When I heard the pope was going to “excommunicate” us sceptics at first I laughed, then realising that rearranging the date the Pope did the same to Luther (1520) we get this years date (2015), I contemplated reproducing Luther’s 95 Thesis which I might have “nailed to the door”. But I quickly realised we sceptics only have one real demand and that is for science to be based on the evidence and not religious or political belief whether Catholic, New Age, Pagan, eco-fascist, etc.
But as I’ve watched the public mood turning overtly hostile to this scam and the mother nature not playing ball I realised the Pope had missed the boat. What appalling timing when even the very last “pro” warming indicator of Arctic ice now shows refreezing. This proclamation is a shot in the foot by the Pope which can do nothing but undermine the Pope’s own credibility.
But still I ought to respond – but how?
A Sarcastic comment: “What A load knickers”?
A religious comment about the New age paganism of the Pope with his new symbol for the Catholic Church?
The Denier
(And the windmill – the new symbol of catholicism?)
Or the truth: The Pope is effectively denying god!
oh no!
excommunication?
whatever will I do?
oh wait… I’m a Methodist
amazing how easily the progressives have fallen for the Church’s PR campaign
they’ve had a meeting of minds on ‘climate change’
eye to eye on religion
really, how crazy can this get?
however, if beer turns out to actually be endangered, I may have to switch sides 🙂
There is a formal religious angle here, although I certainly don’t expect everybody here to see it the same way.
This reminds me of two discussions. One is the recent (10 years ago?) discussions between the Catholics and the Orthodox churches concerning re-merging more closely after a thousand years apart. I believe the final result was that the two could potentially get along on every topic of their discussion except for one tiny item, which was the infallibility of the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra). That’s essentially the same issue that divided them in the first place, a thousand years ago, and that’s what’s keeping them divided today.
Second is Luther’s 95 theses concerning corrupt practices of the day. I have seen analyses that the Catholic church has accepted something like 94 of those theses in the intervening years. There’s just one tiny item left, which is the infallibility of the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra). That’s essentially the item that divided countries and families in bloody wars at the time, and that’s the core of what’s keeping them divided today.
I am fine with the Pope having an opinion on these scientific matters. I’m fine with him publishing them, defending them, and urging loyalty to them. But I come to a screeching halt when he makes these a qualifying matter for proper membership in his flock. To say a thing like that would require a bit more than his say-so. In other words, I respect the man and his church. But I’m not buying that his word on all topics whatsoever is infallible, because he has been elected by his former peers. Peter’s word was not infallible, either.
If saying so leads to some strong differences of opinion — well, it’s hardly the first time for that.
What I find interesting, is that printing effectively gave Church “sceptics” the ability to read the evidence themselves in the printed bible (hitherto controlled by the church) and then to discuss it amongst themselves without going through the catholic church hierarchy and when this happened they stopped accepting the authority of the church.
Likewise, today we sceptics can obtain the scientific evidence from the internet, and the internet allows us to discuss that evidence without ever bowing to the authority of the academics – and so in a very similar move we have stopped accepting the authority of the “church” of science aka academia.
So, in effect, this alliance between Pope and “science” (i.e. when used as a group name for academics) can be seen as the old hierarchical self-proclaimed “omni-science” systems of “church” and “science” aligning to try to stop the new flatter social structures on the internet where whether church or science discussions take place & views are formed outwith the old hierarchies on a peer-to-peer basis with very little new hierarchy.
The reality is that just as the Catholic church lost its authority as the “infallible” voice of god in 1520, so, academia is in 2015 losing its authority as the “infallible” voice of science – and quite right, particularly given the non-science we’ve seen on climate.
The old system whereby academia would tell the rest of us what to believe about science & we had to swallow it is now dead. The new system is that the views of academia are just one of many views.
Yes academia is searching for allies to reassert its authority – but if history teaches us anything – it’s that once these social changes start, there’s no going back.
Enter the year of mercy n things just get stranger and stranger.