Pope: Science Cannot Explain The Meaning Of Life

September 17, 2010

(ChattahBox World News) – The Pope spoke to a group of assembled religious leaders this morning during his UK visit, and shot back at the current controversy over Stephen Hawking’s new book, which claims that a god had no place in the creation of the universe.

According to the Pope, science does not provide any answers into the actual question of our existence, and why we are here. ‘They cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart, they cannot fully explain to us our origin and our destiny, why and for what purpose we exist, nor indeed can they provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’”

This isn’t actually true. The problem with putting science into the same context as religion is that you expect it to have the same questions, but different answers. That isn’t the case, and the question of why we are here is significantly different than the same basic question asked in religion.

We don’t have to have a traditional “reason” for our existence on a spiritual level; the Pope is asking the wrong questions. We are more concerned with ‘how’ not ‘why’.

But that wasn’t all he had to say.

“It [religion] reminds us of the possibility and the imperative of moral conversion, of the duty to live peaceably with our neighbour, of the importance of living a life of integrity,” he said, ignoring the obvious problems with this statement.

“Properly understood, it brings enlightenment, it purifies our hearts and it inspires noble and generous action, to the benefit of the entire human family.”

I don’t actually have a problem with religion, believe it or not. I think that faith can be a wonderful thing that brings fulfillment into the lives of those who believe in a god. But I do have a bit of a problem with a man speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church, who claims he is the voice of God, and is currently embroiled in a massive scale of rampant child abuse, commenting on the flaws of science versus the religion he claims fosters peace.

I can’t help but feel that he doesn’t “properly understand” anything.


Comments

2 Responses to “Pope: Science Cannot Explain The Meaning Of Life”

  1. Old Man Dotes on September 17th, 2010 12:10 pm

    I thought Monty Python explained The Meaning of Life perfectly well. The Pope is correct, if he actually said that science can’t explain the meaning of life; science doesn’t attempt to explain meaning, it merely attempts to describe, with a reliable repeatability, what effect will be produced by a given action or event. For example, while religion would go into a great uproar about the philosophical effects and emotional turmoil that results from shooting the pope with a high-powered rifle, science would describe the effects on his tissues and organs, and examine the trajectory of the bullet.

    Science is about “this does that,” not about “why did you do that?” Which is why neither psychology nor psychiatry should rightly be called sciences, at least not yet; we can’t reliably predict a human’s reaction to any given stimulus that is less gross in measurement than “if you shoot him in the head, he will probably die.”

    And religions are about keeping useless pederasts living in luxury whilst telling other people that they should live in poverty and be grateful for it.

  2. Chris on September 19th, 2010 8:49 am

    I would not agree that psychology is not a science. Theories in psychology is proven to be reliable, valid and falsifiable. I think Old Man Dotes may confuse metaphysics with psychology and psychiatry. Strangely enough, Hawking’s m-theory is actually more of a metaphysical mathematical logic. Hawking’s replaces real time with imaginary time in his maths. Conversion to real time reintroduces the singularities that imply God as the creator. Hawking suggests that imaginary time is really real time. Hawking: “…it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, `real’ or `imaginary’ time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.” The usefulness of a description surely is determined by the use one has in mind. If one wants to describe a universe containing no God, Hawking’s theory may be useful, but no scientific criteria demand we follow him. I can imagine that Hawking now desires to popularise his theory on the consumer market since it fails to conform to scientific criteria. Yet no amount of support from the ever-growing atheist community will validate his theory since the laws of physics is not a manifestation of democracy. Just because like-minded individuals say it is so doesn’t mean that it is.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.