The Pope says we're obsessed with scientific reality!

Myksyk

I see in the Irish Times Today a report from Munich about the Pope's visit there during which he said, amongst other things, that people have become obsessed with scientific reality. Terrible thing you know ... trying to actually touch base with reality. Anyone have any thoughts on our assumed obsession?

robindch

A bit more on Ratzinger's thoughts are here. Turns out that he thinks that "spreading the word of Jesus Christ was more important than all the emergency and development aid that rich churches like those in Germany gave to poor countries." One can't help but wonder if his philosophical detachment would be so great on an empty stomach.

BTW, this gem turned up in last night's newsmail from RTE:

5. Pilgrims welcome Pope to Al Totting shrine

---

Pope Benedict XVI has been welcomed by tens of thousands of pilgrims to Al Totting, Bavaria's most important Catholic shrine.

It should, of course, be Altötting.

pH

To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man, so I don't suppose he believes that many of these practising scientists will put down their microscopes on the say-so of the Pope. I presume he's talking to catholics, and wants them to somehow disengage in science?

Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

Owen

Yes, because believing that an invisible man in the sky who no one's heard from in 2000 years built the world in 7 days, and the planet is only 6000 years old is much more of a grounded theory than the big big, evolution, growth and destruction of civilisations ... :rolleyes:

pH

I doubt they're planning a retreat back to that position (A literal interpretation of Genesis).

I think they're more like to take the Intelligent Design position - "Yes things evolved, but God directed it all, gave it purpose and intervened a few times to do the really hard bits that evolution couldn't manage - Cos he loves us - praise be - amen".

robindch

> To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with
> them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

Sounds to me like he's just playing to the gallery in typically religious manner -- no specifics addressed, just general fingerwaves in the direction of nasty, cold science rather than warm, cuddly religion.

> He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man,

Having read some of what he's written, I disagree completely and I find him neither intelligent nor perceptive and certainly deeply irrational. Though I will say that he's one of the finest producers of pseudo-intellectual text that I've seen and writes to the clear enjoyment of many extremely conservative catholics. Have you read any of his stuff?

> Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

It may not be -- according to something which I can't find on pandasthumb, apparently the chap who was fired is now undergoing treatment for cancer, so he may have retired for health reasons, and with the vatican's traditional tendency towards secrecy, the story might just have been excitably misinterpreted. We'll see in the fullness of time how this one pans out...!

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> To whom are his comments addressed, and what effect is he hoping for with
> them? His words are spoken with the anticipation of causing some action.

Sounds to me like he's just playing to the gallery in typically religious manner -- no specifics addressed, just general fingerwaves in the direction of nasty, cold science rather than warm, cuddly religion.

As to "playing to the gallery"
His comments were addressed to his old university. You can find them on the vatican website but the notes havent been added yet so it is provisional.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060913_alte-kapelle-regensburg_en.html

> He (by all accounts) is an intelligent and rational man,

Having read some of what he's written, I disagree completely and I find him neither intelligent nor perceptive and certainly deeply irrational. Though I will say that he's one of the finest producers of pseudo-intellectual text that I've seen and writes to the clear enjoyment of many extremely conservative catholics. Have you read any of his stuff?

Have you?
What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis was all about rationality in christianity.

> Is this the second salvo in the retreat from the current position on evolution?

No it isnt! And the Vatican took a rational position on evolution decades ago!
Indeed the Church have taken on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same rationality on which science is based! That is actually in the above address if you think about it.

the story might just have been excitably misinterpreted. We'll see in the fullness of time how this one pans out...!

and you are adding to the misinterpretation. Please read the source material and show where it supports your claim that the pope was playing to the gallery or attacking science. You have reacted as some muslims have. But in the case of science it IS like Christianity rooted in western rationality unlike other religions.

pH

ISAW wrote:

As to "playing to the gallery"
His comments were addressed to his old university. You can find them on the vatican website but the notes havent been added yet so it is provisional.

I think you're confusing 2 speeches, the one being discussed here isn't the latest one.

No it isnt! And the Vatican took a rational position on evolution decades ago!

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6081FFB35550C748CDDAE0894DD404482

To be fair what the pope is currently saying about evolution is as obscure as most of his pronouncements, but seems to be summed up by:

Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-12_1128196.html

It's hardly our fault that the man seems to make it exceedingly hard just to figure out what he's actually saying.

robindch

> What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis
> was all about rationality in christianity. [...] Indeed the Church have taken
> on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same
> rationality on which science is based!

I think the pope may disagree with you, according to this article, italics mine:

People in Africa and Asia [...] are frightened by a form of rationality [...] as if this were the highest form of reason

Do remember that what the church says and what the church does are almost invariably unconnected, if not actually entirely at odds with each other.

ISAW

pH wrote:

I think you're confusing 2 speeches, the one being discussed here isn't the latest one.

My mistake. I didnt know where in the Irish Times it was.

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6081FFB35550C748CDDAE0894DD404482

Cant get it there. Is this it?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html

To be fair what the pope is currently saying about evolution is as obscure as most of his pronouncements, but seems to be summed up by:

Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-12_1128196.html

It's hardly our fault that the man seems to make it exceedingly hard just to figure out what he's actually saying.

But above you have a cardinal and JPII here you have Benedict. to whom are you referring?

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> What about the above address do you find irrational. In fact the thesis
> was all about rationality in christianity. [...] Indeed the Church have taken
> on the rational basis of the Greeks since Thomas Acquinas. the very same
> rationality on which science is based!

I think the pope may disagree with you, according to this article, italics mine:Do remember that what the church says and what the church does are almost invariably unconnected, if not actually entirely at odds with each other.

The reference you provide is not first hand. the vatican carries nothing of this from sept 10th. the only meeting with scientists was below:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060913_alte-kapelle-regensburg_en.html

and "do as I say dont do as I do" isnt an argument. it is an accusation of hypocracy! that is totally aside from what is said. what was stated supports rationality. Rooted in Greek rationality and NOT in other forms of so called "rationality".

pH

ISAW wrote:

But above you have a cardinal and JPII here you have Benedict. to whom are you referring?

I'm not sure I'm referring to any one individual, merely saying that there have been recent moves by the Pope(s) and his closest theologians/advisers to move away from the "we accept evolution" position.

Schönborn, while publishing his NYT article while the last pope was at the helm, is known to be well connected with the current one.

robindch

> The reference you provide is not first hand.

I trust the respectable newfeed I quoted to quote accurately a public statement by a public figure. However, a google search for the sentence nonetheless produces his full speech from the "Catholic News Agency":

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message3.htm

...whose authority I trust you respect. Actually, it was worth locating this speech, since it heaves into view Ratzinger's level of irrationality, "Greek" and otherwise:

Yet the experience of those Bishops is that evangelization itself should be foremost, that the God of Jesus Christ must be known, believed in and loved, and that hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if - for example - AIDS is to be combated by realistically facing its deeper causes and the sick are to be given the loving care they need. Social issues and the Gospel are inseparable. When we bring people only knowledge, ability, technical competence and tools, we bring them too little.

What complete and utter bollocks -- reconcilation can only begin with more people converted to his religion; and religion is more important than knowledge in dealing with social issues? The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> The reference you provide is not first hand.

I trust the respectable newfeed I quoted to quote accurately a public statement by a public figure. However, a google search for the sentence nonetheless produces his full speech from the "Catholic News Agency":

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message3.htm

The point I was making was two fold.
1 The original text isnt there.
2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

Actually, it was worth locating this speech, since it heaves into view Ratzinger's level of irrationality, "Greek" and otherwise:What complete and utter bollocks -- reconcilation can only begin with more people converted to his religion; and religion is more important than knowledge in dealing with social issues? The man ought to be ashamed of himself.

To which I supply the same as above. The original words you quote refer to converting peoples hearts i.e. doing the right thing because it is the right thing and not because it is economic efficient or fiots into a plan. And he did not say it is more important but that the other elements such as knowledge and technoloogy are insufficient. This is related to an age old doctrine of "faith and good works" much has been written on it. But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith. all the other things may be necessary but are not sufficient is a valid point of view. It is not irrational.

ISAW

pH wrote:

I'm not sure I'm referring to any one individual, merely saying that there have been recent moves by the Pope(s) and his closest theologians/advisers to move away from the "we accept evolution" position.

Schönborn, while publishing his NYT article while the last pope was at the helm, is known to be well connected with the current one.

So what? the official position is that evolution is accepted by the Church. End of argument. You cant argue that the church is changing its positionmmn when the position is that evolution is accepted as more than a theory. The Church also believes Gopd has ongoing interaction with his creation.

pH

ISAW wrote:

So what? the official position is that evolution is accepted by the Church. End of argument.
<snip>
The Church also believes Gopd has ongoing interaction with his creation.

Hardly end of argument, when you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You can't really hold these 2 contradictory beliefs, without some mental fallout.

To the 'educated' they don't want to look ignorant and reject evolution, yet to the less educated they still need to promote a 'God made us in his image' message.

If you want to claim that can both believe something and its opposite, and that switching between these 2 beliefs is not 'changing their position' because both beliefs are held to be true at the same time, then by all means - knock yourself out, I don't buy it.

robindch

> 1 The original text isnt there.

The quotation is accurate and the original text is there.

> 2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

I wasn't quoting the article, I was quoting Ratzinger. Hence the quotation marks and the direct attribution to Ratzinger. I really don't see why you are bothering to argue about this beyond a desire to be disputational.

> But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith.

And this is what I was referring to when I said "bollocks". It might make good theology, and may even make an old man feel wanted or at least, listened to, but it's still irrational bollocks, no matter how much he thinks is isn't.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Hardly end of argument, when you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You can't really hold these 2 contradictory beliefs, without some mental fallout.

Actually one can but one must eventually win out. Even kuhn accepted that "cognative conflict" or "cognitive dissonance as the Americans call it may exist.

To the 'educated' they don't want to look ignorant and reject evolution, yet to the less educated they still need to promote a 'God made us in his image' message.

No. I am trying to get two points accross. first that the belief is that god made the Universe and the laws of physice (That is if indeed the so called "laws" of physics exist. One could also ask why should they any more than why should God.)

Second is the idea of the "watchmaker God" who created the universe and the laws of nature and then walked away. Christians for example would believe that God continually intervenes.

If you want to claim that can both believe something and its opposite, and that switching between these 2 beliefs is not 'changing their position' because both beliefs are held to be true at the same time, then by all means - knock yourself out, I don't buy it.

One can believe evolution and also in Creation. It is an acceptable valid and logically consistant position.

pH

ISAW wrote:

One can believe evolution and also in Creation. It is an acceptable valid and logically consistant position.

Nonsense, (but not for this thread start another one)

This thread is all about how the Pope would like us all to close our science books and go to mass more often, and listen to him - damn it!

The real reasons to hate the pope
(And it's got nothing to with Islam)
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=172

And from the Slate ...

Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. He pretends that the word Logos can mean either "the word" or "reason," which it can in Greek but never does in the Bible, where it is presented as heavenly truth. He mentions Kant and Descartes in passing, leaves out Spinoza and Hume entirely, and dishonestly tries to make it seem as if religion and the Enlightenment and science are ultimately compatible, when the whole effort of free inquiry always had to be asserted, at great risk, against the fantastic illusion of "revealed" truth and its all-too-earthly human potentates. It is often said—and was said by Ratzinger when he was an underling of the last Roman prelate—that Islam is not capable of a Reformation. We would not even have this word in our language if the Roman Catholic Church had been able to have its own way. Now its new reactionary leader has really "offended" the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without.
Christopher Hitchens (Slate)
http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/nav/tap1/

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> 1 The original text isnt there.

The quotation is accurate and the original text is there.

I was referring to this:

Well they did, however there was this article in the NYT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AE0894DD404482

Can you show me where the NYT article is?

> 2. The article is an opinion based on it (but the whole article isnt there either without a subscription).

I wasn't quoting the article, I was quoting Ratzinger. Hence the quotation marks and the direct attribution to Ratzinger. I really don't see why you are bothering to argue about this beyond a desire to be disputational.

Because of you refer to the NYT article we should be able to see where the original is. Thats only reasonable isnt it? and a citation is only certain if one can go and see the original work. Most of the time we can take peoples word but
1. the ability to check should be there.
2. there has been frequent mis reporting of what the Pope said with respect to Islam.

> But the theology is that good works alone do not suffice without faith.

And this is what I was referring to when I said "bollocks". It might make good theology, and may even make an old man feel wanted or at least, listened to, but it's still irrational bollocks, no matter how much he thinks is isn't.

Christian theology is not irrational! One point the pPope was making is that Theology is rooted in reason. Another is that reason alone is not enough.

ISAW

pH wrote:

Nonsense, (but not for this thread start another one)

I didnt bring up the point about cognative conflict.
But

Kuhn wrote:

A scientific theory is usually felt to be better than its predecessors not only in the sense that it is a better instrument for discovering and solving puzzles but also because it is somehow a better representation of what nature is really like. One often hears that successive theories grow ever closer to, or approximate more and more closely to, the truth. Apparently generalisations like that refer not to the puzzle-solutions and the concrete predictions derived from a theory but rather to its ontology, to the match, that is, between the entities with which the theory populates nature and what is “really there.”
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm

Isnt there so assumption of "progress"?

This thread is all about how the Pope would like us all to close our science books and go to mass more often, and listen to him - damn it!

Nope. It is about whether science can replace religion!

The real reasons to hate the pope
(And it's got nothing to with Islam)
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=172

Dawkings is a thinker I admire buit he is fervently anti religion. When asked about child abuse in schools and religious institutiuons inthe past I remember him (from memory) saying " Far worse than the abuse is the fact that religious people were involved in education at all"

No doubt his expressed opinion is biased against religion.

Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. ...
Christopher Hitchens (Slate)
http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/nav/tap1/

[/quote]

Again I would think he said blind faith without reason is not sufficient but nor is reason alone without belief.

We cant just arrive at ethical positions. The robot races or insect aliens of science fiction show us how one can be scientifically and technologically "developed" but devoid of humanity. History shows us the same lesson the NAZI s being the most remembered example form the last century.

there is more to llike than perfecting science. A technocratic world run by scientists that "know better" than is not any closer to a Utopia than the one you paint of theocrats.

pH

Can you show me where the NYT article is?

It generated lots of comment at the time, and even though the full text is 'subscriber' on the NYT it's been pasted all round the net. A quick google will find it
Oh heck here it is : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
But now that's probably not a correct 'cite' for you.

Nope. It is about whether science can replace religion!

Clearly it's not. It's about the Pope's recent comments/speeches and our ( and others ) opinion that they represent an assault (in some manner) on scientific reason.

... but nor is reason alone without belief.

And it's that bit of theological twaddle we're laughing at.

there is more to llike than perfecting science. A technocratic world run by scientists that "know better" than is not any closer to a Utopia than the one you paint of theocrats.

I'm not even considering responding to that.

Pope Benedict XVI: science is the real target
Ehsan Masood (19 - 9 - 2006)
A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/pope_science_3918.jsp#

EDITED TO ADD:
and this ...
http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369

ISAW

pH wrote:

It generated lots of comment at the time, and even though the full text is 'subscriber' on the NYT it's been pasted all round the net. A quick google will find it
Oh heck here it is : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
But now that's probably not a correct 'cite' for you.

As long as I can read the whole thing im happy. It is open for someone else to question whether it is the original but I doubt someone would put on a copy and then change parts of it. all I wanted was the source.

Clearly it's not. It's about the Pope's recent comments/speeches and our ( and others ) opinion that they represent an assault (in some manner) on scientific reason.

christian Theological "reason" and scientific "reason" are the same thing!

And it's that bit of theological twaddle we're laughing at.

If you think it is a joke that scientists should not have to look outside science for guidance as to how science and technology is used than it isnt a laughing matter. the creation of the atomic bomb was sound science. do you really believe that the ability to use such a bomb can be determined by scientific principle alone? Do you believe conscience ethics and judgement can be explained by elements only internal to science? do you accept it isnt a joke if others do not believe this it is actaully a valid position.

Pope Benedict XVI: science is the real target
Ehsan Masood (19 - 9 - 2006)
A deeper reading of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech suggests a message that Catholics and Muslims can share, says Ehsan Masood: that modern science must make room for theology.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/pope_science_3918.jsp#

Yes very much so. I would agree it probably says that. In what way is this an "attack" on science? Science should have room for ethics , morals, etc. and these can not necessarily be determined by science. But in the same speech he also said that blind faith isnt enough either. and this can also happen in scientism. for example one may believe that ther are "laws of physics" which explain how everything the universe works. It is just as scientifically valid to disbelieve that there are fundamental laws of the Universe. and this is valid whether or not the subject is a religious believer or not.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Yes very much so. I would agree it probably says that. In what way is this an "attack" on science? Science should have room for ethics , morals, etc. and these can not necessarily be determined by science.

Of course science should make room for ethics and morality, but should it make room for theology, that is the bigger question.
Nobody would argue that science should be subservient to morality and ethics, but I would certainly argue that it shouldn't be concerned at all with theology.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

Of course science should make room for ethics and morality, but should it make room for theology, that is the bigger question.
Nobody would argue that science should be subservient to morality and ethics, but I would certainly argue that it shouldn't be concerned at all with theology.

But that leaves us in a meta argument of type distinction. Let us for a moment accept you position that science, morality and theology are different things. How is it valid to say that someting outside of science "morality" should be considered and yet something else "theology" not be considered.

Secondly, one can claim that morality and theology are connected and the two are NOT distinct entities. If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source? Isnt that a subject for theology just as "what caused the Big Bang" is?

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Son Goku

Isnt that a subject for theology just as "what caused the Big Bang" is?

I disagree that that is a subject for theology, but that isn't the main issue.

If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source?

I take issue with your use of the word random, but again not the main issue.

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Yes. Science should be guided by general principles relating to human good. Even if these are theologically inspired in certain people, arguments about how we should use science should stand independent of any theological source (such as the Bible).

Again it should be moral arguments (even if your personal adoption of those arguments comes from theological reasoning) that are used.

Science making room for theology, would be accepting that the arguments don't have to be formulated in a manner which is independent to some scripture.
I am not suggesting that science should just ignore religious people.

pH

ISAW wrote:

But that leaves us in a meta argument of type distinction. Let us for a moment accept you position that science, morality and theology are different things. How is it valid to say that someting outside of science "morality" should be considered and yet something else "theology" not be considered.

I'm not sure I even understand what Theology is, and a quick read of wikipedia suggests that I'm not alone in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

If a group of people want to sit around and discuss non-existent Sky Gods and impress each other with their profound thinking then fine, just don't pretend that it gives you any insight into reality, morality or ethics.

It may be hard for you to understand, but a religious education is worse than no education when it comes to both understanding nature as we encounter it *and* in formulating rules of "right and wrong".

Obni

ISAW wrote:

If morality can be viewed as coming from a source external to any scientific explaination based on the "laws" of physics and the random movement of molocules or interaction of chemicals in the brain, then what is the origin of this external source?

Forgive my crude summary of your post.

1. Morality seems not to be just a chemical reaction in my brain
2. So it must have an external origin
3. So the external origin falls within the realms of theological discourse

Bit of a jump from 2 to 3 there.

Morality is a product of the interaction of individual organisms (each of which is subject to chemicals in the brain).
Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.
So, as so often happens, a phenomonon explicable in natural terms can be declared as deriving from a supernatural source.

ISAW wrote:

So isnt it just as valid to suggest that moral principles which guide scientists and society be influenced by believers in God as by non believers in God?

Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.

ISAW

[QUOTE=Son Goku
Yes. Science should be guided by general principles relating to human good. Even if these are theologically inspired in certain people, arguments about how we should use science should stand independent of any theological source (such as the Bible).
[/quote]

But isnt that exactly what the Pope was saying?

Again it should be moral arguments (even if your personal adoption of those arguments comes from theological reasoning) that are used.

ditto!

Science making room for theology, would be accepting that the arguments don't have to be formulated in a manner which is independent to some scripture.
I am not suggesting that science should just ignore religious people.

Actually it would seem to me the Pope was saying the opposite i.e. that arguments DO have to be formulated with reason independent of scripture. i.e. that you may look to the Bible but you dont accept it verbatum but apply reason to it.

ISAW

pH wrote:

If a group of people want to sit around and discuss non-existent Sky Gods and impress each other with their profound thinking then fine, just don't pretend that it gives you any insight into reality, morality or ethics.

But if a group of philosophers who have no religious belief sit around and discuss the philosophy of science and nature of "reality" , a science from which they can derive no morality or ethics then that is somehow "better"?

It may be hard for you to understand, but a religious education is worse than no education when it comes to both understanding nature as we encounter it *and* in formulating rules of "right and wrong".

Please illuminate my understanding by explaining how the "reason" involved in the work of Thomas Acuqinas for example is so alien to the "reason" of scientists.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

Forgive my crude summary of your post.

1. Morality seems not to be just a chemical reaction in my brain
2. So it must have an external origin
3. So the external origin falls within the realms of theological discourse

Bit of a jump from 2 to 3 there.

Nope! I suggested that if yo can explain morality by science (I suggested brain chemistry and laws of physics ) then please do so. i.e. 2 It has an external origin (to science)

the external origin is NOT science. You can call it eithic morality but can not discount theology as a valid study of that external field.

Morality is a product of the interaction of individual organisms (each of which is subject to chemicals in the brain).
Over countless generations certain behaviours are noted as being beneficial or detrimental to the group as a whole, or at least to the dominant sub-group within the larger group. The lessons learned are distilled into moral codes. The moral code then has the authority that the group as a whole allows the dominant group. If the dominant group claims a divine source for its authority, then the moral codes can also be attributable to the same divine source.

This is just "meme theory" . there is a whole jump from biological evolution of a species to social "evolution" of a society. They are not the same thing and do not merit the same word "evolution". To suggest social systems are explainable using the same mechanisms and concepts as genetic theory is not dealing with the same type of phenomena!

So, as so often happens, a phenomonon explicable in natural terms can be declared as deriving from a supernatural source.

But you havent explained it as such. How species change over time can be explained by genetics. How societies do is a completly different field!

Unfortunately, not only do you accurately describe the state of things as they are; the reality is that all too often the religious within society have a far greater influence on the moral principles and ethical guidelines for scientists, than those using a scientific worldview as a basis for there moral and ethical guidelines.

and more people have been killed by non religious despots than by religious pogroms! But you present a false dichotomy i.e. you claim that a "scientific worldview" is opposed to "religious influence" . They are not of necessity opposing. It is not necessary for a scientist to be atheist no more than for a believer to be a scientist. The difference is that while a scientist may accept elements external to the whole of science a believer cant accept there is anything external to God.