Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Pope on the Periphery of ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] “Here’s a more complete summary of the Pope’s Wednesday audience. Note the clear emphasis on knowledge of God through reason prior to revelation: “Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator.” That view is both biblical and an important theme in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato as synthesized by Thomas Aquinas. The Pope’s point becomes even clearer when he lays aside the prepared text and speaks extemporaneously to the assembled pilgrims — including Cardinal Schönborn, who was present.”

Creation Reveals God and His Love, Says Benedict XVI
Comments on Psalm 135(136) at General Audience
Date: 2005-11-09
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- God’s created works are the first sign of his existence and love, says Benedict XVI.

From “the greatness and beauty of created things” one knows, by analogy, their author, the Pope said at today’s general audience. He was commenting on Psalm 135(136):1-9, as part of his ongoing series of reflections on biblical passages used in the Liturgy of Vespers.

“God does not appear in the Bible as an impassible and implacable Lord, or an obscure and indecipherable being, or fate, against whose mysterious force it is useless to struggle,” the Holy Father explained when commenting on the Jewish poetic composition.

About 25,000 pilgrims gathered for the audience in St. Peter’s Square.

The Pontiff told them that God manifests himself “as a person who loves his creatures, he watches over them, he follows them in the course of history and suffers because of the infidelity with which the people often oppose his hesed, his merciful and paternal love.”

“The first sign of this divine charity,” he noted, quoting the psalmist, must be “sought in creation: … the heavens, the earth, the waters, the sun, the moon and the stars.”

“Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator,” Benedict XVI said.

“There is, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation,” a sign of “the loving faithfulness of God who gives his creatures being and life, water and food, light and time,” he added. “From created works one ascends … to the greatness of God, to his loving mercy.”

When the Pontiff finished his address, he put his papers to one side and commented on the thought of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, who said that some, “deceived by the atheism they bear within them, imagined the universe deprived of a guide and order, at the mercy of chance.”

“I believe the words of this fourth-century Father are of amazing timeliness,” said Benedict XVI. “How many are these ‘some’ today?”

“Deceived by atheism, they believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order,” he continued. “The Lord, with sacred Scripture, awakens the drowsy reason and says to us: In the beginning is the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word — this Word that has created everything, which has created this intelligent plan, the cosmos — is also Love.”

The Pontiff concluded, exhorting his listeners to allow themselves “to be awakened by this Word of God” and invited them to pray that “he clear our minds so that we will be able to perceive the message of creation, inscribed also in our hearts: The beginning of everything is creative Wisdom and this Wisdom is love and goodness.”

Other papal commentaries on the canticles and psalms of the Liturgy of the Hours are posted in the Wednesday’s Audience section of ZENIT’s Web page.

Comments
Jim, "the polar opposite of ID proponents whose scientific views come shaped by their religion." There is a strong tendency for someone like myself, to whom the existence of God is apparent, to be unable to accept the blind watchmaker thesis. But I have no religion, and it simply isn't true that all IDists have religion as their motive. Many of them were convinced first by the evidence, and then because of that became more open to theism. "I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer." I've seen that argument before, but the propensity for certain molecules to form crystalized patterns in certain conditions is a very far cry from the level of complexity and nonrepetitive information in living cells. And then too, there is the emerging argument that all of nature in this universe as a whole looks to be designed after all. Nature's Destiny by Denton comes to mind. He's an agnostic, I think. "Of course there’s also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road : who designed the designer?" Obviously, people do not think God was designed or created. Why say such silly things? Of course, trying to understand that Being is uncaused and ever-existing is a mind stopper. But so are the concepts of infinity and eternity, and don't scientists accept them? The problem is that either we must imagine that matter arose uncaused out of nothingness, which makes it just as miraculous as God (in fact more so as it is utterly illogical and goes against all reason) or we must imagine that matter is ever-existent, which is essentially to call it divine -- and if we go that far, then we have already admitted that matter is not the thing we normally think of when we use that term, but rather something much deeper and more mysterious.avocationist
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Previous post was for Bombadill, Davescot; I agree there are patterns in DNA. There are patterns ina snowflake too! Or are you of the mind that God makes each individual flake?jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
I don't think you're in much of a position to be adjudicating credibility. Your knee-jerk reaction is pretty lame. Did you read the page at all? Which points do you have a problem with? Your one line response is sadly symptomatic of ID proponents' overall approach : it's not about getting to scientific truth and advance human knowledge, it's about knowing you're right and then pushing your ideas and agenda. Science isn't politics, you can't just smear the messenger and think you've won because x% of people think you're right. If you can't bear to go to that page (I can see why you would find it difficult) try this : http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=evolution&submit=Search+Documents&cs=1 or even http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution !jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
jim "I’m reluctant to answer your attempt at condesention" You're imagining a pattern of condescension where none exists. ;-) There are patterns in DNA. It's not illusory. Any number of metrics and independent observers all attest to an identical pattern.DaveScot
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
eeek, jim! You just lost credibility by linking Talk Origins. The land of reactionary straw man half-truths.Bombadill
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Lot of responses to my comment while I was at work, sorry if I don't get to them all. Dodging cars : "Does that means that Dawkins support of Darwinism proves that Darwinism is anti-religious?" (Aside from the question of what 'Darwinism' is supposed to be) Dawkins' outspoken atheism may be uncomfortable for those of a religious bent, but these views come out of his scientific work; the polar opposite of ID proponents whose scientific views come shaped by their religion. BTW my comment was more on the inclusion of the pope's view on this site rather than the content. There is no mention here of the latest ID research or ideas, papers being published or even a non-vague breakdown of what ID is, but when the pope mentions something tangentially about design it's front page news. Rick Toews : 'Since our experience tells us that design ALWAYS requires a designer, how is it scientific to reject design simply because the designer isn’t human?' I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer. Of course there's also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road : who designed the designer? jboze3131 : Dawkins is, above all, a scientist. Not a preacher or a politician or a lawyer, but a scientist and, as a scientist his aim is to advance human knowledge and discover truth, wherever it may lead. 'when the evidnce [for design] presents itself...' Please share some links to this. Maybe send them to Dawkins. 'Mud to man'????? You seem to be comfusing evolution with something else (abiogenesis?) Evolution is silent on the subject of the origin of life. Mentok : There is mountains of proof that we (including our brains) have evolved : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html 'Because [the brain] is unaware of patterns and familiarity therefore it cannot evolve due to it’s perceptions of patterns and familiarity, it cannot perceive what you are seeing.' The distinction between brain and mind is interesting, but irrelevant here. The selection pressures on the brain/mind (and, by extension, the persons behaviours) are undirected (ie random). The pressures are on the lines of : does x help the organism survive long enough to make more health copies of x which will make more....etc . Lack of conciousness of the process doesn't stop it. All selection is at the gene level at the end of the day and genes aren't concious. DaveScot : I'm reluctant to answer your attempt at condesention, but I agree that we are good at seeing real design. That's why I wrote 'EVEN when they don’t exist', a word which which you happily ignored. Pareidolia is the word for our hard-wired trait to see patterns and faces where there are none. A tree may 'look' designed to me because our brains evolved to search for patterns, but it doesn't mean it was designed.jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
“The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations” that was actually fairly funny. evolutionary theory has to cram all sorts of data into a preconceived narrative (that somehow out of mud arose life, and that life somehow, thru some untestable, unrepeatable mechanism changed that one celled life into man thru billions of yrs of randomness and NS.) how many times has the ape to man line changed? theyre always trying to fit different fossils into the record...and they often reject fossils because they deem them too old or too recent to fit the already written narrative. theology doesnt shrug off evidence and observations...theology changes all the time. the core can stay the same, yet changes can take place. mud to man narratives try to shrug off observations all the time. if evidence comes about and its too old in the fossil record, they deem it impossible that it fits into this particular line of descent. if a fossil is deemed too young, they often do the same thing. if one method of dating shows too young a date for their already written narrative, theyll go with another method that shows a different age just to cram the data into the narrative. this happens all the time, especially in BioEvo. the fossil record didnt show a gradual change, so many said- to hell with it...lets just posit that most of the changes were major sudden changes, which defies all mathematical odds, but so be it- the data doesnt fit, so well shrug it off.jboze3131
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Toews "Whose brain did you use to reach this conclusion, since you seem to regard yours as an unreliable filter?" ROFLMAO! Good one. A real gem there!DaveScot
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
“Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc.” Our brains are EXTREMELY good at finding patterns that DO exist. Trust me, DNA isn't a phantom pattern that disappears or has different sequences depending on who's looking at it. It is exactly the same spiral matrix of codons that translate to amino acids that build exquisite 3D shapes to serve specific purposes for the organism's vital life functions, self-defense, etc. If you can't see that pattern then you must be stupid or a liar. I hate to be so blunt but finding patterns is what human brains do and these are obvious, real, extremely complex patterns.DaveScot
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
jimpressario you wrote: "Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist" Since there is no proof that our brains evolved and also since there is no proof that our brains search for patterns and familiarity your statement can be considered to be purely speculative. In point of fact brains don't search for anything. A brain is a biological machine which functions within certain limited parameters. Your mind may search for patterns and familiarity but your brain is not your mind. Your brain cannot search for patterns or familiarity because your brain cannot perceive what your eyes see. Even though the process of seeing occurs in the brain the brain itself is not seeing, your conscious awareness along with your mind is seeing. The brain facilitates sight but it doesn't actually see anything. The brain is comprised of cells. Cells cannot see anything. They can perceive things in an unconscious mechanical manner. Just like a mousetrap can perceive when a mouse has removed the cheese. But we don't believe that the mousetrap can actually perceive what it is doing. So the point is that the brain is not aware of what you are seeing, it facilitates sight in an unconscious mechanical fashion. It is like a computer and the person is like the user. The computer allows the user to see things on it's monitor, but the computer is not aware of what it is doing because it is an unconscious machine. So the brain allows our mind/conscious awareness the ability to see, but the brain itself is totaly unaware of what you are seeing because it is an unconscious machine. Because it is unaware of patterns and familiarity therefore it cannot evolve due to it's perceptions of patterns and familiarity, it cannot perceive what you are seeing. All that the brain does it does so by an unconsicous mechanical methodology.mentok
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
doctormark you wrote: "If you are doing theology and the observations don’t fit the theory, you attempt to explain away the observations." That viewpoint is only applicable when a specific theological viewpoint is considered to be infallible. There are a great many theological beliefs coming from different people. Your comment is relative to the specific person and specific nature of a specific theological belief. Your comment is not an absolute truism, it is a relative one. You also wrote: "The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations" That seems to be the logical route to go, but in point of fact you will find a great many scientists who do not go that route. They propose that first the theory is postulated and then they go in search of data to support that theory. Oftentimes they will then only accept observations which help their theory and they will reject or neglect observations which contradict their theory. Evolution is one field where that is the norm, also the Big Bang is another field where observations are commonly neglected and rejected if they contradict the Big Bang theory. This is usually due to peer pressure. Oftentimes within the mainstream academic community there are established schools of thought. If you buck the system you can possibly become the object of scorn and ridicule and your career can be adversly affected. So scientists and academics become subject to what's been called a "knowledge filter". This ia description of the knowledge filter from David Dwyer and Anabel Dwyer. "Acedemic disciplines which have an acute sense about what constitutes permissible knowledge pervades the academic field. This sense often results in self-censure: the avoidance of unorthodox and political positions, despite the presence of tenure and academic freedom and derives in part from the awareness of what might happen were one to go against the prevailing “common sense.” One of the most celebrated examples of this comes from the field of geography. Not so long ago, the concept, then called “continental drift,” now theorized as “plate tectonics,” was considered wrong. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) espoused the concept of continental drift Wegener was demonized so that he the only academic job he could find was teaching high school. However, not all heretics are correct and even fewer, like Wegener, vindicated. As faculty, we learn the limits of acceptable knowledge and undertake extreme caution whenever we venture outside its bounds, academic freedom not withstanding."mentok
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations, while in theology you try to make the observations fit the theory. If you are doing science and the observations don't fit the theory, you adjust the theory. If you are doing theology and the observations don't fit the theory, you attempt to explain away the observations.doctormark
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
jim, you REALLY believe a man like richard dawkins woul follow the facts to design?! thats just being naive. someone who is adamant that there is no design, only the "appearance" or "illusion" of design- well, that person is going to be less likely to even search out that evidence. and when the evidnce presents itself, he or she will wave it off and claim its just an appearance of design. again, i go back to dawkins...he talks constantly about the appearance and illusion of design. his philosophical worldview precludes design from the start, so theres little chance hed accept the evidence as being not the appearance of design but actually design. and talking about our brains evolving to see certain things- that pure speculation not backed by any empirical evidence. if a study shows we see patterns in a lot of things, theres no way you can scientifically conclude that its because the brain evolved that way...all theyre doing is taking the mud to man evolutionary narrative in dogmatic form and fitting the facts into the preconceived story. its a speculation built on premises that, themselves, can never be falsified (mud to man evolution itself.)jboze3131
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
"Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?" Pretense? I believe the appearance of design is generally uncontested, and when we can plausibly attribute apparent design to a human agent, we do so without hesitation. How, then, is it "religious" to suggest that the apparent design we see at, for instance, the cellular level may also be the product of intelligence--even if we can't scientifically identify the agent? Since our experience tells us that design ALWAYS requires a designer, how is it scientific to reject design simply because the designer isn't human? "I admit that to ME a tree looks designed, but I know that this is not objective as it is through the filter of my brain and conciousness." Whose brain did you use to reach this conclusion, since you seem to regard yours as an unreliable filter? And if the human brain and consciousness can't be trusted to accurately tell us when a thing is designed or purposed (as you seem to be suggesting by referencing that experiment from Duke University), how in the world do detectives, or cryptoanalysts, or archeologists, or any of a number of others do it?Rick Toews
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
"Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?" Does that means that Dawkins support of Darwinism proves that Darwinism is anti-religious?dodgingcars
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
The study observes the recognition of patterns in sequences of events. But they also make the assumption that our brains evolved this trait as a survival advantage, which of course is the Darwinian narritive and is debatable. And I think you are extrapolating in suggesting that this trait applies to our observance of design in nature. I'm not looking at a tree and believing that I see a large green and brown monster, I'm logically observing what I know to ultimately be physical matter which ultimately demands something immaterial and uncaused as it's source.Bombadill
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
It's not speculation at all. http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2002/04/huettel0402.htmljimpressario
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Not what I said, jimpressario. I said materialistic philosophy pretending to be science. "Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc." I'm hoping this is the statement you would like us to ignore, since it is pure speculation and sans empirical evidence.Bombadill
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Pleaes ignore that last line. Bombadill, where has evolution ever claimed to be non-material? Quite the opposite.jimpressario
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
'the pope, being a christian would more easily be open to the idea of design. an atheist, on the other hand, would be less likely to admit design.' A scientist would follow the facts, regardless of his personal faith. BTW 'admit design'? I admit that to ME a tree looks designed, but I know that this is not objective as it is through the filter of my brain and conciousness. Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn't exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc. explain how life changes over time.jimpressario
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Has the pretence of Darwinism being non-materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, been official dropped? Comment by jimpressario — November 10, 2005 @ 11:36 amBombadill
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
ID is not necessarily religious. It is evidence used to justify religious conclusions, just as MN is accepted because it forces other religious conclusions. God is the inference to the best explanation for ID and the existence of religion.jaredl
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
the pope, being a christian would more easily be open to the idea of design. an atheist, on the other hand, would be less likely to admit design. they would continue to claim the "appearance of design". because theists are more likely to look for design, to support design theory, to support the search for it, etc. that doesnt make ID itself religious. of course darwinism calls for an unguided, purposeless process that lead to human beings, which would seem to be anti-god in more ways than one. so, since thats the case, and most people see this as atheistic- darwinism is a religious idea no? as you can see, this post is listed under philosophy and religion as well as ID. ID, because the pope supports the science here of design inference. religion and philosophy, because dembski also posts on these issues as well.jboze3131
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?jimpressario
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
oh well, if you ever forget to url to PandasThumb, just type in Benedict and an expletive, and google should take you right there..ajl
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply