Benedict XVI is an enemy of science and reason
...Their charge? That
Benedict XVI is an enemy of science and
reason.
Specifically, the letter points to a speech given on March 15, 1990, by
then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Parma, Italy, in which he addressed
the notorious Galileo case. On that occasion, Ratzinger quoted Austrian
philosopher Paul Feyerabend that �the church�s verdict against Gaileo
was rational and just.�
The physics professors described themselves as �indignant as scientists
faithful to reason, and as teachers who dedicate our lives to the
advancement and diffusion of knowledge. These words offend and
humiliate us. In the name of the secularity of science, we hope that
this incongruous event can still be cancelled.�
In media interviews, the professors have also cited Benedict�s recent
encyclical, Spe Salvi, as hostile to modern science.
...The 18-year-old speech cited by the pope�s critics, for example,
offered a reflection by Ratzinger on what he saw as a change in the
secular intellectual climate, re-evaluating Galileo as part of a
growing awareness of the ambivalence of scientific progress --
especially under the shadow of the bomb. In that context, Benedict
quoted the judgment of Feyerabend, an agnostic and skeptic, on Galileo,
along with similar statements from Ernst Bloch and C.F. Von Weizsacker.
Here's what Feyerabend wrote, as quoted by Ratzinger: "�The church at
the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo
himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social
consequences of Galileo�s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was
rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for
motives of political opportunism.�
Ratzinger actually called the statement �drastic" -- upon reflection, a
fairly striking term from a figure who, at the time, headed the
historical successor to the Inquisition.
Ratzinger concluded the speech by saying, �It would be absurd, on the
basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The
faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality,
but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still
greater form of reason.�
In a nutshell, therefore, Benedict is being faulted by the physics
professors for quoting somebody else�s words, which his full text
suggests he does not completely share. (Readers who remember Regensburg
can be forgiven a sense of d�j�-vu.)
Mr. Allen nailed that one since once again the Pope is taken to task for quoting someone else with much less than full agreement. The part in Spe Salvi that they object to is:
�Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it.�
The objection to this is hard to fathom unless they really do see science as replacing redemption.
The reason modern scientists chaff is the same reason that Galileo did and both display the same arrogance. Galileo got in trouble for leaving the sphere of science and entering the sphere of theology with his interpretation of scripture. He also left the sphere of science by teaching as fact what would not be proven to way over a hundred years after his death. Many modern scientists so much of the same by entering the sphere of theology and trying to define what is ethical and what is not. To demand the ability to experiment without moral restraint is not science, but scientism. The truth is that it is the scientist who would define theological truths and not the Church wanting to define scientific truths.
Known as 
The Italian docenti could be forgiven for having fallen on a logical fallacy, the selective use of evidence.
Someone has to go back and relearn Logic 101 and I tell you something, is not the Pope.
-Theo
When did we get to such a poor state of academic freedom that people say they are offended and insulted whenever someone disagrees with them?
Besides that, Pope Benedict XVI's statement about science in Spe Salvi was not in substantial disagreement with the prevailing view of ethics as applied to physics. Scientists who consider the study of ethics would agree that they cannot apply the same methods to the study of their professional ethics that they apply to the study of physics. Instead, their ethics must come from a philosophical source which cannot be measured by the principles of scientific testing and scientific reason. That was essentially the point that the Holy Father was making that is being called offensive: science alone is not sufficient. See for example this discussion by a philosophy professor, writing for an academic conference on ethics in the field of physics (and not for a religious conference at all):
http://www.physics.emich.edu/mthomsen/resn1.htm
See the entire page on the "Issues in Physics Workshop" here:
http://www.physics.emich.edu/mthomsen/ethtaboc.htm
As for the Holy Father's statement about Galileo, that is a historical statement which is not the subject matter of physics. If physics professors and students refuse to consider an assertion of historical fact simply because it stands in opposition to their preferred view of history (which probably is not supported by historians' preferred view of history anyway), and not because it is lacking in documentation (the methodology that would be applied by most historians), then it is the physicists who are relying on faith in their preferred view and rejecting a reasoned analysis of the historical documentation consistent with sound historical methodology. In that case, it is the physicists who oppose the Pope's appearance who are rejecting reason and academic freedom -- an odd turn of events.
One would hope that others within the university would see the opposition for what it is and disregard the letter. Without knowing how many of the 65 people who sent the letter are professors, and how many are students, I would guess that most of those who signed were undergraduates, and that cooler heads will prevail.
Academicians opposing B16? Absolutely shocking! (-*
Academicians opposing acedemic freedom is more what we see here.
As a physicist myself, I really am quite ashamed to be in the same profession as these buffoons. It is clear to me, though, that this has absolutely nothing to do with "academic freedom" or even the purported opposition of the Church to science. The article where I read this story (from Catholic World News) ended on this note:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55934
"The dean of the university has said that he will not cancel the Pope's visit. But protests at the school are planned throughout the week, with critics posting anti-clerical slogans around the campus and organizing a "homo-cession"-- a parade of homosexuals and lesbians-- to protest Church teachings."
It comes down to opposition of the Gospel, and not a view of the Church as anti-reason. People just don't like the Church, and they haven't for the past 2000 years. It is not a scientific opposition, it really is just religious.
Exactly, the point that everyone misses about the Galelieo "controversy"
If there is one thing I have learned over the past 7 years as a Catholic, it is the role of the Academics in the most horrorfying of tragedies and holocausts. The above self centered scientists are probably the latest incarnation of those who have gone before them and who have left nothing but destruction in their wake as will these clowns.
I agree James, this physics department is an insult to physics in general. In the end, they will just look foolish to the world.
Something to spark hope however: All of Christendom College will be protesting legalized abortion at this year's March for Life, but only a few faculty and students are protesting a visit by the Pope.
Let's not be disheartened.
Father Z's Blog is reporting that the Pope has "postponed" his planned visit.
I hate to see him do that, but I must admit it's better than letting them have their way.
Still Ratzinger did say that Galileo was wrong and the church was right, which is false. The church was wrong.
Much of the opposition to Galileo came from the academics and scientists of his day-people who didn't see how Aristotlean cosmology could possibly be wrong.
Ratzinger gave a doctored account of the Galileo affair, which underlies the Vatican statements on it in recent years. Because of the falsification introduced by Ratzinger the Vatican statements failed to reach the desired closure. This was documented by Vatican astronomer G. Coyne, SJ, who has resigned.
Ratzinger has certainly acted against science and scholarship in the fields of liturgics, church history, moral theology, exegesis, where his panzer-method overrides scientific scruple and accuracy and where he has sabotaged careers at every level while promoting incompetent ideologues, with the result that academics of Catholic theology are losing all intellectual credibility.
Of course you're right Spirit of Vatican II, and no one on this thread excepting you can read either. Please tell me where I can send the meds...(-*