
My take on that argument is NOT to claim that X does not imply life is "meaningless" (whatever that means) nor is it to claim that life does too have meaning.
It strikes me that this "argument" is not an argument at all; it is only complaining. It is as if a person were to look at his bank statement and see that the balance was a scant $0.12, and say to themselves, well, if this is true, then that means I'm not a rich billionaire. And I _so_ want to be a rich billionaire, I just know I'm a rich billionaire. I can't live unless I'm a rich billionaire. This bank statement is just wrong. I know I'm a billionaire.
Theists complaining that the consequence of a world without their god is that life has no meaning are not making an argument, they are just complaining in the same way a 5 year old might complain about not liking vegetables.
I think the notion of "meaning of life" is so imprecise and nebulous as to not be worth talking about, or, if the definition is refined to be less nebulous, it sure seems to disappear. I'd say there doesn't seem to be any meaning of life. So what? Not liking the idea that there is no overarching meaning of life doesn't make it untrue.
As I've said before, any person who needs someone else, divine or mortal, to tell them the meaning of their life has, ipso facto, a meaningless life.
Ahhh...smell the fear. The real fear is that science, logic, and objectivity will undermine Christiantity. Without believers, the Pope becomes meaningless and powerless.
How could theistic determinism (nothing left to chance because God controls everything) provide any more meaning than pure chaos would? Humanity reduced to meat puppets, the KY jelly in the Trinity's circle jerk? There's no meaning there, either. If people want meaning, it will never be ultimate. It will be proximate. Not just for the atheist, but for everyone. It's always possible to pull the focus out a little further and ask, "Well then, what is God FOR? What is the meaning of, the purpose of, God?" And if the answer is that God's meaning is intrinsic, then that demonstrates that there is such a thing as instrinsic meaning, and no reason why our thoughts and actions and feelings can't have proximate intrinsic meaning as well.
People who can't find meaning in friends and family, in acts of bravery and altruism, in art and sex and conversation, are pitiful, barren, and pathetic. For them to strut around pretending they have some sort of upper hand is unjustified, arrogant, and wicked. Double for popes, who at least have some education.
SteveC has a point about the difficulties in pinning down what exactly is meant by the phrase "meaning of life". Of course Douglas Adams did it best.
Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
The Pope's full title is:
"Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."
So don't mess with the man in the pointy hat.
Asking "What is the meaning of life?" is similar to asking "What is the meaning of a horse?" It's the wrong kind of question. Life is, just as everything else is. There is no deep meaning.
To seek to attach a philosophical or psychological "meaning" to these things is an artifact of human consciousness, not a reflection on the way things "are". All these things would be whether or not we were here to observe and comment on them.
What the Pope et. al. are really afraid of is that evolution unseats humans from being the center of the cosmos, which to them is a key tenet of their religion. However, when humans are simply recognized as being animals, the "specialness" under "god" goes away, which to them is a terrifying prospect.
Because then, they have to begin defining their existence on much more common terms, and have to justify themselves on a scale that must include all of nature and their fellow humans, not simply their place in a limited and highly abstract hierarchy.
Human life is not meaningless nor meaningful -- however, a person can become meaningless or meaningful based on his or her actions.
The value of human life is abstract and arbitrary, a social construct, not derived from some higher source, which suggests that some people can indeed become essentially worthless through their deeds.
My stand on the worth of Catholics, and indeed all religions, can be summed up by a religious commment: By their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:16)
Shorter Pope Ratzi:
"If science proves that God doesn't exist, then my life has been meaningless. And I'll be out of a job. Therefore, fuck science."
So is the RCC becoming more Calvinist? Or has the official position always been Calvinist and I just missed it?
I didn't grow up with religion so it all sounds like noise to me.
Cheers.
I posted this elsewhere, but it seems salient to this thread. It seems the Church is going backward:
In 1996, JPII said: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
Two steps forward...
FTP - Fuck The Pope!
I think the fundamental divide between "hard" religionists like the Catholic hierarchy and fundamentalists of all persuasions on the one hand and between atheists on the other isn't so much faith vs reason but rather semantics. Hard religionists cannot understand that there are other ways for things to acquire meaning than to have it imposed on them from outside the universe. Atheists and less dogmatic religionists on the other hand are quite happy with the idea that meaning is a byproduct of agency. As arguably the freeest agents the world has ever seen, and certainly the most sophisticated symbol manipulators, humans are also the most prodigious meaning generators.
I can't figure out why the hard religionists are so blind to this truth, given all that we have learned about linguistic meaning in the last 100 years. The fact of constant human meaning generation is impossible to deny in the light of creoles and pragmatics.
"lister" - I hope you're a nun... otherwise EWWWWW! Who wants to fuck an old Nazi?
The Pope led into the remark you quote with this (quoted by Wilkins): "What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless."
The Pope would say there is a world of difference between saying that we are "a chance result of evolution" and saying that we are "nothing more than a chance result of evolution." The former is compatible, according to him, with the universe being brought into being and sustained by "creative reason". Catholic theology has never had a problem with contingency or statistical randomness in the universe, and neither does the Pope. (You just have to read a little bit more of his writings than are to be found in the news media to know that this is true.) But Catholic theology has always insisted that the contingent as well as the necessary is governed by Providence, has a place in God's plan. The Pope does think that the randomness involved in evolution would render life meaningless unless behind the randomness is "creative reason," Providence. Without this "creative reason," he asserts that we are "nothing more than a chance result of evolution."
I don't really see where he's misunderstanding evolution as science here. He's not arguing about the science. If I deny that a dollar bill is "nothing more than fabric with patterns imprinted on it," I haven't denied that it is fabric with patterns imprinted on it.
You can disagree with him about meaning (or even say the question of life's meaning is meaningless)... But that's another issue. It's not an issue about understanding or not understanding evolution.
The problem is that "meaning" is an incomplete term. It always implies "meaning to someone." But when someone tries to talk about meaning without implying any someone, they end up speaking nonsense. An entire cabal of gods would exist with dark plots for your entire life that they mapped out at the dawn of time.... and that wouldn't necessarily make your life meaningful to YOU. It might have that meaning for THEM, but talking about the "meaning of life" as if no one in particular was involved in judging that meaning is just misusing language.
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!
The Pope is a Catholic.
Footage at 11:00.
Isn't the real story here that the most influential single religious figure on the face of the Earth hasn't gone out of his way to make things worse?
When people talk about religion giving things meaning, I see it as an admission that they know they are full of BS.
They're saying that they choose their "understanding" of the universe not based on what is observable or rational, but on what makes them feel good.
When people ask me "aren't you afraid of not existing after you die?" or "doesn't that make life seem meaningless to you?" my answer is always "what the hell does how I feel about it have to do with anything?"
If I get to choose how the universe came to exist long before I arrived on the scene, how it all works, what will happen to me after I die, etc. based on what would make me feel better, then apparently I'm wrong and there IS a god.
Me.
The problem is that "meaning" is an incomplete term. It always implies "meaning to someone." But when someone tries to talk about meaning without implying any someone, they end up speaking nonsense. An entire cabal of gods would exist with dark plots for your entire life that they mapped out at the dawn of time.... and that wouldn't necessarily make your life meaningful to YOU. It might have that meaning for THEM, but talking about the "meaning of life" as if no one in particular was involved in judging that meaning is just misusing language.
But that's just the point. They don't want to have to define their own meaning. That doesn't satisfy the insecurity. It's not comforting. They have to rely on themselves to say "I'm ok" instead of calling for Mommy or Daddy. Which is what religion is, really... people crying out "Help Daddy, help!"
I wonder... if humans were left in abandoned eggs to hatch on their own instead of having nuturing parents (well, some of you had nuturing parents...) would there be such a thing as religion?
He is making things worse.
Pope Benedict asked rhetorically: "What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason."
The Pope explained that the belief in God as Creator comes in the most ancient profession of faith known to Christians, the Apostles' Creed. "As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason," he said.
While faith is not opposed to science, the Pope noted that some scientific endeavor is aimed at opposing faith. "From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary," he said. The Pope added, "And if this were so, he (God) would also become unnecessary in our lives."
Man, "would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless," said the Pope.
However, Benedict XVI, noted assuredly that attempts to show God as unnecessary in the explanation of the universe are futile. "But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation!," he said. "When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe."
Wow. Just wow. He's saying even if evolution is right... it's wrong. It leaves out god.
Unreason???? Uhg. Out of chaos came order. Sure why not? It's still a cold and uncaring universe.
er... nurturing.
This is the most damning lie of all. Faith is by its nature inherently opposed to science, and science inherently opposed to faith. Declaring that faith is an acceptable means of validating assumptions and reaching conclusions is to reject the very essence of science, and utilizing the scientific method requires excluding faith as a viable means of drawing conclusions and validating assumptions.
Catholic school students have always giggled at that "Primate of Italy" title.
Religion looks for top-down explanations. It's the folk heuristic of "like comes from like."
Minds come from a Prior Mind. Reason grows out of a Pre-existing Reason. Life from a Life Force; morals from a Moral Force; love from a Love Force -- and, of course, meaning from the Source of All Meaning, the Meaning Force.
Science looks for explanations from the bottom-up. How do complicated things come from simpler things? Evolution is a bottom-up explanation which can certainly be used by people with a top-down way of looking at the world, but it's always interesting trying to watch them put the two together into one coherent whole.
The following is also from the pope's speech: "...we have the Cross here on the hill as a sign of God's peace in the world"
With the incessant cries of "terror, terror", and Bush's phony wars, one can only wonder which particular world he is talking about. Since it obviously isn't this one, then we can safely assume that he must be discussing some imaginary place, and that therefore all his mumblings are indeed just so much mumbo-jumbo. QED.
That's especially amusing given that the cross is a torture device.
Steve C:
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. You seem to have caught Mr. Ratzinger's meaning and, like you, I don't agree with him.
But all that means is that the Pope is a Catholic. Same old same old. You couldn't expect better; there was reason to fear worse. Two cheers....
Amusing? The problem of theodicy looms large for everyone, even the godless. The world is filled with pain and suffering, and we all have to face up it. If the best Christians can do is hold up a symbol of torture, that's a tragedy to me.
And, when the faithful, acting on their beliefs, make choices that increase the world's misery (as in attacking science education), that's a tragedy for all of us.
Sigh...Scott
Scott: The cross is the essential Christian theodicy, though -- because, for Christians, on the cross, God is in solidarity with us in our suffering. This is in the Pope's sermon too: "In his greatness he has let himself become small. Whoever has seen me has seen the Father, Jesus says (Jn 14:9). God has taken on a human face. He has loved us even to the point of letting himself be nailed to the Cross for our sake, in order to bring the sufferings of mankind to the very heart of God." (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94805)
I am saddened by the thought that you can reduce this to "holding up a symbol of torture." I feel that there is a real flattening out of your imagination there.
"If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses."
It takes imagination to love a symbol of torture because of your belief in an imaginary god that supposedly had himself tortured because he loves us so much.
How fucked up is that?
Isn't it historically correct that crucifixions were performed on a T form not a â ?
Actually, the Rack and the Iron Maiden and the Thumb Screw were the instruments of torture.
The Cross represented Roman power over the common people. Recall the 6000 slaves whom the Empire crucified along the Appian Way after the revolt led by Spartacus. Their rotting corpses were left to hang there for years as a lesson. Apparently, God was busy elsewhere, intelligently creating something.
Well it does take some imagination to make any sense of it doesn't it?
Why isn't the Christian symbol a big scary nail?
That's what caused the suffering isn't it?
"The Cross represented [...] power over the common people."
Well, you got one thing right.I guess my life must be nothing, then,
As for this, I guess in his recent get-together with his students on evolution, his reported willingness to agree with me on all things was all a sham. the bold insertion speaks for itself.
Pope Palpatine is definitely meaningless.
"Wow! I just won the lottery!"
"Well...how can you get so excited? I mean, it was just chance, right?"
"Umm...yeah. But so what?"
"Well, doesn't that make your winning the lottery meaningless?"
[Pause.] "Are you an idiot?"
Why isn't the Christian symbol a big scary nail?
It is that too:
http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/jewelry.asp#pendants
http://www.familychristian.com/shop/product.asp?prodID=1849
It's rugged and soft at the same time!
Interestingly, early Christian art suggests that this apparently was not always so. One source I have seen indicates that the first appearance of the Greek cross symbol dates from the 5th Century, and the first actual depiction of the Crucifixion from the 7th. It has been suggested that as long as memories of the Roman system of "justice" were lively, the fact that their founder had been executed like the most common of criminals was felt by many Christians as somewhat shameful and not to be advertised. So I guess their imaginations were also "flat"!
People, people! Why this discord over the meaning of life? Don't we all know that the meaning of life, the universe and everything in it is: 42?
The Pope is reported on the New York Times today talking about Secularism. Man, I had so many issues with it! Read my take on it here. [psst... this is my first attempt at the shameless promotion of my own blog!]
I quote from the New York Times, which quotes the Pope's words directly:
So fear of God is at the heart of modern atheism. Do you feel particularly afraid, PZ?
Steve Labonne,
Your source is wrong. There is a 5th century depiction of the crucifixion, with the body on the cross, on the wooden doors of Santa Sabina in Rome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Sabina).
But anyway that just shows that visual representations of the cross don't come until fairly late. But so what!
Come on, Steve -- the earliest known Christian writings (= Paul's epistles) make the cross central to the Christian message. Just for instance: Philippians 2:5-11, which is thought to be a hymn from a tradition even antedating Paul's letter; 1 Corinthians 1: 22-24, where Paul proudly proclaims that he preaches "Christ crucified"; Romans 6:6; etc, etc. These letters date from something like 60 A.D., that is the first generation after Christ's death. And the crucifixion isn't exactly hidden in the Gospels either.
"Only this God saves us from being afraid ..."
God may be a useful construct to encourage charity, control behavior, provide empty hope, soothe grief, invoke rain, calm volcanoes, and explain the unexplained.
But as to being afraid -- after seeing how he lost it in Sumatra, I'd be scared of the next tsunami.
Michael, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"being afraid of God... is ultimately at the root of modern atheism"
Let's see. If I was afraid of God, what would I do?
1. Bow down before him, accept Jesus without equivocation, give myself over to unquestioning belief in the hope of avoiding eternal damnation.
2. Deny the existence of God, thereby incurring His Delayed Wrath and securing for myself an eternity of agony and torment.
There must be something wrong with me. I don't see the logic there. Atheism is fear of that which does not exist?
Azkyroth: That's the flip side to philosopher Mario Bunge's answer to "what's the meaning of life?" which is "Life is neither meaningful nor meaningless, because only constructs can have meaning."
Micheal:
For the record, the cross represents something more to me than a 'torture device.' My comment was aimed at that happy band of fundies who emphasize Christ's suffering on the cross, but never get their hands dirty trying to explain why *others* suffer.
For so many of them, the main point of the agony of Jesus is that it confers them membership in the elect while simultaneously justifying the punishment that awaits those who, for whatever reason, didn't sign up when some Jack Chick tract was waved under their noses while alive.
From my point of view, these "Christians" use Christ's torture to not merely justify, but to add spice to their anticipation of judgement for those who haven't bought into their belief system. Just once I'd like to hear these Pollyanna 'God's got a plan for your life' types explain God's plan for children with leukemia.
Bottom line: I don't feel that I can resolve the problem of evil merely by pointing to the vicarious sacrifice, because pain and suffering was around before Jesus was crucified, and pain and suffering remain. Any faith worth having must address that suffering in the here and now, not appeal either to our mythic past or our imagined future.
Passionately...Scott
Then he wasn't a very good philosopher, was he?
Bear in mind, this Pope was also once a member of the Hitler Youth so his mind may be just a wee bit affected.