←back to thread

Pope Francis has died

(www.reuters.com)
916 points phillipharris | 8 comments | 21 Apr 25 08:00 UTC | HN request time: 1.462s | source | bottom
Show context
hliyan ◴[21 Apr 25 08:29 UTC] No.43749565[source]▶
I wonder whether we will have another Jesuit Pope. Jesuits are supposed to be generally very education focused, more progressive (especially w.r.t science) and stand less on ceremony. I know nothing about how the College of Cardinals work, but if they're anything like other political voting bodies, one of two outcomes are possible: a swing to the Right (and toward tradition), recognizing the current balance of power in the world, or a swing even further Left of Francis, again recognizing the current trend but as a counterweight.
replies(7): >>43749610 #>>43749622 #>>43749687 #>>43749696 #>>43749843 #>>43750145 #>>43751591 #
grandempire ◴[21 Apr 25 09:14 UTC] No.43749843[source]▶
> especially w.r.t science

I would like to know more. My impression is that most Christian institutions have long ago disentangled from scientific debate - providing interpretative value rather than alternative science. This is part of a larger trend to focus their scope and mission in modern life. Have the last few popes made comments on scientific issues?

(The exception is evangelical Americans.)

replies(6): >>43749993 #>>43750096 #>>43750108 #>>43750806 #>>43752190 #>>43753869 #
1. froh ◴[21 Apr 25 09:37 UTC] No.43749993[source]▶
the pontifical academy of science has.

https://www.pas.va/en.html

replies(1): >>43750053 #
2. grandempire ◴[21 Apr 25 09:47 UTC] No.43750053[source]▶
Thanks. That looks like a way for Catholics to support and endorse scientific research rather than a develop alternative science.
replies(2): >>43750159 #>>43750955 #
3. krapp ◴[21 Apr 25 10:04 UTC] No.43750159[source]▶
Ironically, Catholicism as an institution has a better track record of supporting science than many Protestant sects. Much of the "alternative science" comes from the Baptists and Evangelicals.
replies(1): >>43755859 #
4. kergonath ◴[21 Apr 25 12:03 UTC] No.43750955[source]▶
Indeed, that is exactly what it is. Mainstream catholics don’t really have a problem with science in general, but with moral consequences of some application of science. Broadly speaking, they are not saying that science is fake, more that there are some things we should not do.

A conversation with a Jesuit for example can be enlightening because they have intellectual and moral arguments, it’s not just castles built on the shifting foundations of a Bible verse.

This leads to different approaches compared to a lot of American Protestants. They don’t seek to undermine science.

5. pbh101 ◴[21 Apr 25 20:02 UTC] No.43755859{3}[source]▶
Why is this ironic?
replies(1): >>43757569 #
6. krapp ◴[21 Apr 25 23:21 UTC] No.43757569{4}[source]▶
It's ironic because no matter how much science they embrace, they never come around to realizing their God is just as much make believe as every other.
replies(2): >>43758993 #>>43764831 #
7. froh ◴[22 Apr 25 04:06 UTC] No.43758993{5}[source]▶
oh. thanks for clarifying. I'd thought the irony lies in some image of being anti-scientific.

the fun thing, ironic itself, about dismissing religion in it's entirety is that most religions have long understood that G'd can't be proven, measured, captured with experiments. the irony in this is that while you can't prove G'd you can't disprove G'd either, so the lack of proof is no proof of a lack of "The Force". quantum physics did not not exist just because the was no proof for it.

one interesting train of thought in this regard was the conclusion of a book on the neurobiology of meditation, (the title escapes me right now): what if the only "instrument" to measure religious experience is the brain? we can measure effects of systematic religious practice on the brain, like meditation aka contemplative prayer. we can identify some aspects of states that humans describe as religious experience, in the brain, as they happen. why would we dismiss those as mere "brain formations"? while we accept equally measurable effects of sound or light on the brain as "real"?

it's non-trivial...

8. grandempire ◴[22 Apr 25 18:14 UTC] No.43764831{5}[source]▶
This position has nothing to do with science.

Science doesn’t say we are the only intelligent forms in the universe. Science doesn’t say intelligent max’s out with humans. Science doesn’t describe concepts outside of time and space.