Posted on 09/28/2013 12:01:33 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
by Stacy Trasancos
Filed under Evolution
In a recent letter to Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Italian atheist and mathematician, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI used the term "science fiction." Odifreddi is the author of the 2011 book Dear Pope, I'm Writing to You, a critique of Benedict's theological writings. Benedict's letter is a response to that book, extracts of which were recently published in the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica.
In Odifreddi's book he referred repeatedly to theology as "science fiction." Benedict pointed out that "science fiction" instead exists in science (English translation here):
"Science fiction exists, on the other hand, in the ambit of many sciences. That which you explain about theories concerning the beginning and the end of the world in Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc., I would designate as science fiction in the good sense of that phrase: they are visions and anticipations, in order to reach a true knowledge, but they are also, precisely, only imaginations with which we seek to come close to reality. There indeed exists, science fiction in a grand style, for instance, within the theory of evolution. The “selfish gene” of Richard Dawkins is a classic example of science fiction."
The Pope Emeritus is using a very precise and technical definition of the term "science fiction," and using it in a positive way. The word "fiction" refers to something imaginatively invented, and such imagination is sometimes useful in science.
That sounds rather shocking, but it is easily explained. There is an oft-missed distinction between what is imaginable and what is conceivable, and it has to do with the difference in the senses and the intellect.
Imagination is based on sensory experience. We can only imagine what we might see, smell, taste, touch, or hear. We can make mental pictures of material things, which is why we can imagine a purple dragon spitting glitter even if we've never been assaulted by one.
Conceptual reasoning beyond the material realm is done with our intellect. Mathematicians rely on the intellect; Christians use it to understand certain dogmas, such as that of the Holy Trinity. This is the very basis of the human act of understanding (to stand under) anything.
The reality of any abstract or spiritual statement must be examined by the intellect, not the imagination. If an abstract statement is rejected, it is rejected on the basis of a contradiction in terms. This is why we say that infinitely parallel lines or three Persons in One God are conceivable, and square circles and omnipotent gods limited by time and space are inconceivable. This is also why it is incorrect to say that theology is "science fiction" since theology is the work of the intellect and not the imagination.
Science, however, deals with material reality. The picture-making power of the mind can distract the intellect (just ask a college student cramming for finals), but it can also be helpful, such as Pope Benedict indicated in the phrase "science fiction."
Exact science is limited to the quantitative measurement of material objects in motion, but as we all know, science has led beyond realms visible to the human senses. Atoms in a beaker cannot be counted with the eye any more than the distance between stars can be measured with a ruler. Time-resolved femtosecond luminescence data are not collected by direct observation. Evolution over millions of years is not witnessed by anyone. Those things are beyond the human senses, but are still questions of material reality.
Sometimes an imaginatively invented—i.e. fictitious—model is helpful to grasp deeper understanding of material things unseen. The British physicist A. Brian Pippard recognized this model-building necessity in a lecture given to a general audience at Cambridge.
"I think history shows that the imagination needs these props. Few can build without scaffolding; in Maxwell’s equations and Einstein’s relativity what we see is the final result of a long process, after the scaffolding has been removed. Even Einstein in his quantum theory developments was unashamedly guided by private models of an as—yet—unobserved atomism." ("The Invincible Ignorance of Science," Contemporary Physics, 1988)
The physical sciences are full of "science fiction" models that aid in the explanation of data. Atoms do not really look like mini-solar systems and molecules are not made of tiny sticks and balls. Space was once imagined to be a sea of aether whirlpools linked by idle wheels, a rejected model that served a purpose in its time, a "vision and anticipation, in order to reach a true knowledge."
So did Pope Benedict really dismiss evolution as science fiction? No, he called it science fiction in the sense that it is a mental model, which is not a dismissal, but an acknowledgement. Pope Benedict and the Church have been consistently positive toward evolutionary theory as an explanatory model. That offspring differ slightly from the parents and therefore respond to the environment in slightly different ways, is obvious. Natural selection, genetic mutation, and population changes are quantifiable scientific observances. Evolutionary theory is a valid explanatory model insofar as it seeks to explain what is within the boundaries of science, something the Church absolutely insists upon.
Science cannot measure spiritual or immaterial substances; therefore, science can say nothing of the existence of the soul, angels, or God. Those are strictly matters for the intellect. Any scientific theory that violates those boundaries is bad science, "science fiction" in the truly negative and absurd sense of the term.
Pope Benedict is well aware of these distinctions and limitations. Arguably the greatest theologian of our times, Pope Benedict has also never shied from praising what is praiseworthy in the opinions of others, even if, with characteristic graciousness, he shreds the erroneous philosophical view overall.
This is why Pope Benedict was not dismissing the work of Richard Dawkins either. In fact, in calling the theory of evolution an example of "science fiction in a grand style" he may have been offering some praise. In citing Dawkins' work on the "selfish gene" as a "classic example of science fiction" he seems to be complimenting an aspect of Dawkins' life work. That model may explain something about evolutionary stability within populations.
It may also explain something of cultural evolution among humans, as "memes" do. The Church teaches that humans have the spiritual powers of intellect and free will, so it follows that human cultures would evolve throughout history. While that is not an exact science nor is it an idea that could ever disprove the existence of the soul or of God, as those with poorly controlled imaginations may claim, it is nonetheless a valid topic for reasoned discourse.
Taking all of this together with an ecumenical frame of mind, it is certainly worth a smile to realize what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has actually done by calling evolution and Dawkins' work science fiction. Maybe even a chuckle.
SHOW US THE EVOLUTION!! ONE FACT.
Sorry, but I don't really follow what you mean? Did you think I was explicitly defending evolution? That certainly wasn't my intention. Rather, I just disagree with the entire approach which many people take, and which was implied within your post, that theories are somehow the opposite of fact. They certainly may have errors in them or not entirely reflect reality, but they aren't exactly just imaginary musings or made up suppositions either.
No, I'm not a troll. I'm merely pointing out that parts of your posts are not factually accurate. As I promised the mod, I will refrain from speculating as to your motives.
“No, I’m not a troll. I’m merely pointing out that parts of your posts are not factually”
You didn’t actually point anything out. You just made an obnoxious post. So, do you mean that evolutionists take into account the existence of God, or of a designer, when they are working out the possible mechanisms of cell-diversity on Earth? Or, do they only approach the study of these things from the stand point that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable?
I made simple contradiction because you didn't offer any support for your original assertion. I'm not sure why "The entire 'theory' is predicated on the idea that there is no God" is any less of a troll than "no it's not." But that's not important. Let's look at the assertions I contradicted:
The Theory of Evolution depends upon life spontaneously appearing on Earth.
To crib from someone else who used to post around these parts: there are several ideas about how the life might have arisen on Earth, including direct creation, "seeding" from comets, "seeding" from Mars, "seeding" by aliens, unguided chemical reactions, and chemical reactions guided by a Designer. The theory of evolution doesn't care which one is accurate. Evolution starts when there are organisms capable of reproducing--not before. The relative weaknesses of the hypotheses about the origin of life do not weaken the theory of evolution, any more than uncertainty about the causes of the Big Bang weaken theories of star formation.
The entire “theory” is predicated on the idea that there is no God...
To which I said "No it's not"...
So, do you mean that evolutionists take into account the existence of God, or of a designer, when they are working out the possible mechanisms of cell-diversity on Earth? Or, do they only approach the study of these things from the stand point that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable?
Scientists look for naturalistic explanations of everything they investigate, from the causes of disease to the reasons for earthquakes to celestial mechanics to the diversity of life forms (and they've had remarkable success finding them). I'm not sure what you mean by "take into account the existence of God"--do you mean assume that the explanation for those things must involve direct action by God? No, they don't do that. But that doesn't mean that, individually or collectively, they rule out God's existence..
“You didn’t actually point anything out.”
Bzzzt, wrong, he did.
“You just made an obnoxious post.”
You are an expert in that space.
And a clear retread. What WAS your prior FReeper name?
Are you a troll, or what?
“I made simple contradiction because you didn’t offer any support for your original assertion.”
Why should I bother to support something that is self-evident? No matter how much you twist or turn, the fact remains that “science,” falsely so called, is predicated on a denial of the existence of God. They operate only on what they claim can be observed, though, certainly, they promote all sorts of things which have never been observed. When you make the claim that the evolutionists “don’t care” about the origins of cell life, you do spread a falsehood, since, obviously, there is no hypothesis for origins amongst actual evolutionary scientists that consist of the supernatural.
As you said, they’re more willing to believe in aliens, comets, or whatnot, to explain it, rather than to confess the supernatural. They must appeal to these ridiculous things because these wretches are at least somewhat aware with how complex even the “simplest” cell is.
“To crib from someone else who used to post around these parts: there are several ideas about how the life might have arisen on Earth, including direct creation, “
What Evolutionary scientist is proposing direct creation? What scientific journal was it published it? Can you tell me?
Don’t mess with me with these absurd comments of yours. I don’t care if you, in your own particular theology (or lack thereof) imagine that God created life on Earth, but then let evolution take over. You’re not a scientist. You’re not writing research papers. You’re not in the universities teaching. You’re not putting forward papers detailing how God would have created the first living cell. Instead, evolutionary scientists are putting forward papers on how life could have started on its own through random processes, and it is THIS explanation which has the backing of academia.
You seriously need to consider changing your screen name.
“You seriously need to consider changing your screen name.”
Again - you seem to have experience with that. What are some of your prior screen names here?
*sigh*
Were you angry because I thought I gave away your title to someone else? Don’t worry Narses, there’s no one whose posts aren’t more insipid than yours. You’re completely safe.
With twice as much effort you might get to witty. Insipid is out of your league.
They certainly did in the late 60s- early 70s when I was in school. Besides, evolution is not a theory since it cannot be duplicated. At best, it is a "scientific model" for which there is no real evidence.
I see. You don't need to support your assertions because they're "self-evident," but if I don't support my responses, I'm a troll. Forgive me if I don't accept those rules of engagement.
the fact remains that “science,” falsely so called, is predicated on a denial of the existence of God.
That's not true. Oh sorry, I forgot, it's "self-evident."
When you make the claim that the evolutionists “don’t care” about the origins of cell life, you do spread a falsehood,
I didn't say evolutionists don't care about the origins of life. They're scientists, it's an interesting question, of course they "care" on that basis. What I said was that the theory does not care how life started. And it doesn't. Now who's spreading falsehoods?
They must appeal to these ridiculous things
I suppose the ridiculousness is another one of those self-evident things.
You’re not a scientist. You’re not writing research papers. You’re not in the universities teaching. You’re not putting forward papers detailing how God would have created the first living cell.
Scientists write research papers based on experiments they perform and the evidence those experiments provide. What research program would confirm creation by God? What would be the evidence? I don't mean the "I can't think of anything else so it must be God" kind of negative evidence--I prefer not to confine God to the ever-diminishing space left by what science has not yet managed to figure out. I mean evidence that would show exactly what God did, and when, to create life. Scientists would love to uncover such evidence--do you realize how famous the scientist that found it would be?
This is why I don't like to discuss this issue on a religious basis. People believe what they believe, and evidence doesn't enter into it. Believe what you want and go in peace.
“I see. You don’t need to support your assertions because they’re “self-evident,” but if I don’t support my responses, I’m a troll. Forgive me if I don’t accept those rules of engagement.”
ROTFLMAO!
You have his number!
“I suppose the ridiculousness is another one of those self-evident things.
I suppose if you’re an infidel, aliens or whatnot are perfectly reasonable explanations for life on Earth. (Better than supposing that there is a God!) But then the question becomes, “where did they come from?” Thus, at best, these ridiculous things are only a vain dodge.
“Scientists write research papers based on experiments they perform and the evidence those experiments provide.”
Nonsense, how many experiments have there been of one type of creature evolving into an entirely different kind? And yet they do not cease barking like dogs about it. Aside from the wailings of the atheists and evolutionists that science cannot test for the existence of God, and therefore He ought to be put out of all consideration, they still make all of their assumptions on mere models that assume only naturalisstic mechanisms for these things, by your own admission.
“This is why I don’t like to discuss this issue on a religious basis. People believe what they believe, and evidence doesn’t enter into it. Believe what you want and go in peace.”
Indeed, believe whatever “science fiction” you wish to believe, and hopefully hell is not too hot!
YOPIOS
Because the RCC interprets the Bible in favor of evolutionary “science fiction”? I wasn’t aware of that.
Ah yes, the "you're going to hell unless you believe like I do" icing on top of the cake of ignorance and arrogance you've baked. Thanks for the reminder.
“Ah yes, the “you’re going to hell unless you believe like I do” icing on top of the cake of ignorance and arrogance you’ve baked.”
Says the guy who started off the conversation by calling me a liar! Hope the aliens will save your soul.
On this very forum a person told me that Evolution does not depend upon origins. That is like saying that we can theorize about bridge construction without any regard to what kind of foundation it must rest upon.
I fully realize that some very smart people are busy trying to assemble a simple bacteria molecule by molecule. It will be a big challenge for one side or the other will come when either a totally synthetic bacteria comes alive by itself, or if it just cannot ever come alive despite every attempt to do so.
Evolutionists, like liberals, tend to ignore inconvenient facts and history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.