Vatican cardinal says atheist theories are 'absurd'

[Notta]

He doesn't deny the evidence for evolution, but claims that it is 'absurd' that evolution disproves the existence of god.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/?543)

He said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.

"Of course we think that's absurd and not at all proven," he said. "But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities."

So, I guess they won't be saying that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' anymore, too? Since the Vatican doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities, and all.....

[Ray Moscow]

Awk! I'm already discussing this at TR. (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=409236#post409236)

[Brother Daniel]

AFAIK, the RCC has already come around to recognizing the reality of homosexual orientation. They still say that you shouldn't act on it, but at least they're ahead of the protestant fundies.

[Ray Moscow]

Anyway, I can't think of any informed atheists who say anything like this.

What Dawkins and others have rightly said is that the TOE eliminates the need for God as a explanation for life and all its wonderful complexity. It's the religious folks who cause the problem by asserting that life is evidence of God's handiwork and existence.

[Lisa0315]

AFAIK, the RCC has already come around to recognizing the reality of homosexual orientation. They still say that you shouldn't act on it, but at least they're ahead of the protestant fundies.

Ayup.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

They call homosexuality an "objective disorder," last I heard. Since I don't pay the Vatican any attention, usually, I don't know if they've reg...er, progressed further.

On the point of evolution, however, I'd agree with the Vatican, at least in a "surfacey" way. I think ToE can certainly put the lie to various notions about any supposed divine agency. But it would only disprove (to an individual) the notion of a deity to someone who had her/his entire concept of the same wrapped up in ideas that are debunked by ToE.

[Ray Moscow]

The way I see it, the TOE and other parts of natural science leave "God" with nothing to do or to have ever done.

One can still believe in a God who has never been part of or has never interacted with this universe, but that's about it.

[Pendaric]

<Posts about Benedict Arnold split to MD>

[DMB]

I expect that they'll soon be saying that it's absurd to say that science disproves the existence of Russell's teapot.

It would be about as relevant to what Dawkins and co. are really saying.