Pope Blames Refugee Crisis on 'God of Money,' 'Socio-Economic System That Is Bad, Unjust'

[Thomas_White]

Martin Luther did not deny the existence of God, he denided the infallibilty of the Catholic Church.

Papal infallibility did not become doctrine until Vatican I, more than three centuries later. However, the doctrine of infallibility would definitely concern epistemology.

Yes, we are talking epistomology here and this is exactly where Martin Luther made his most important and valuable contribution.

What was it?

In the cultural paradigm described in Laudato Si, epistemology would seem to involve the incorporation of limited empirical knowledge into the cultural paradigm as a mindset or perspective. In the proposed new cultural paradigm this seemingly would necessarily differ and become an epistomology of perhaps justified belief that would include ethics and spirituality.

Modern science does not begin with a hypothesis, it begins with a doubt and an inspiration. Scientists are professional skeptics and visionaries who are convinced of, and dedicate their lives to, the proposition that authority and tradition are wrong and that they, personally, have something to add to the domain of knowledge.

Thank you, Martin Luther.

This is a rhetorical generality. Science is not a general rebellion against authority and tradition per se, though at times it can turn out that way. But I agree the inspiration of science is not always objective and this is also true of an hypothesis. This could be intuition.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Papal infallibility did not become doctrine until Vatican I, more than three centuries later. However, the doctrine of infallibility would definitely concern epistemology.

What was it?

In the cultural paradigm described in Laudato Si, epistemology would seem to involve the incorporation of limited empirical knowledge into the cultural paradigm as a mindset or perspective. In the proposed new cultural paradigm this seemingly would necessarily differ and become an epistomology of perhaps justified belief that would include ethics and spirituality.

This is a rhetorical generality. Science is not a general rebellion against authority and tradition per se, though at times it can turn out that way. But I agree the inspiration of science is not always objective and this is also true of an hypothesis. This could be intuition.

Rebellion against authority and tradition is essential to the progress of science. Let’s look at the previous example: Einstein’s theory of relativity. The prevailing understanding in physics was the model from Isaac Newton. Einstein had to set himself against that generally accepted model of reality. While some progress in science proceeds incrementally, there is always the possibility of a great rethinking perhaps best exemplified by Isaac Newton himself. (Not to mention Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei.)

It is not merely that the inspiration for new ideas in science is not “always objective”, it is that the person advancing the new theory must judge his own inspiration above the generally accepted wisdom of those who came before him and those who inhabit the status quo. In the best of circumstances those defending the status quo merely demand rigorous evidence and repeatable experiments. In the worst case it can be almost as vicious as the 30 years war. Thomas Khun was so cynical about this process that he argued that scientific paradigm shifts have to await the death of the old guard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Further, science makes authority much less important. One can repeat the experiments for oneself and validate them without the need to appeal to authority. What this implies is that while a scientific authority might be convenient it is not necessary.

Martin Luther unleashed a new way of viewing knowledge that relied less upon authority and more upon personal experience. The fact that he was oriented on religion is irrelevant. The culture absorbed this new epistemology and ran with it in many other domains of life: science, politics, economics, art, etc. Thus was born modernity of which the industrial revolution was one of its fruits.

 

[Thomas_White]

Rebellion against authority and tradition is essential to the progress of science. Let’s look at the previous example: Einstein’s theory of relativity. The prevailing understanding in physics was the model from Isaac Newton. Einstein had to set himself against that generally accepted model of reality. While some progress in science proceeds incrementally, there is always the possibility of a great rethinking perhaps best exemplified by Isaac Newton himself. (Not to mention Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei.)

It is not merely that the inspiration for new ideas in science is not “always objective”, it is that the person advancing the new theory must judge his own inspiration above the generally accepted wisdom of those who came before him and those who inhabit the status quo. In the best of circumstances those defending the status quo merely demand rigorous evidence and repeatable experiments. In the worst case it can be almost as vicious as the 30 years war. Thomas Khun was so cynical about this process that he argued that scientific paradigm shifts have to await the death of the old guard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Further, science makes authority much less important. One can repeat the experiments for oneself and validate them without the need to appeal to authority. What this implies is that while a scientific authority might be convenient it is not necessary.

Martin Luther unleashed a new way of viewing knowledge that relied less upon authority and more upon personal experience. The fact that he was oriented on religion is irrelevant. The culture absorbed this new epistemology and ran with it in many other domains of life: science, politics, economics, art, etc. Thus was born modernity of which the industrial revolution was one of its fruits.

Though it is not the way Laudato Si describes it, it is an intriguing proposition and perhaps could explain the division among U.S. Catholics. At first glance, it would seem to go a long way toward doing so since what is involved almost surely is personal freedom and independence. This would be true of both the political left and right.

But in any event, Laudato Si calls for a new cultural paradigm. Do you see it as necessary, and if so what might it involve?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Though it is not the way Laudato Si describes it, it is an intriguing proposition and perhaps could explain the division among U.S. Catholics. At first glance, it would seem to go a long way toward doing so since what is involved almost surely is personal freedom and independence. This would be true of both the political left and right.

Yes, this is an issue that cuts across current political lines. And although you might find this debate elsewhere it is probably most acute here owing to the founding principles that are very much biased toward personal freedom and independence.

But in any event, Laudato Si calls for a new cultural paradigm. Do you see it as necessary, and if so what might it involve?

I have little confidence in the Church leading the way to a new cultural paradigm unless or until it takes account of the culture that led to the industrial revolution (and related beneifts of modernity).

What I would look for, first, would be for the Church to acknowledge the role of Protestantism in advancing human society. That’s a hard pill to swallow, of course. Similarly the Enlightenment. Acknowledging what is good in modernity would enable it to attack what is bad, mostly absurdities that followed the industrial revolution that contributed nothing to the advance of society.

So while Laudato Si calls for a new cultural paradigm, I call for a new Catholic paradigm.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, this is an issue that cuts across current political lines. And although you might find this debate elsewhere it is probably most acute here owing to the founding principles that are very much biased toward personal freedom and independence.

I have little confidence in the Church leading the way to a new cultural paradigm unless or until it takes account of the culture that led to the industrial revolution (and related beneifts of modernity).

What I would look for, first, would be for the Church to acknowledge the role of Protestantism in advancing human society. That’s a hard pill to swallow, of course. Similarly the Enlightenment. Acknowledging what is good in modernity would enable it to attack what is bad, mostly absurdities that followed the industrial revolution that contributed nothing to the advance of society.

I think I understand it. Let me think about it, and I will reply. It is interesting.

So while Laudato Si calls for a new cultural paradigm, I call for a new Catholic paradigm.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, this is an issue that cuts across current political lines. And although you might find this debate elsewhere it is probably most acute here owing to the founding principles that are very much biased toward personal freedom and independence.

I have little confidence in the Church leading the way to a new cultural paradigm unless or until it takes account of the culture that led to the industrial revolution (and related beneifts of modernity).

What I would look for, first, would be for the Church to acknowledge the role of Protestantism in advancing human society. That’s a hard pill to swallow, of course. Similarly the Enlightenment. Acknowledging what is good in modernity would enable it to attack what is bad, mostly absurdities that followed the industrial revolution that contributed nothing to the advance of society.

So while Laudato Si calls for a new cultural paradigm, I call for a new Catholic paradigm.

I think I understand it, and it is interesting. Let me think about it, and I will reply later