Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pope Francis and science: Fast backward to dark ages?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is this a fair assessment?

From City Journal:

Shortly after the Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was consecrated Pope Francis in 2013, news stories reported that the new pontiff wanted to build a stronger relationship between the Catholic Church and science—one that saw science not in opposition to, but compatible with, religious belief. Some months later, the pope declared that evolution and the Big Bang theory of creation are real and don’t conflict with belief in God. Now, in the wake of the pope’s encyclical on climate change and the environment, Laudato Si (or, Be Praised), the press has exulted in the pope’s apparent effort to find even more “common ground” with science.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The encyclical, whose title is derived from a line from St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun (“Be praised, My Lord, through all your Creatures”), is being welcomed by some in the scientific community because it proclaims that climate change is real and that humanity must address it. But the nearly 38,000-word document—most of which is not about climate change—actually reads like a giant step backward for the Church’s social teaching: a rejection of technological progress; a dark, narrow vision of human nature that ignores the enormous gains the world has made in alleviating human suffering; and an almost antihuman call, reminiscent of the most radical environmentalists, to reduce human activity drastically as the only way to save the planet. As Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute and co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto, observed: “When [the] Pope speaks of ‘irrational faith in human progress’ I want him to visit the Congo to see what life is like when there is no progress.” More.

Also: Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy? Getting involved in a science controversy that depends fundamentally on evidence, not values?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
"161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences." -Al Gore. I mean (ahem) Pope Francis. Some of you guys can keep trying to put lipstick on this piece of burnt bacon, or you can toss it in the grease bucket, where it actually goes, and stop wasting people's time. Andrewasauber
June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
From the Catholic Catechism - 373 In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of "subduing" the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator "who loves everything that exists",249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them. IV. MAN IN PARADISE 374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ. 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251 376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called "original justice". 377 The "mastery" over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.buffalo
June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Yet another example (or four) of Betteridge's lawRoy
June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
"reminiscent of the most radical environmentalists" I'd say that on the whole, this is true of the encyclical. It's a document that, for the most part, has nothing to do with Catholicism, as such, but is the Pope's embrace of modern environmentalism. Which ain't good. Andrewasauber
June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
daveS
Is he expected to avoid this sort of thing? I don’t know anything about the Catholic church, but I assumed he would provide some leadership on what could be a very serious problem. Especially since it could disproportionately affect poor people.
You're right. He's expected to address issues of global importance like this and to provide moral guidance. This is not like the Galileo affair because climate change is something that is having observable effects on people and it's the pope's responsibility to teach that we need to use resources wisely and do whatever we can to try to avoid damage to the environment that could cause serious problems.Silver Asiatic
June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
anthropic,
DaveS 2 Actually, the poor have the most to lose from so-called green solutions to climate change. A recent Stanford study showed lower income groups hit disproportionately, since they spend a greater percentage of their income on energy and energy intensive activities such as food.
Sure, that could be true as well. No matter what happens, I expect the poor to take a bigger hit than the rich.daveS
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
DaveS 2 Actually, the poor have the most to lose from so-called green solutions to climate change. A recent Stanford study showed lower income groups hit disproportionately, since they spend a greater percentage of their income on energy and energy intensive activities such as food.anthropic
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
OT - My friend Chuck Koppany is a retired PhD chemical engineer and started his own website to self-publish his research, and comments on Christianity. When I asked him why he did that instead of publishing in journals, he said he didn't like the arbitrary side of what does and doesn't get published. I think this move reinforces what Denise and others on this site have said about peer review of late. He was contacted by at least one PhD candidate that stumbled across a paper of his and used it. Citation? Knowing Chuck, I think he would rather do long-distance bike riding than waste his time haggling with, and kissing up to journals. His site, if you're interested, is http://www.crktech.com/. From the "about" page:
Dr. Charles R. Koppany is a retired chemical engineer formerly employed by C F Braun & Co/ Brown & Root, Inc. from 1965 to 1994. While at Braun he served in both the Research and Process Engineering departments. Dr. Koppany has also done part-time teaching in the Chemical Engineering Departments at Cal Poly University Pomona and the University of Southern California. He holds B.S., M.S. and PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Southern California and is a registered professional engineer (Chemical) in the state of California.
bb
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Hi News. Thanks for reposting the very interesting commentary from City Journal. I'll have more to say on the subject in my next two posts, which should be available within the next 24 hours.vjtorley
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Unless the church of Rome has some scientific revelation from God that will revolutionize life on earth, the Pope should shut up about science. The same goes for all the other churches, IMO.Mapou
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy? Getting involved in a science controversy that depends fundamentally on evidence, not values?
Is he expected to avoid this sort of thing? I don't know anything about the Catholic church, but I assumed he would provide some leadership on what could be a very serious problem. Especially since it could disproportionately affect poor people.daveS
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy? No. And what was the mistake that the Church made in the Galileo controversy? To resist being made to look like fools for adopting an idea for which there was no evidence?Mung
June 20, 2015
June
06
Jun
20
20
2015
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply