This is my regular reminder: don’t fall for the traps and snares of the wily Pope. He’s been getting a lot of praise lately for his rejection of climate change denialism (and even I have felt faint twinges of affection for a Pope who can get Bill Donohue to puff out his lower lip and pout), but it’s not good enough. I didn’t find his Papal Encyclical to be that good — it’s great that it acknowledges the scientific evidence in the first chapter, but it’s theme is fundamentally anti-science, and he’s more than willing to abandon evidence if it contradicts his dogma.
Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.
The whole second chapter is nothing but Biblical authority and faith-based bullshit. The third chapter is all about how science has gone too far. The fourth chapter is all about building a harmonious “social ecology”, in which Catholic values are paramount. The fifth is about approaches to solutions, and again wants to shackle science.
It cannot be maintained that empirical science provides a complete explanation of life, the interplay of all creatures and the whole of reality. This would be to breach the limits imposed by its own methodology. If we reason only within the confines of the latter, little room would be left for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things. I would add that “religious classics can prove meaningful in every age; they have an enduring power to open new horizons… Is it reasonable and enlightened to dismiss certain writings simply because they arose in the context of religious belief?” It would be quite simplistic to think that ethical principles present themselves purely in the abstract, detached from any context. Nor does the fact that they may be couched in religious language detract from their value in public debate. The ethical principles capable of being apprehended by reason can always reappear in different guise and find expression in a variety of languages, including religious language.
That reeks vaguely of the usual accusations of scientism: well, you can’t explain poetry with science. And that’s true; I actually agree that science is not a complete solution to a fulfilling human life. But the presence of a gap in science doesn’t justify filling it with Catholicism, especially if you’re going to make waffly words about “ethical principles”. On ethical principles alone, the Catholic church needs to go hide shamefacedly in a corner; it doesn’t even have the excuse of providing practical understanding.
The sixth chapter is more babbling about a coherent life-style, and is strikingly anti-materialist. Again, I agree in general that we need more than greed and machines, but that isn’t a justification for “Christian spirituality”.
Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that “less is more”. A constant flood of new consumer goods can baffle the heart and prevent us from cherishing each thing and each moment. To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. This implies avoiding the dynamic of dominion and the mere accumulation of pleasures.
Simplicity! Be happy with little! Says the man living in a golden palace surrounded by centuries worth of priceless art. I’ll believe this when the Vatican divests itself of all that worldly wealth. Christian spirituality seems to be as invisible and ineffectual as the Holy Ghost.
I’ll say this — he’s really, really good at taking bits of reality with which I agree and twisting it to support, of all things, medieval theology. He’s also really good at including just enough science to make you think he’s a rationalist, even almost, a secularist. But don’t be fooled: he’s not on our side.
By some sorcery of PR, the Catholic Church has convinced a frightening number of progressives, humanists, and otherwise rational thinkers that Francis is one of their own—but this is a man who rejects gay marriage in fear of its potential to destroy the “traditional” family; a man who passionately supports, on theological grounds, and much like his predecessors, an international prohibition on birth control, even in poor and AIDS-ravaged countries; a man who has compared transgender people to nuclear weapons in their ability to wreak havoc on the “natural order of creation”; and a man who, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack, victim-blamed the dead writers with the suggestion that free speech must end where criticism of religion begins. He is a man who, in the tradition of all popes before him, and through either indifference or intention, continues to incubate the epidemic of pedophilia that so plagues the ranks of his subordinates. I’ll say it again: Pope Francis is not a good person.
I’ve seen A LOT of progressives, atheists, etc, giving him credit for the climate change stuff…I’m utterly unimpressed and i agree, he is not a good person. He may not be wrong about everything, but he is wrong about waaaaaaaay too much that cannot be ignored.
The Pope lives in a little apartment outside the palace. Sure, the Vatican has all that stuff, but the Pope lives a more modest life. When he was a Cardinal, he would drive his own car wherever he went.
This is not to reduce any of the other stuff you said, but he does live his stated principles in that regard.
I’m with raymond
…After all just look what happened to Hadrian VII!!! :-)
Not sure how his living arrangements make things any better. The traditional apartments still exist. Is anyone living in them? If not, the Vatican is paying to upkeep an unoccupied docile while paying more to let the pope play modest in more humble surroundings.
“Simplicity!” says the Pontiff with decades of religious study under his belt, as he spouts a relentless stream of dodgy elaborate abstractions to justify denying women the basic right to control their own bodies and lives.
Thanks for this balanced reading of the Pope’s latest output. We should all remember this whenever some right-winger calls us “hypocrites” for agreeing with the Pope on one thing (climate change) while disagreeing with him on another (just about everything else).
Oh, and… “Don’t obsess over material things!” says the Pope whose Church can’t stop obsessing over female bodies and how their rightful owners use them. I know that’s the most FUN kind of materialism, but it’s still materialism, and the Pope needs to watch how he preaches about it.
Methinks, milor’, thou soundest just a teensy bit like a sore winner, rarely an attractive approach. “It’s great that … but” and “I actually agree … But” and “I agree in general … but …” Look, it’s the Pope, whaddya expect? Arboreal excretions? He’s in the process of shifting one of the most entrenched hierarchies, generally speaking in an interesting and useful direction. Fair enough to point out the distance he has to go, and almost certainly never will, but closing this with the quoted suggestion that he personally, as an individual, may intend to encourage pedophilia is really an insult too far.
“…demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.
Note the specific choice of word in bold there: the Pope was talking about DEMOGRAPHIC growth, not population growth. This is a thinly-disguised appeal to racist/tribalistic fears of being “out-bred” by other races or tribes. This has been a standard dogwhistle that the Church has used to gin up opposition to any form of birth-control: “White people want non-whites to stop breeding! That’s racism! Oh, and eugenics!”
raymond
Which actually means double security (the palace has to be secured anyway), higher cost. Yes, he manages the feat to appear modest by spending more money.
+++
Citation ver much needed.
With concrete numbers. How many people call live well on this planet? Not survive, but live well.
Also know as giving people, especially women, a choice when and if and how many children they have. Believe it or not, progressives aren’t actually advocating a kind of forced one child policy.
But I guess that’s where the problem lies: Since he can’t comprehend women as autonomous, reasonable people who make sensible decisions for themselves he cannot comprehend that others do. He probably thinks that we just want to establish another form of control over human reproduction.
And let’s not forget, women who have fewer children, later, who are getting an education are less likely to hang on to every word he says.
…the quoted suggestion that he personally, as an individual, may intend to encourage pedophilia is really an insult too far.
Given the defensive lies he’s told about that issue — i.e., that no one else had done more about the child-rape problem than the Church — I’d say PZ’s snipe has at least some justification.
I’ve said pretty much since the beginning: He’s definitely the best pope so far. It’s just unfortunate that that’s not saying much.
Also, some people like to claim that Pope Francis is a supporter of evolution, which is categorically wrong. He believes in an “evolution” that is guided by his god. That is more commonly known as “Intelligent Design,” which everyone should recognize as the bullshit it is.
Yeah, I’ve had both Xtians and “Freethinkers” (spits) tell me I should be happy that we have a “nice Pope”.
Fuck that, and fuck him. As a woman and LGBT, I’ll care what he has to say when he acknowledges my right to own my own body and. y’know, exist, and also when he admits that he’s a rich pimp that leads a cult of child-raping priests and cover-up artists.
File his opinions with the opinions of every other religious asshole, in the trash.
From what I’ve heard, John XXIII was better. So much better, in fact, that it took TWO successive Popes, Paul VI and JP-II, to fully reverse all of his work.
re Raging Bee@8 wrote:
You give the Pope more allowance than I do. I read his “demographic growth…” more as advocating “whites (Catholics) should outbreed those Third World breeders”. That’s why he’s so opposed to birth control and “family planning”.
ugghhh, maybe I’m still distorted by the Monty Python satire, where they show a Catholic woman dropping babies repeatedly, and characterize Catholics as breeding ‘like rabbits’; leading to the song, Every Sperm is Sacred.
Francis better watch his step, there is at least one Santorum out for his job.
I honestly don’t see why the Pope should be given props for his statements on climate change. He’s not making any sort of impressive trailblazing actions here, he’s jumping on a decades old bandwagon. There’s nothing impressive about it.
A liberal, progressive, happy, and kind Pope. Much like having a liberal, progressive, happy, and kind Fascist.
Raymond #2
Some autocrats seek wealth, others are satisfied with power alone. They are still autocrats.
slithey tove
Uhm, most catholics are not white.
Most whites are not catholic.
And he knows pretty well that your average white catholic woman will politely nodd, think he’s just a nice guy, but an old man after all, go to her Ob/Gyn and get the Pill. It’s poor non-white women on whom he has a grip, those whose only hope of happiness is paradise.
That’S why he jabbed at “international pressure” and “economic assistance contingent on reproductive health”.
I guess it’s probably a rather personal jab at the Gateses, who are catholic and happily involved in giving poor women birth control.
I will give this Pope some respect and credibility when he tells people to use condoms to fight HIV and tells the bishops to get the fuck out of medical services and let women have abortions when they want one. Until then he is just a charming, smiling, PR man telling the gullible what they want to hear. I’m amazed at how many people are sucked in by him.
You give the Pope more allowance than I do. I read his “demographic growth…” more as advocating “whites (Catholics) should outbreed those Third World breeders”. That’s why he’s so opposed to birth control and “family planning”.
That’s the beauty of that dogwhistle: Each ethnic group hears it as “birth control means OUR people will be out-bred by all the others!” So the Church unites all races against birth control by encouraging them to fear being overtaken by each other. That’s the best example of “divide and rule” I’ve heard in a long time.
So a dude whose whole career is founded on his believing stuff that has zero evidence to support it and a whole lotta evidence to refute it says he accepts the evidence on AGW.
With friends like this …
What? A religious leader is a populist!? I’m shock. SHOCK!
Pope Frank is a nicer person than Pope Palpatine. So what? He’s still shilling the same anti-woman, anti-human, hypocritical bullshit that Benny Ratzi puked out.
Explain poetry? I’m not sure that question even makes sense.
I would not consider him a bad person. He is the best he can be within the confines of Papal Infallibility. I suspect him to be an atheist who has to believe that the good of the faith outweighs the bad. He is wrong about that but he would need to believe it on some level in order for me to think of him as a good person.
I’m less interested in what this guy says than in what the mega-institution he nominally runs has done and is doing.
And on that basis, he and his corporation come off very badly. Look at what they did back when the church could push entire governments around. For that matter, look at Ireland, where obeisance to the Catholic Church is still enforced by government and society.
Even in the USA, where separation of church and state is required by law (there are a lot of Western countries where it isn’t), they use every trick in the book to enforce their warped notions of “morality” on non-Catholics and Catholics alike. E.g., they’re buying up hospitals, so that in some areas, you can only get medical care that fits in with Catholic dogma. Is your pregnancy killing you? Nope, no abortion for you, it’s Ghod’s will that you (and your oh-so-precious fetus) die. It’s not just that they’re shilling “anti-woman, anti-human … bullshit,” it’s that they have the financial and political muscle to write it into law. The Koch brothers are rich, but are they as rich as the Catholic church?
When he makes some pronouncement that sounds on the surface somewhat less medieval than his church normally makes, everyone falls over themself to praise him, but nobody bothers to see whether those words are followed up with action. It’s like when some horribly repressive dictator with great hoopla pardons a few political prisoners, only to secretly throw them back in jail a few days later.
As long as they’re still avoiding any responsibility for the child-molesting and rapist priests, as long as they’re still running abusive shelters, as long as they’re advising abused women to go back to their abusers, etc., etc., I’m not going to view what he says as anything but propaganda intended to distract from the blood on his and his fellow priests’ hands.
BTW, wasn’t this Pope Bergoglio known for being buddy-buddy with the Argentinian generals? The ones who made a habit of “disappearing” people they didn’t like. Sounds a lot like some medieval and early Rennaissance popes….
I want to think that the pope is different from all those who went before and he may be. He may even be an advocate of liberation theology in his heart and trying to really live the life of christ but he is the product of “the church” raised and nurtured by it he has risen to the top position of a truly ossified organization. It would be highly unlikely that he would be selected by the leadership if he was that different them.
I think that he should be looked at as really an expression of the defensive thinking of the church. They must know the true position of the church regardless of the PR. They do have a long historical memory after all and can truly see how their influence in europe has been falling over time, it has been a long long time since they were king makers.. This pope is an attempt to not appear to be irrelevant at best in these changing times by mildly addressing the pressing issues without doing much. He has really little power to initiate real change in such an old and conservative fear based organization.
uncle frogy
Can I just say how sick I am of the “science can’t inspire art” meme? Is there anyone, really anyone, who thinks European art was better *before* Leonardo da Vinci?
Seriously, how does a Catholic get away with saying this shit? We can see for ourselves how much art has been inspired by anatomy, by geometry, and by the general intense study of nature which defines science. And before the Renaissance, we have a plethora of Catholic-inspired art – flat, anatomically incorrect, gaudy, witless Christian propaganda.
if we understand how the church has inspired art historically what we see is that the church was a great patron of art they put up the money to support the arts they liked.
As the sources of funding of the arts have diversified so have the subjects and inspiration of art
uncle frogy
Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope s*** in the woods?
While Francis is on the right side of some issues, such as climate change and income inequality, he is on the wrong side of quite a few issues.
This is the same technique adopted by alternative medicine. It’s called the Trojan Horse Strategy or the Bait ‘n Switch. Pretend that perfectly reasonable and scientific medical practices are all inherently Alternative: good nutrition, exercise, preventative care, well-tested herbal remedies, massage, taking a patient’s history, etc. Then, when people are nodding in approval (“hey, alternative medicine doesn’t sound so bad”) that’s when you break open the troops and invade with the bullshit which really defined the category in the first place.
So — are you against rampant consumerism? Injustice? Do you think people should relax more? Love their neighbor more? Seek to do good and help the environment? Poetry — you like poetry? And art? Global warming is a fact, science tells us.
Why, that’s all Catholicism! See? It’s not so bad, is it? There’s nothing wrong or objectionable here. It’s just a fluffy little bunny. So reach out your hands and let us grasp you verrry gently …
GOTCHA!!! Faith! God! The Trinity! Dogma! Sin! Damnation! Homosexuals are deviants! No birth control! Science bad — we have the Truth! Demons can inhabit people!
That’s no ordinary rabbit. Look at the bones, man.
I’m fascinated by the implication that since science can explain poetry, somehow religion can? How, exactly? No, seriously, please describe the insights that religion has produced in the field of comprehending aesthetic apreciation. And just to be clear “god did it” (as in, god gave us the ability to apreciate poetry because he loves us) is not an insight or an explanation, it’s nothing.
imnotspecial
Well, that’s lovely of you and all, i’m guessing you are neither LGBTQ or a woman…
Meanwhile there are millions of human beings whose lives are being fucked over by the fucking pope and his fucking church, so excuse me when i say, hell yes, he is a bad person. You realise you don’t have to be the worst person ever to count as a negative influence in the world, right?
I don’t have to fall for his PR or praise him to high heavens – heh – to enjoy seeing what his statements do to the religious fundies.
He actually says things about helping the poor and whatnot. They hate that, especially those of the kind who go for the Just World idea or the Prosperity Gospel even. And he got Santorum to argue that climate change should be left to the scientists to debate. Santorum!
Say what you will, but he’s throwing a couple of wrenches into the works of the other Christian leaders’ machinations and that’s a joy to see.
The warnings not to fall for his at best superficial charm are well-placed, but even if I don’t buy into it all, I can still acknowledge the things he does well or – at the very least – better than his predecessor.
I heard somebody put it like this once: He’s great for a Pope. But he’s still just a Pope. And if you know anything about Popes, than you know that “great for a Pope” isn’t much of a compliment. On the contrary, it tells you that he’s only great in comparison, because expectations for Popes are so disgustingly low to begin with.
Whoever I got that from was more concise somehow, but that’s the essence of it.
No. But let’s not ignore some of the other details His Royal Popeness skips over:
1) That there is nothing else to back up those writings.
2) That those writing contain historical errors, scientific errors, moral errors and contradictions.
3) That in some cases we have plenty of nonreligious reasons to reject those writings.
@14 Raging Bee — John XXIII is best known for kick-starting Vatican II, but dying before it was completed. He only ran the RICO mob for four or five years, and his only major encyclical shat all over birth control and divorcees. True, he wasn’t a MONSTER, like Pius XI, who funded the bombing of Guernica and traded a million Jews to Hitler in return for a steady supply of excellent red wine and underage boys to rape, nor as hideous an orchestrator of hate and violence around the world as Pampers Wojtyla (JPII), nor even a Nazi Youth and Head of The Inquisition, like the charming Ratz Benedict. But he was an evil man.
As for Pancho, well, yeah, sometimes he makes me feel like a Democrat, pulling the lever for the D side of the ticket, but only because they’re not quite as awful as the R option. That he has Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan, and Bill O’Reilley suddenly denouncing Papal Infallibility, and Peggy Noonan clutching her pearls so hard they’re dissolving into fine powder does make me smile, however.
So having fewer children is better?
petesh 7:
[citation needed.]
Apropos of nothing: you’re not a woman or queer, are you.
You missed the word “indifference.” It’s particularly important in the context of pedophilia (and toxic sexuality generally, including “traditional” family values) because it so perfectly evidences the amorality of the Church.
There is no “insult too far” for the Church as an institution, or for any of the individual men in the hierarchy.
Is it Obama’s fault that the pope has to poop in the woods?
I am sometimes very confused by religious discussions.
“Science can’t explain everything, therefore arbitrary bullshit is true.”
Meh.
I must concede though, that his encyclical made a few right-wingers cringe.
Now, if only politicians weren’t immune to logic and consistency…
I was just reading my local newspaper, and there was a headline about how the Pope has said that divorce can be “morally necessary” in some situations. (The body of the article clarified that he was actually talking about “marital separation”, since of course the church doesn’t recognize divorce.) The Pope even cited “intimidation, violence, humiliation and exploitation” as valid reasons for separation.
You just know that he’s going to be forced to walk this back tomorrow, and that he’ll say something victim-blamey about the intimidation, violence, humiliation and exploitation. But today he’s doing a good job as a moral leader if you grade him on the curve. I’d send him a cookie if I thought it would get there before tomorrow.
“I suspect him to be an atheist who has to believe that the good of the faith outweighs the bad.”
Someone has not been paying attention. Is an atheist who believes in demons functionally like an evolutionary biologist who endorses creationism, or more like a physicist who endorses magic as having explanatory power in science?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/conference-on-exorcisms-takes-place-in-vatican-323983.html
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/heather-hastie-on-mexican-exorcisms/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/surprise-pope-francis-believes-in-satan-and-demons/
irisvanderpluym @39: Yup, I skipped over “indifference” (which certainly is important) but then you skipped over “generally speaking.” He’s a Pope! But he’s advocated for the poor, dropped a crackdown on SJW nuns, refused to “judge” gay people and made some excellent enemies. Not bad for a pope. Not particularly good for a normal human, but a whole lot better than the last guy. You asked for citations. These took about a minute of Googling:, so they’re probably not the best but they give some of the general idea:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/pope-distribution-of-wealth_n_6192132.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/pope-francis-vatican-changes-tone-toward-american-nuns/
http://prospect.org/article/radical-pope
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/252016393/in-francis-first-year-a-radical-pope-seeks-to-save-his-church
Apropos of your snarky question: you’re not among the global poor, are you?
petesh 44:
Yes, I am aware that the pope sure can talk pretty talk. Reminds me of a certain American president who campaigns as a liberal while entrenching and expanding most of the worst policies of his conservative predecessors. Why, it’s almost as if we shouldn’t judge people by what they say, but rather observe what they actually do. Thus the claim that he has “advocated for the poor” while his job is to ensure the continued existence of one of the most obscenely wealthy and corrupt organizations in the world is particularly noxious, as is the claim that he “refused to judge gay people.” Jeezus.
And to answer your question, no I am not among the global poor. But it’s funny you should mention that. You know what perpetuates global poverty? Catholic policy on birth control and abortion wherever the Church can get governments to enact it. You know what alleviates poverty? Empowering women with reliable contraception. Does that sound like a Catholic initiative to you? Well, unless and until that changes, you cannot claim to be an advocate for the global poor and simultaneously defend the fucking pope.
What does PZ mean by “you can’t explain poetry with science”? What about it can’t be explained? There’s nothing going on there except molecules interacting etc., just like all other phenomenon around us that science can explain. It’s all explainable by science, even if science hasn’t currently explained some part of it (which part?). I don’t get it.
is explaining poetry the same thing as explaining jokes?
uncle frogy
Regarding Pope Francis and exorcisms which is worse, that he actually believes in demons, or the other possibility, that he doesn’t, but doesn’t want to risk Catholic market share? After all if the church doesn’t offer exorcisms those wanting them might go to the other sects that do.
That part seems to be a deepity. Vague enough to seem to people like PZ that it is correct, but also vague enough that the christians will think it supports their views which people like PZ would disagree with.
See, it talks about what science currently provides an explanation of (everyone nods along) and then switches over to asserting that science can never explain such things. And the assertions seems completely false.
This is also nonsense, it can’t be agreed with nor disagreed with until it is clearer. How is aesthetic sensibility simultaneously within the confines of reason and somehow not subject to scientific reasoning? It’s messy enough that they can equivocate whatever they want.
We can study how the brain does the whole aesthetic appreciation thing. We could even use scientific methodology to figure out how to write poetry that would appeal to more people, or to a specific person (I have to stop myself here before I go on my rant about how engineering and being an artist are actually more similar than people think). So what’s left?
I’m guessing it might be related to people’s difficulty handling “basic” experiences. When you see a color, that is a basic experience, it is not a scientifically reasoned conclusion or anything. Maybe that’s all they are referring to, but again they seem to be using deepity to make this support their nonsense.
And I think they are probably stuck on this issue because so often people do defend their god belief in ways like this, where they just “know” god exists, as if it is a basic experience.
But that is confusion. That you have an experience is undeniable, but you can’t stop there. There are various hypotheses you must evaluate to figure out what the explanation of that experience is. Is it because of drugs? A dream? An object right in front of you that is interacting with your sense organs? A brain error? They fail here, and simply think their answer “it’s god” can’t even be reasoned about scientifically. But it can be, and their hypothesis is wrong, while the others are far more plausible.
Also, of course, is the vagueness of what is and is not science. Is something only science if a scientist published it? Is our everyday Bayesian reasoning scientific?
@Brian Pansky
It might technically be a deepity, but for good reason.
My take on it is because of a similar problem I often run into when talking about brain science. I might want to say something that is true, but that might not be socially useful. It may even be socially problematic.
Sure poetry will run on definable brain anatomy whose operation produces poetry using cells that communicate and function with definable molecules. But poetry is a thing that goes to the deep parts of us that are not entirely rational. We are into territory where genetics, genetic and non-genetic inheritance and life experience use that framework with a diversity of forms that require turning what is stochastic and random into poetry.
The deeptiy is simpler for now.
Or it’s because science is a process and not the set of facts it is used to discover (though you can internalize that process).
Probably a bit of both.
@Brian Pansky
Another point: of course poetry is just something giant bags of cells come up with, and it can in theory be explained by biology and physics (although when that explanation will come is entirely up in the air). But I have more sympathy for people who say (and will say when that explanation comes), “Who cares? Let’s just acknowledge that poetry can be explained on the level of neurotransmitters, and spend the remaining 99% of our time not giving a shit and reading poetry.”
@53 gakxz1
I think you’re being too reductive about what science is. I would say that science has a big role to play in the arts, like poetry, but not in trying to relate poetry back to the most “sciencey”-sounding fields, like biology or physics. Science is ultimately about a methodology based on experimentation and criticism of bad ideas. It’s a process from which art benefits. “Did this line of poetry elicit the emotional response it was supposed to? No? Well let’s try to figure out why not.”
People want to think that art is just some grab-bag of personal feelings without any discipline or criticism or facts involved, but it isn’t. People who think art is entirely subjective and unscientific are clearly unaware, for example, that there’s such a thing as color THEORY.
While poetry and art cannot be measured empirically or in standardized, objective matters, one might argue that poetry and art are very crude forms of pattern recognition that can lead to certain degrees of reproducibility. It is from such non specific, non normalized imagination that artistic expression is based from which a scientific method is developed. So one could say that, in a sense, art relies upon scientific methods that have not been as well normalized and standardized and that scientific methods come from engaging in said standardization.
So on the positive he has signaled to his large following that global warming denial is not on.
On the downside he attaches a lot of bs riders to it as trojan horses.
Catholic and right wing early childhood strategy class.
@zibble, #54
I completly agree: poetry requires experimentation and objective criticism, all the time. And years of learning techniques and forms. But why call that “scientific”? If anything, we can call that poetic, and say that scientists should be more poetic (i.e., use a methodology of experimentation and criticism, something poets have been doing before Galileo did his motion experiments). I agree that my definition was too reductionist (and that scientists shouldn’t aim to be reductionist), but then yours is too broad.
I’m no philosopher of science, but there’s a part of me that still very strongly thinks: what I do in the lab (or what I do when I scribble physics equations) is science, and what I do when I write poetry is not (even though I try to be objective, disciplined, and critical in both).
The new pope is marginally less bad than last pope. It’s a bar so low, it not even possible to trip on, yet people lavish praise upon him anyway.
Without Pasteur’s bacterial model of infection, the invention of virology, the Haber-Bosch nitrogen-fixing process, and Norman Borlaug’s high-yield crops, popey’s solution of infinite population growth would have already resulted in horrific collapse of civilization and loss of life. Of those things that have helped humanity avert disaster, which ones came from the teachings of christianity? If you guessed “none” you win a cookie.
The new pope is marginally less bad than last pope. It’s a bar so low, it not even possible to trip on, yet people lavish praise upon him anyway.
It’s The George Bush Effect. At least they haven’t given him a Nobel Prize.
Yet.
@ imnotspecial #27
On what possible grounds?
Without Pasteur’s bacterial model of infection, the invention of virology, the Haber-Bosch nitrogen-fixing process, and Norman Borlaug’s high-yield crops, popey’s solution of infinite population growth would have already resulted in horrific collapse of civilization and loss of life.
Yeah, I don’t hear the Pope condemning that kind of materialism…
@57 gakxz1
Only because, in this instance, it’s the methodology of science specifically that’s under attack. Science is in conflict with spirituality, and people frequently co-opt art onto the spiritual side of that fight. Granted, the whole thing is a bit of a false dichotomy (although I think it’s a little pedantic to dwell on the fact), but given only those two options, I think it’s plain to see that art benefits much more from a scientific approach than a credulous, uncritical faith-based one.
For example, I always thought model-drawing classes were at least analogous to the “observation” phase of the scientific method. You intensely study the human body to get all the wondrous nuance and complexity in the human form. I always want to capture the specific look and personality of the model and challenge my preconceptions of what I think the face should look like. Religion, to me, has always been like the people in my classes who glance at the model, overlook all of the wonderful details, and just draw according to their “style”; giving everyone generic anime faces, thinning up fat women, bulking up skinny men, and frequently making people of color look as white as possible. Like religion, it’s all about expecting reality to conform to your prejudices, when it should work the other way around.
I think this analogy was cemented in my mind when I found out the fundamentalist Catholic in our year skipped a class because the model was a fat woman.
@59 Marcus
Holy fuck but that’s a good observation. Totally repeating that.