Science and technology will not redeem mankind, Pope insists

[ribozyme]

This link posted in another thread, but no other thread was made about this topic.

Vatican City, Jun 10, 2008 / 10:27 am (CNA).- On Monday, Pope Benedict XVI opened the congress for the Diocese of Rome on the theme, “Jesus has risen. Educating for hope in prayer, in action and in suffering.” He told the Romans that they should not look to science and technology for hope and redemption, but to instead open their lives to God.

“Moreover,” the Holy Father added, “hopes for great novelties and improvements are concentrated on science and technology.” Yet, "it is not science and technology that can give meaning to our lives and teach us to distinguish good from evil,” he said.
…

Recalling his encyclical ‘Spe salvi,’ Benedict XVI emphasized that, “it is not science that redeems man: man is redeemed by love, and this applies even in terms of the present world." However, modern civilization and culture “too often tend to place God in parenthesis, to organize personal and social life without Him, to maintain that nothing can be known of God, even to deny His existence. But when God is laid aside, … all our hopes, great and small, rest on nothing.”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12890

I am not a Catholic so why should I care about what the Pope says? I posted this because I partially agree with the Pope’s statements and it reflects some of my own personal experience.

As for me, I used to count myself as a “transhumanist” who believes that we should use technology to improve and possibly “transcend” the human condition. I became engrossed in “transhumanism” after reading Raymond Kurzweil’s essay “The Law of Accelerating Returns”, I was initially optimistic because I read that essay during a period when I was distressed from having to deal with the data from The Bell Curve and Race Difference in Intelligence (no need to discuss that here.) While I was reading Kurzweil’s work, I thought he provided a rather convincing argument for the acceleration of technological progress. (He argues convincingly that the “law of accelerating returns” is not merely a restatement of Moore’s law but a phenomenon of history extending from the origin of life.) For a few months, I fervently believed in the secular version of the beatific vision – the technological singularity – a point in history where technology will become so advanced that it will be impossible for our human minds to predict it. In addition, I also read the Singularity is Near, *Citizen Cyborg ** and the other work of Nick Bostrom. Other “transhumanist” scholars such as the “pro-life” activist Aubrey de Grey, I did not fully accept their ideas of radical life extension as a feasible goal for the next few decades. Over time, my “faith” in transhumanism became lukewarm as I did not believe that “molecular manufacturing” (watch this video for an explanation: youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg)willwill) be available in the mid 2020s (Ray Kurzweil’s prediction in the Singularity is near) and the fact that Ray Kurzweil literally expects to live forever.

I am not a fan of Kurzweil’s vision of transhumanism. However, I feel the work of Nick Bostrom and James Hughes are worthy contributions to the field of bioethics. I also enjoyed Hughes *Citizen Cyborg * which was a political liberal expatiation of transhumanism. After I read *Citizen Cyborg *, I was more interested in political and moral philosophy instead of technological progress.

I think the world is more receptive to the Pope’s message in this current state of affairs. Extractible fossil fuels are currently being depleted and humanity will be left to face the colossal challenge of powering a civilization that uses 15 terawatts. Rising fuel prices will sunder some people’s faith in the “market” and perhaps science and technology when energy security will be perceived as a zero sum game in the Hobbesian jungle. Such an environment will not be fertile ground for the ideology of transhumanism and perhaps people will turn to religion for answers to life problems. However, maybe future deaths in famines and resource wars will be antithetical to religious faith as it evokes “the problem of evil” argument. Before learning about peak oil, I had faith that the pursuit of knowledge and technological progress will improve the human conditions, but now it seems that I have lost my faith and I have nothing. I lost my utopian vision that technology will solve poverty. I must admit that I sometimes envy Catholics.*

 

[ribozyme]

On another note, I disagree with some of the Pope’s views on other issues, and I do believe that resource depletion is a problem for humanity’s prosperity. I agree with Randall Parker when he says this:

“I expect population reduction to make a come-back as as a “green” issue. Humans are going to wreck the world if we do not control our numbers.”
parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

I do hope population reduction will make a comeback as a green issue.

What are your perspectives on science, technology, and faith?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Turning the Pope’s words into a reason for genocide (that is what population control/reduction is) is just plain wrong.

 

[cathgal]

On another note, I disagree with some of the Pope’s views on other issues, and I do believe that resource depletion is a problem for humanity’s prosperity. I agree with Randall Parker when he says this:

“I expect population reduction to make a come-back as as a “green” issue. Humans are going to wreck the world if we do not control our numbers.”
parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

I do hope population reduction will make a comeback as a green issue.

What are your perspectives on science, technology, and faith?

Would you volunteer as the first one to be de-populated ?

 

[ribozyme]

Would you volunteer as the first one to be de-populated ?

If I want to commit suicide, I’ll do it okay. But since I do not want to, I won’t.

 

[Della]

On another note, I disagree with some of the Pope’s views on other issues, and I do believe that resource depletion is a problem for humanity’s prosperity. I agree with Randall Parker when he says this:

“I expect population reduction to make a come-back as as a “green” issue. Humans are going to wreck the world if we do not control our numbers.”
parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

I do hope population reduction will make a comeback as a green issue.

What are your perspectives on science, technology, and faith?

Actually, there is growing evidence for population reduction already, especially in the West. The population is supposed to peak within the next few years and then begin to decline quite sharply. So, I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. Besides, who is supposed to determine who should and who shouldn’t be having babies? And why would anyone want others to tell them if they can and cannot have children? It certainly hasn’t benefited China–they have so few girls their men have no females to marry and have their children. It’s best to leave such things alone. Whenever man tries to “mold” man, even with the best of intentions, he ends up resorting to cruelty, enslavement of peoples, and denial of natural law. It simply doesn’t work.

 

[MacRath]

As a physicist who through an exercise of his own volition chose catholic baptism, it disturbs me to see the number of times people on a catholic forum suggest someone commit suicide the moment population reduction or control is mentioned.

I do not believe it is helpful. The catechism gives catholics instruction in regard to the use of sarcasm- to wit: it is not ok to demean another person in that manner.

Even if we are ‘right’. Because the catechism also teaches that for an action to be moral, the intent, means and end must all be moral. Therefore to communicate a catholic belief to another person (a moral end), or even just to communicate(a moral end), we cannot resort to sarcasm(an immoral means)

And above all we must examine our conscience in regard to intention, to be sure it too is moral.

Population reduction- can we find a means that is moral?

It’s best to leave such things alone. Whenever man tries to “mold” man, even with the best of intentions, he ends up resorting to cruelty, enslavement of peoples, and denial of natural law.

I tend to agree despite the advances of modern science-man’s attempts to interfere in the natural order often lead to disaster. Witness the Yellowstone fire- for years it was thought we would save the forest by putting out fires…by so doing, we created the fuel for a catastrophic conflagration. The natural order seems rather that forests and grasslands always burn from time to time through lightning alone if not human fires gone astray. And we are part of the natural order anyway. But natural fires are smaller and contribute to the health of the forest, rather than its detriment. They occur more often, and the detritus that leads to conflagration does not accumulate.

Anyway- population reduction…really, to leave well enough alone is to accept natural order…like rabbits who overcrowd, God’s laws will see that things carry on…maybe not very pleasantly to our perception…billions may suffer…but to stoop to an immoral means will as surely deprive us of our humanity.

In which case what’s to save?

I am sorry that this is such a specious reponse, but you asked a rather broad question.

 

[the_phoenix]

“Crunchy Con” (granola bar nature-loving conservative) here.

Count me in among those Catholics who are sometimes tempted to run away from modern civilization and live an Amish lifestyle.

I take my vacations either on a small island with a homelike atmosphere (Kelleys Island in Lake Erie) or down on a farm at the end of a dead-end dirt road (for example in the Hocking Hills of Ohio, Appalachian mountains of Virginia, or the Deep South) where cell phone reception is gloriously impossible or delightfully forgettable. The biggest it gets is small town and the people know each other and are friendly.

Most times the places I stay do not offer television or telephones in the room, and the scenery is so beautiful that I turn the car radio off to enjoy the surroundings without becoming distracted.

While in everyday life I do enjoy my computer, and do in fact bring a digital camera with me on vacation … I think I could come to give even these tantalizingly enjoyable bits of technology up, in exchange for a stable lifestyle out in the country (stables with horses being so much the better!)

Manmade technology is too dependent on too many factors and so fragile … I was real glad to get out of town during a huge power outage several years ago. No electricity meant among other things, no water. Not easy to survive for long in a concrete jungle when supplies run out.

As for there being “too many people” … If you are saying this and haven’t been out in the country for awhile, I would advise you to go there and recharge your batteries. To my mind, it’s not “too many people” but rather, how people treat each other. A peaceful retreat at a relaxed pace from time to time can help us step back and appreciate how precious each and every single human being is.

The Pope is right. Science and technology are good for building fancy toys … and fancy toys break, or eventually become boring and are thrown aside in a quest for more fancy toys. Science and technology can in fact benefit mankind, say medically, but even so there are limits to what can be achieved in this world. Mankind’s true fulfillment is found in loving God and loving neighbor.

~~ the phoenix in a musing rambling mood

… also known as CountryDreaming on the Flickr photography website
…
…

 

[MacRath]

As another likely sententious and speciously argued opinion, I would suggest that science and technology are too often treated synonymously. Science is an attempt to understand the material world without recourse to the magic of a pagan understanding - technology is the pragmatic application of science to a human problem.

There is great hope in scientific insight, for it can give a glimpse of the deeper mysteries, and a Sentience far beyond our finite grasp. There is perhaps a greater danger that too little reflection occurs before science is technologized without spiritual and philosophical contemplation.

We do not enough ask: Yes we can do this, but should we?

The essential problem with science, like all prophecy, is that it is a hollow gong without love…to badly paraphrase Corinthians. But to say there is no redemptive value to science, when its discoveries can move us to contemplation of a mystery far greater than our finite existence…no I would respectfully disagree…there is a fallow field of hope in science, but we must water the field with love. And we must learn as a race to let it bear fruit fully in Kairos, rather than in haste seek to reap a harvest we may come to rue in retrospect.

But such a response takes spiritual maturity, corporately and personally…and it would seem to me that we are still very much as a race suffering from adolescent rebellion…we want the keys to the car but we haven’t yet grasped the responsibility it entails.

And like adolescents, we push our parents out of the way and refuse their wisdom…I completely agree with the pope’s assessment that God is increasingly kept out of our lives. By many ‘faith-filled’ people too, who have confused a static belief system with a dynamic faith constantly challenged to respond to God intimately and personally…and to struggle internally in that response…not just reach for a formula to plug in without attempting to understand the whole problem first…

The essential problem with technology is that its growth has far outstripped our ability to assimilate it responsibly, exacerbated by an increased manipulation of human beings toward addictive dependency on technology elicited by convincing them a want for which there is a saleable technological fix is a need.

…oh well I have to go work…thanks to Adam I must labor…thanks to the Church I can see it as sacramental…
…
Random thought:

When the fundamentalists refuse all means of technology that deprive them of sweat, I will listen to their literal interpretations…bercause God also said in Genesis:"By the sweat of your brow, you will produce food to eat until you return to the ground "

Machines don’t sweat. tractors, combines, cars, jets…etc…