back to article Pope says gravity proves technology can't supplant God

The Pope has warned the faithful of the folly of thinking that technology could replace the almighty. Pope Benedict, speaking at a Palm Sunday Mass to kick off Holy Week, noted that mankind had always sought to become "like God". But, Reuters reports, Pope Benedict said: "Mankind has managed to accomplish so many things: we …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. copsewood
          Heart

          @Dave Dowell

          "This has to lead us to the following conclusions :-

          We can only be bad at being God because that is Gods plan. Therefore if our bad attempts at being God make the world worse, it is Gods plan that the world should be made worse."

          God's plan is not to control us as robots. Free will results in genuine moral choices and consequences. If God's purpose is to be in good relationship with us, why should God want to be in a good relationship with robots ?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

            @copsewood

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            God's plan is not to control us as robots. Free will results in genuine moral choices and consequences. If God's purpose is to be in good relationship with us, why should God want to be in a good relationship with robots ?

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Free will doesn't exist in a controlled state, which is what you want us all to believe we exist in. See God controls us by a) creating us in his image and, b) granting us our abilities. Given this he has controlled what we are capable of as a part of his design of us.

            I'm afraid I can't see any evidence supporting God wanting to be in a relationship (good or otherwise) with us at all. In fact if that is Gods aim his distinct lack of making his existance provable is going to be a severe impairment to there being any relationship at all. For example, how did he envisage having a relationship of any kind with the native tribes whom he never even informed of his existance? Like for example any of the Native American Tribes, who were never visited by any prophecies, or the Ancient Egyptians... etc, etc...

  1. TeeCee Gold badge
    Coat

    "...we can fly!"

    A wholly unexpected ringing endorsement of the value of LSD from the pontiff there!

    Presumably if there is a God, he's now muttering: "You just try it sunshine....".

    1. farizzle

      errr..

      Walk into a mental health ward and proclaim your ability to fly Mr Pope - we'll soon have you sectioned good and proper!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what's his point?

    "Mankind has managed to accomplish so many things: we can fly! We can see, hear and speak to one another from the farthest ends of the earth. And yet the force of gravity which draws us down is powerful."

    So what's his point?

    The statements don't seem related to me. The slightly wonky inclusion of the phrase "And yet" might indicate that he is comparing man's technological advancement with the laws of physics (which aren't exactly comparble) and is suggesting that the force of gravity is actually the force of God, which despite being ludicrus, is nether provable nor dis-provable, par for the course from religious bullshit aimed at people who can't think.

  3. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Just a thought

    Are the rules of nature immutable or subject to a whim of God?

    They can easily be subject to God's whim while he is tweaking the program for his new universe creation experiment and then become immutable for that new universe after the apparatus has commenced the Big Bang sequence...

    As to us aspiring to be "like God" - that may be the whole point of the experiment. And when we ourselves will push the button on our own brand new experimental universe creation machine we may receive a congratulatory (or otherwise) trans-universal message from the higher authority.

    And it's not the Church's place to interfere with the divine plan.

    1. Steven Knox

      Wrong question anyway

      "The question of whether the laws of physics are immutable or are the product of a supreme being's whim..." is entirely the wrong question. First off, the two choices aren't mutually exclusive. Second, most modern physics theories tie the laws of physics to "constants" (e.g, the speed of light) which have either been observed or theorized to change.

      The more accurate phrasing of the question would be whether the laws of physics are the result of a random combination of factors or of a unseen driving force. Since those two cases are, from within the system, entirely indistinguishable, science is unable to answer the question. Since they have a vested interest in one answer, religions are unreliable sources to answer the question.

      So if you're looking for a logical position, agnosticism is the way to go. If you want to make a personal choice, choose either way. Just don't try pushing your personal choice (whatever it is) on the rest of us.

    2. copsewood
      Boffin

      @Vladimir

      "Are the rules of nature immutable or subject to a whim of God?"

      Interesting question. As a believer who is also a scientist I have to admit that I'm uncomfortable about the idea of God breaking His own laws of nature. This depends upon your value for the rules of nature. The existence of randomness as an inherent as opposed to as an emergent property of nature seems very much a matter of faith, and was described as such in an article in "The New Scientist" concerning the nature of randomness several years ago.

      Miracles, (those most credibly described in the Bible and more recently), do seem inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics as this is conventionally understood, but the 2nd law is probabilistic and not certain. This understanding might define miracles as inherently improbable events, as opposed to as scientifically impossible events. But if there is no such thing as randomness (other than as an article of faith or as an emergent as opposed to underlying property of nature) then our understanding of what is probable and improbable has to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway when considering reported miracles if we are to be cautiously skeptical while not closed minded.

      Perhaps randomness as we normally understand this occurs during the allegorical 7th day of creation when God rests. Interestingly also, the 2nd law also governs the only physical transformations which give time any forward direction, i.e. by making events irreversible in time and by doing so giving the universe a start and an end, an Alpha and Omega.

    3. amanfromearth
      Gates Halo

      Whim of God of course

      Have you ever studied quantum mechanics.

      The beardy git is having a laugh...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gravity proves technology can't supplant God...

    ...Yet. I give it another 150 years.

  5. takuhii
    FAIL

    DOH!

    Wasn't Gravity purported to actually be quite a weak force? BEHOLD the lowly fridge magnet, see how even it escapes gravity's mighty pull. ALL HAIL... THE LOWLY FRIDGE MAGNET!!!

  6. Forget It
    Happy

    Genesis 3.5

    Just saying you don't believe in God is saying that you want to take his place

    (translated as "to be like God/s")

    See this bit of Genesis 3.5 (kjb)

    For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be

    as gods, knowing good and evil.

  7. Is it me?

    For a bit of balance

    I actually have no problem whatsoever in reconciling my faith in God and science, and neither do the vast majority of my fellow parishioners.

    And as I believe in God, I can't see why anybody would really want to be like him, would you really want to have to deal with all that moaning and grumbling from your believers. Ok it might be cool to zap your enemies with a thought, be adored by the multitude, create new and strange lifeforms and watch live sex whenever you feel like it, but just remember, if you can be god-like, so can everyone else, or at least the rich.

    1. Ross 7

      Re:

      "and watch live sex whenever you feel like it"

      God has the internet?

      1. farizzle

        haha

        the broadest broadband of them all!

  8. Matt Bucknall

    Corrections:

    "And yet the force of gravity which draws us down is powerful"

    No, it isn't.

    "We can see, hear and speak to one another from the farthest ends of the earth."

    The earth is not flat.

  9. DrDeth
    WTF?

    IF god did exist...

    .. then surely science is merely using what god gave us? God is meant to be omnipotent and omniscient and if he did exist as such, probably wouldn't give his 'children' the means to break his universe - and if he did, then it's by design anyway.

  10. Lamont Cranston

    Am I the only one who thinks that science and religion are not mutually exclusive?

    Or is this forum acting as a front for Richard Dawkins?

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
      Joke

      Not at all

      Science can prove religion exists!!

      Us staunch atheists are just amused every time the pontiff declares something about science which is patently wrong.

    2. RichyS
      Thumb Down

      Maybe

      Well, the Pope doesn't seem keen.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Possibly

      When religion can come up with a credible, replicable method of confirming god's existence (i.e. less of the "no, he moves in mysterious ways and cannot be measured by the normal methods"), and that existence is demonstrably confirmed, then science and religion can live hand in hand. Until then they ARE mutually exclusive.

      1. copsewood
        Happy

        @AC18/4/11 13:39: How small do you prefer god to be ?

        "When religion can come up with a credible, replicable method of confirming god's existence (i.e. less of the "no, he moves in mysterious ways and cannot be measured by the normal methods"), and that existence is demonstrably confirmed, then science and religion can live hand in hand. Until then they ARE mutually exclusive."

        If you'll only believe in a god whom you can measure with our pathetic experiments and prove with our petty little logic then you've defined a god you're willing to believe in as one smaller than yourself, a god cast in your image rather than the other way around.

        Funny, I don't believe in that pitiful god either, and for the same reason I reject William Paley's "god of the gaps". The God I believe in is Lord over what science does understand as well as over what science doesn't understand. You're making the opposite error to Paley, but just as blatant an error as Paley is considered to have made.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

        1. Alex 67

          The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

          "If you'll only believe in a god whom you can measure with our pathetic experiments and prove with our petty little logic then you've defined a god you're willing to believe in as one smaller than yourself, a god cast in your image rather than the other way around."

          Ah, interesting. Did you see what you did there? You appear to have defined your god as having no detectable influence on the real world, in any shape or form. Is that what you intended? It's almost as if it doesn't exist. You've also defined it in a way that locks you completely into your belief system. Still if it makes you happy.

          1. copsewood
            Heart

            @Alex 67: God is effective but unpredictable

            "Ah, interesting. Did you see what you did there? You appear to have defined your god as having no detectable influence on the real world, in any shape or form. Is that what you intended?"

            No. Proof by experiment or logic requires controllability or predictability and not everything is controllable or predictable. Inability to prove doesn't mean the same thing as lacking evidence. History isn't generally repeatable and is often unpredictable, but it accumulates its own evidence and questions about evidence. For Christians the primary evidence of God's effects and influence is the history recorded in the Bible.

    4. Paul_Murphy

      Fact vs faith

      No, you're probably not the only one - my argument would be why is it assumed that religion has a place in society to begin with.

      Since religion had been around for quite some time I say it's time that science is allowed to have a similar time to prove itself - shall we say 3000 years?

      I must admit that the science-version of the inquisition would be pretty boring'

      'believe in gravity...'

      'NO'

      'look - I'll drop this apple'

      'Oh - yeah I guess gravity must exist, fair enough.'

      'Next!'

      Why religion is still being followed at all after the middle ages is a mystery to me.

      ttfn

      1. Ru
        FAIL

        @Paul_Murphy, Re: The Scientific Inquisition

        Following in the spirit of the original inquisition, it is clear that those two do not believe in gravity should be hastened off the top of the nearest tall, overhanging structure or landform to ponder their lack of faith on their descent.

        1. Chad H.
          Joke

          @ Ru/Paul Murphy

          But its not Gravity... Its inteligent falling!

          The Boogey-God wants it all to go down, so it does. And behold the Miracale of God, Harold by thy name.

      2. Oninoshiko
        Stop

        The Science inquisition?

        The Science inquisition? Sounds like a good name for some of the GW activests...

        The UN Population Fund made a recommendation that global warming should be combated with population controls, despite admitting "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect"

        how about Jacques-Yves Cousteau?

        "World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

        or maybe Prince Phillip

        "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation"

        maybe David Bower?

        "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

        Combined that with 10:10's exploding head video... no, I don't think I want to see the science inquisition, thank you very much.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Faith vs Science

      Proof. Proof is positive. You cannot prove a negative outcome, you can only prove a positive outcome. i.e. you cannot prove that an outcome will not happen, only that it will happen.

      Science is about finding outcomes that are repeatable given a set or parameters - Object A of mas X moves in a straight line until passing Object B of Mass Y and they mutually affect each other. Proven set of circumstances with a predictable repeatable outcome.

      Faith is the other end of the proof slider. Once Science does prove something to be fact, it moves along the slider from faith to science - just the way the Flat Earth believers changed their mind over time (most of them). Every time we discover some new scientific fact we have demystified the universe.

      But it is impossible to prove there is no higher being. (I don't believe there is, but I can't prove it)

    6. veskebjorn

      Donald Knuth agrees with you, as did Newton, as do and did hosts of others

      Donald Knuth, who is Stanford's "Professor Emeritus of The Art of Computer Programming" and arguably the most profound and important programmer ever, is a Lutheran who attends church regularly. He was the long-time substitute church organist at Faith Lutheran when he was a professor at Cal Tech and has been a member of First Lutheran in Palo Alto since he moved to Stanford. He sees no conflict between God and science and has said so a great many times.

      Isaac Newton, the greatest physicist and one of the greatest mathematicians in history, spent more time as a professor of natural philosophy studying and writing about the Bible than he did working on physics. He once said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

      Georg Cantor, the inventor of set theory and the (to me, still almost completely inexplicable) transfinite numbers, was another faithful Lutheran.

      Francis Collins is both a chemist and medical doctor . He led the first group that was able to identify the specific gene responsible for a genetic disease (cystic fibrosis). He went on to lead the Human Genome Project, a non-profit organization that competed so successfully with Craig Venter's attempt to privately patent the human genome that Venter's group eventually gave their material freely to the HGP. Collins was responsible for directing and coordinating the efforts of thousands of scientists around the world. He is now director of the U.S. National Instiutes of Health and an evangelical Christian of, I seem to recall, a Methodist bent. Hs has published two significant books about the intersection of God and science. Richard Dawkins, the man who has turned atheism into a profit center, has been rendered all but speechless by Collins on occasion.

      Robert Bakker, the paleontologist who was largely responsible for the current understanding that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded and that birds are directly descended from dinosaurs, is an ordained Pentecostal minister.

      Simon Conway Morris is an evolutionary paleobiologist who is the world's leading investigator of the Cambrian period and arguably the most profound evolutionary biologist in the world today. He was an associate of Stephen Gould, and went on to show that Gould's assessment of "the Cambrian explosion [of new life forms]" was largely erroneous. His work in the Burgess Shales and similar deposits in China and elsewhere is a model for the scientists in his field. Morris is a faithful adherent of the Church of England, which is part of the Anglican Communion that, in the U.S., is known as the Episcopal Church. His recent work, "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe," explains, among other things, why he is not a Deist.

      A full list of prominent religious scientists would include about half of all the prominent scientists in history. Also, remember or learn that most of what the world now knows about Greek and other early science and math is known because faithful Muslims translated scientific manuscripts into Arabic and used these texts as the starting point for their own studies. Somewhat later (and overlapping with the Muslim efforts), Christian monks painstakingly copied ancient manuscripts of all sorts, so as to preserve knowledge and make it available to others.

      No, God does not hate science, but some scientists appear to hate God. I pity those who are spiritually deaf and dumb. As Psalm 115 puts it: " They have eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear."

      1. Alex 67

        re: Donald Knuth agrees with you, as did Newton, as do and did hosts of others

        You're using an 'appeal to authority' fallacy in your argument. Logically, it adds nothing to the question of whether your god exists or not. If you were born in ancient Greece you'd probably believe in their gods.

        1. Lamont Cranston
          Happy

          Given that this was a response to

          my question was around the compatablilty of faith and science, and not the existence of god, you would appear to have missed the point.

          If you are Richard Dawkins, can I have £5 for spotting you?

      2. Chad H.
        FAIL

        @ veskebjorn

        Issac Newton also spent a fair bit of his time trying to turn lead into gold. let me know how that works out for you.

  11. RichyS
    Coat

    Palm Sunday

    Hasn't 'Palm Sunday' now become 'HP Sunday'?

    <-- Mine's the one with a Palm Pilot in the pocket...

  12. DJV Silver badge
    Happy

    The downvoter

    I'm just amusing myself trying to imagine what colour of 'beetroot' the down-voter's face was going as he/she/it down-voted the list of anti-Pope comments above...

  13. Blubster
    FAIL

    Mankind has managed to accomplish so many things:.....

    .. we can fly!

    No thanks to the early papists who stifled science and invention under the threat of torture and death thus slowing down progress. Even in the face of positive proof (that the earth travelled around the sun for example) they refused to accept the truth of things in favour of dogma.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    I dunno...

    "Instead, Man should abandon hopes of being like God, if he wants to have a relationship with God."

    These priests will try and shag anything...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Neil

      Everything except women it seems...

      1. wibbilus maximus
        Happy

        none

        They still don't want them as priests so i guess they are trying to fuck them in other ways

  15. Nathan 13
    Happy

    Title reqd

    Breaking news "Pope talks bollocks for umpteenth time"

  16. Blubster
    Happy

    @AC 12:33

    "For the record: I live in Belgium"

    You poor bastard.

  17. The Nameless Mist
    Flame

    Let him try ....

    .. travelling on foot / riding / sailing from the Vatican to the UK.

    then travelling through the UK on foot /riding and standing in a large field and preaching to the masses without the aid of any sound systems.

    THEN he can start bitching about techology.

    Until then can the god-squad leader in chief please STFU.

  18. adnim
    Joke

    Interesting

    Gravity proves that gravity exists and that eating all the pies will make one heavy. Following the 'logic' of the Pope, I am of the opinion that the existence of clouds proves that god, should it exist, cannot make rain without them and is therefore not omnipotent.

    To suggest that the mere existence of gravity is enough to prove that technology cannot supplant god is taking a huge leap of faith.

  19. F111F

    Greeks Once More and Forever It Seems

    Maybe we should make interchangeable the "Greeks" of old and the "geeks" of today...

    1 Corinthians 1:18-25, and 1 Corinthians 2: 6-8

  20. Ian Davies
    Stop

    This is the same pope...

    ...who goes everywhere behind 3 inches of bulletproof plexiglass?

    There's faith for you. </billhicks>

  21. WonkoTheSane

    As seen on the side of a London bus...

    Science can fly man to the moon.

    Religion can only fly him into buildings.

    1. copsewood
      Happy

      @WonkoTheSane: do your homework

      The idea about it being worthwhile to discover pre-existing laws of nature didn't come from atheists or pagans who believe in an essentially random and disordered universe. It did arise from the idea that natural laws exist if nature has a lawgiver.

      So it's hardly a coincidence that modern science as we now understand this originated in Protestant societies once it started being decided that people who ask interesting questions about the laws of nature should be encouraged to ask and test questions about nature rather than have their heads chopped off as heretics or dissidents.

      The fact that power mad idiots deliberately kill those they disagree with is nothing new and lacking religion didn't prevent Stalin and Pol Pot amassing greater body counts than those claiming religion as a motive for murder.

  22. Identity
    Grenade

    OK, let's start an argument...

    No problem reconciling for me. I believe in "God by definition:" everything that exists and the organizing principle thereof is God. We try to understand this via science. As such, God does not micromanage the affairs of a few puny mammals in some corner of the Universe.(cf: religion)

    BTW, "a red rag might when waved before the proverbial bull" — presumably a Papal bull?

    1. Alex 67

      re: OK, let's start an argument...

      Well it's not a very useful god then. If it doesn't get involved with the affairs of mankind ('puny mammals' I assume) then really what *is* the point of believing in it? The god would just be fairly pointless. ergo, nothing to reconcile.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blar blar blar

    Blar blar blar blar, im just going to jump in here and stick up for all the negative button pushes to all these semi anti god posts

    we're all to stupid to understands Gods great plan

    there we go, no one needs to argue any more as thats impossible to counter, now for all you God preachers out there i would really apprechate it if you just said that and cut down on all the other guff some folk like to go on about, same for you Mr Pope, no one can argue with that wee line so just say it and be done, i hate to think of all the trees and bytes wasted by trying to argue this one way or the other when in actual fact its not going to make the blindest bit of difference

    So what ever you believe pick one of the following

    A, If you believe, be kind and if you must go on about it, then tell other people my wee quote up there

    B, if you dont believe, be kind and except my wee quote up there as truth and get on with you life

    C, for everyone else, be kind and a bit more decisive, then see above

    :)

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like