>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^hpqp:
@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.

To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.
So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.


Thanks for pointing this out and also thanks for actually reading the article, unlike (I suspect) the other 7 people who upvoted the original comment.

>> ^hpqp:

@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.


To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.

So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.

@ponceleon

The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.

I agree with most here. His premise is shaky, if not faulty completely. DNA is often described as computer code for living beings. DNA is simply a solution to a problem... the problem is: replication of the species. Specifically, replication of more DNA.

DNA is not a measure of intelligence or a total measure of potential. After all, I'm fairly certain alien life wouldn't have DNA at all. But even if they used DNA as a means of reproduction and ordering of life, they still have the same basic problem to solve. They would have evolved on a planet.. primarily evolving to survive long enough to create copies of itself... I daresay this wouldn't give any sort of instinctive insights to cosmic mysteries, no matter how advanced they were.

Educational techniques, and the mean average intelligence would be much higher than us (assuming they have interstellar travel and we do not) but I don't believe it would be terribly anthropocentric to believe that with equal time to advance our own educational techniques and mean average intelligence we could be on par of any advanced intelligence.

To believe otherwise would be to go against the pursuit of science, art, and literature as hopeless tasks whose limits will someday be reached... meaning there will come a point someday in the future where we cannot learn more, we cannot create more, and there is nothing left in the realm of the knowable.

Perhaps this is an incredibly naive statement of faith... but I have a firm belief that there will never be a time when the human race cannot solve another problem. I honestly believe our potential is limitless.

Michael Pollan's comments seem anthropocentric.

>> ^legacy0100:
Coincidental. Zebra couldn't have thought to drown the lioness

Why, 'cause he doesn't have "free will"? Please get over this anthropocentric nonsensical mindset.

>> ^adamwsmith6580:
That "many people" are unhappy with God as a result of the problems of the 20th century, as opposed to the millennia of suffering, disease and violence seems hugely anthropocentric and arrogant.

I don't think he was talking about the problems of the 20th century, but rather the supposedly sophisticated theological answers then offered to the "Epicurean Paradox". In other words, many more people began to contemplate the problem of an almighty and benevolent God allowing evil in the world, and were dissatisfied with the doctrinal responses.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
'Whether you are a ... Strong Atheist... compassionate discussion on the nature of God should make you think.'
that does not make sense - because gods do not exist!

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to the first line of my description - "Leave your preconceptions at the door, and just listen to this talk". Your comment suggests that you did not. Ultimately he suggests a characterization of God that does not entail an individual entity, but rather a recognition of the divine in everything, i.e., a very Taoist point of view.


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just wanted folks to open their minds and think deeply about the nature of humanity and the universe.

He does sound like a compassionate man, but what he's talking about sound like madness.
That "many people" are unhappy with God as a result of the problems of the 20th century, as opposed to the millennia of suffering, disease and violence seems hugely anthropocentric and arrogant.