What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?

[JoeRedskin]

As I said earlier, both religion and science seek the truth. I must be right b/c the pope agreed with me and he is infallible:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.

...

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

...

An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs."


Pope John Paul II, October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science. Pope John Paul II* 22 October 1996** To Pontifical Academy of Sciences

[757SkinsGirl]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

... both religion and science seek the truth...[/url]

There in lies the answer. The "truth" is different for both sides of the argument.

[757SkinsGirl]

Originally Posted by 757SkinsGirl

There in lies the answer. The "truth" is different for both sides of the argument.

When I'm not in a huge hurry, I'll fini.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

It seems to me the Pope is fallible. Just because you put a theory after a claim doesn't mean it's a theory, certainly not the scientific kind.

Anywho, Nova did a terrific program on the subject a while back and reductionism "theory" was brought up court.

Google Video

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

It seems to me the Pope is fallible. Just because you put a theory after a claim doesn't mean it's a theory, certainly not the scientific kind.

Please understand that the "infallible" comment was for irony.

Ultimately, at this point, no scientific theory of wihich I am aware describes the creation of matter.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Please understand that the "infallible" comment was for irony.

Ultimately, at this point, no scientific theory of wihich I am aware describes the creation of matter.

but that doesn't mean all science is flawed, or that because god said so is a better answer though.

I think one of the bigger issues is that people generally want answers for everything, and we don't always really understand how absolutely everything works... and science's failsafe of "i'm not sure" isn't always as comforting, so some people try to dismiss it completely, which (imo) is a HUGE mistake.

btw, this isn't direct at you JR, you just had a convenient quote.