Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

[ketchupnmustard]

Originally Posted by CyTom

So what does the Vatican think of zombies?

Isn't the Big JC a zombie? He rose from the dead, didn't He? Wouldn't that technically make Him a zombie by B-movie standards?

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by ketchupnmustard

Isn't the Big JC a zombie? He rose from the dead, didn't He? Wouldn't that technically make Him a zombie by B-movie standards?

I think there also needs to be some sort of craving for the flesh and/or brains of the living.

[dustinal]

Originally Posted by 1100011CS

There's seems to be some kind of cycle with UFO interest. About 10 years ago SETI was huge. I think that's what it was called. I just remember everyone at work running that screensaver

Nerd Alert!: I still run that software on both my work and home computers.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by isugcs

I find it ironic that the Big Bang theory was rejected initially, fought over after that, then accepted after Bell labs detected the residual radiation from the Big Bang, all after the idea was proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest who happened to be a Physicist.

An amazing amount of scientists who have made earth-shaking discoveries such as this, have been associated with the Church. Kind of flies in the face of the Conventional Wisdom that the Church is anti-Science, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder what else the anti-religionists are fibbing about, don't it.....

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

An amazing amount of scientists who have made earth-shaking discoveries such as this, have been associated with the Church. Kind of flies in the face of the Conventional Wisdom that the Church is anti-Science, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder what else the anti-religionists are fibbing about, don't it.....

An amazing amount of scientific discovery has been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion as well.

[larrysarmy]

Originally Posted by Kyle

An amazing amount of scientific discovery has been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion as well.

What scientific discovery has been corrupted? I would say that if "religion" corrupted this...that would be a shame.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Kyle

An amazing amount of scientific discovery has been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion as well.

Oh, please do tell which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion.

I'm sure you have something specific in mind.

Be prepared to compare and contrast the amount of scientific discovery which has been rejected and/or corrupted due to secular governments, and (gasp!) other scientists as well.....

[jtdoyle1]

Originally Posted by Kyle

An amazing amount of scientific discovery has been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion as well.

I would say that is probably correct through out history, but you could also say that a lot of scientific discoveries have been rejected and/or corrupted by scientists as well.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Oh, please do tell which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion.

I'm sure you have something specific in mind.

There's the traditional examples with regards to the earth being round and heliocentric models of the solar system.

The a recent example is the faith-based rejection of evolution and the teaching of creationism in schools. The newest trend is the intelligent design movement, with regards to both biology and physics/astronomy.

Be prepared to compare and contrast the amount of scientific discovery which has been rejected and/or corrupted due to secular governments, and (gasp!) other scientists as well.....

I'm not sure this is especially relevant. No one contends that all secular governments and individuals are perfect in this regard.

-It will be later tonight before I have a chance to respond.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Kyle

There's the traditional examples with regards to the earth being round and heliocentric models of the solar system.

For the umpteen billionth time, Kyle, the "flat earth" thing was a practical joke, dreamed up in the 18th Century, which was later turned into a political club to beat the opposition with. The earth was known to be round, and a flat earth was NEVER sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

The heliocentric model was never rejected by the Church. What the Church did, was point out the blatantly obvious flaws in early heliocentrism and told the scientists to work on it some more. One idiot actually refused, and decided to personally attack the church heierarchy. This fine individual was burned at the stake, not for heliocentrism, but for jumping the chain of command and disobeying instructions, much like any other secular organization of the day would've reacted to a direct challenge.

And, obtw, that early model of heliocentrism WAS WRONG!!!!! After working on it some more, the theory was perfected, and later embraced by the church.

The a recent example is the faith-based rejection of evolution and the teaching of creationism in schools. The newest trend is the intelligent design movement, with regards to both biology and physics/astronomy.

None of these are seriously repressed by the church. Unless questioning certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine constitutes repression? Like, how do complex organisms result from simple organisms, "by accident?"

I'm not sure this is especially relevant. No one contends that all secular governments and individuals are perfect in this regard.

Double standard? Government and scientists can screw up, and in fact can openly persecute people with different beliefs, but the only drum you have to beat is the "Anti-Religious Bigotry" one....

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

For the umpteen billionth time, Kyle, the "flat earth" thing was a practical joke, dreamed up in the 18th Century, which was later turned into a political club to beat the opposition with. The earth was known to be round, and a flat earth was NEVER sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

You're right. I think I pulled that one out after looking at Genesis too much earlier in the thread (which on a literal reading does reflect a flat-earth cosmology). It wasn't really ever a legitimate church position though.
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The heliocentric model was never rejected by the Church. What the Church did, was point out the blatantly obvious flaws in early heliocentrism and told the scientists to work on it some more. One idiot actually refused, and decided to personally attack the church heierarchy. This fine individual was burned at the stake, not for heliocentrism, but for jumping the chain of command and disobeying instructions, much like any other secular organization of the day would've reacted to a direct challenge.
And, obtw, that early model of heliocentrism WAS WRONG!!!!! After working on it some more, the theory was perfected, and later embraced by the church.

Um, so was the geocentric theory they were using...
My favorite source (namely Wikipedia) doesn't have much in the way of good citations on this one. The following is from a student article that is friendly to your position.
Does the history of the so-called Copernican Revolution show that science and religion are antithetical and incompatible ways of looking at the world?

Originally Posted by The Above Website

The Congregation of the Index, was formed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, and had by this time fallen into the hands of the Inquisition who were charged with drawing up a complete list of forbidden books. In 1616, it put De Revolutionibus on the Index subject to revision and also added Kepler’s New Astronomy, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and World Harmony. In 1633, Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the two Chief Systems of the world was also added, and after already having been warned, Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the inquisition and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life in Florence. After a relatively inactive period by the Church in curbing anti-Catholic astronomy, now they were not standing for any more. The initial theories proposed by Copernicus were pushed aside by the Church for purely that reason – they were only mathematical theories. Kepler’s laws of physics, which helped Copernicus’ theories fit in with the astronomical observations, added to the aggravation of the Church. All it took was Galileo to tip the balance with the use of the telescope that now proved: the existence of multiple centres of motion in the universe thanks to the satellites of Jupiter, and imperfections in the cosmos such as sunspots. For this reason among many, Dialogue concerning the two Chief Systems of the world was not taken off the Index until 1824. Indeed, it wasn’t until Newton published his Principia Mathematica in 1687, that the scientific approach to the cosmos became more popular in study, and in belief, than the religious approach.

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Originally Posted by Kyle

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Oh, please do tell which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion.

The a recent example is the faith-based rejection of evolution and the teaching of creationism in schools. The newest trend is the intelligent design movement, with regards to both biology and physics/astronomy.

None of these are seriously repressed by the church. Unless questioning certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine constitutes repression? Like, how do complex organisms result from simple organisms, "by accident?"

I'm going to nitpick a bit, but your original question was which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted, not seriously repressed. The church now doesn't have sufficient power to "repress" an idea, so I'd agree with you there. Religious thought still rejects and corrupts these things though.

Your characterization of the intelligent design is also very much incorrect. It doesn't "[question] certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine." Science in general is progressing towards answers where they are available. Instead, intelligent design seizes upon yet unexplained phenomena and then injects a hypothesis of a designer to explain them. The problem is that hypothesis does not produce any useful or testable predictions, cannot be refuted through testing, multiplies entities beyond necessity, and is motivated by preexisting religious biases. These are the hallmarks of a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with discussing it in such a context, it has been around for at least hundreds, if not thousands of years. But, many people are highly motivated to get ID into science classrooms, again due to purely religious considerations. Sounds like the corruption of science to me.

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Double standard? Government and scientists can screw up, and in fact can openly persecute people with different beliefs, but the only drum you have to beat is the "Anti-Religious Bigotry" one....

The fact that three entities all have a property doesn't change the fact that one of them has that property. Its just not highly relevant to the issue of religion's impact.

[Phaedrus]

I guess I would wonder, again, why one would spend so much time and energy attacking religion's role in "suppressing science".

You've inspired me to reread my notes on Galileo and the Church's position on the Copernican view of heliocentricity.

The Church consistently protected/defended Galileo against fellow scientists/churchmen who did want to attack him, up to the time Galileo was caught plagiarizing his stuff. And when Galileo didn't know enough about his "work" to defend it, the stuff hit the fan. Especially since Galileo was extremely hyper-aggressive about attacking others for plagiarizing HIS stuff.

So the church remanded him to house arrest, but encouraged the continued study of the Copernican system.

This isn't quite the great big ogre that the church is painted, in accordance with Conventional Wisdom, and modern education.

[larrysarmy]

Originally Posted by Kyle

You're right. I think I pulled that one out after looking at Genesis too much earlier in the thread (which on a literal reading does reflect a flat-earth cosmology). It wasn't really ever a legitimate church position though.
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, so was the geocentric theory they were using...
My favorite source (namely Wikipedia) doesn't have much in the way of good citations on this one. The following is from a student article that is friendly to your position.
Does the history of the so-called Copernican Revolution show that science and religion are antithetical and incompatible ways of looking at the world?



I'm going to nitpick a bit, but your original question was which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted, not seriously repressed. The church now doesn't have sufficient power to "repress" an idea, so I'd agree with you there. Religious thought still rejects and corrupts these things though.

Your characterization of the intelligent design is also very much incorrect. It doesn't "[question] certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine." Science in general is progressing towards answers where they are available. Instead, intelligent design seizes upon yet unexplained phenomena and then injects a hypothesis of a designer to explain them. The problem is that hypothesis does not produce any useful or testable predictions, cannot be refuted through testing, multiplies entities beyond necessity, and is motivated by preexisting religious biases. These are the hallmarks of a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with discussing it in such a context, it has been around for at least hundreds, if not thousands of years. But, many people are highly motivated to get ID into science classrooms, again due to purely religious considerations. Sounds like the corruption of science to me.


The fact that three entities all have a property doesn't change the fact that one of them has that property. Its just not highly relevant to the issue of religion's impact.

If science comes to the end of a phenomena...and can't explain or test/repeat how, why, where from...then what happens?

[The_Architect]

Man this thread really got off topic...

[CloneAggie]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

Man this thread really got off topic...

Ok ... lets get it back on topic. Maybe the Vatican was preparing for this:

Originally Posted by Wired Zine

On Sunday, May 25, the Mars Phoenix Lander will plunge through the red planet's atmosphere in search of water -- and possibly look for evidence of life on Mars.

In less than two weeks, the Mars Phoenix Lander could realize scientists' long-delayed dream of directly finding Martian ice for the first time. To date, the evidence for water on Mars has been indirect.

And while the Phoenix Lander isn't specifically looking for life, the lander's instrumentation may also find evidence of extraterrestrial organisms.

"If we're successful, this mission will be remembered for being the first to do direct analysis of ice or water on the surface of Mars," said NASA's Mike Gross, who engineered the mission's scientific instrumentation. "We'll dig through the topsoil layers and ice to learn ... whether that environment is or was possibly suitable for microorganisms to grow and reproduce."