The juxtaposition between the views of the Vatican’s astronomer and the less moderate voices of the Christian right is particularly striking. Consolmagno denounces creationism as a “kind of paganism”, while the Christian fundamentalists in the United States will claim the literal word of Genesis.
States Consolmagno:
“Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That’s why science and religion need to talk to each other… Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.”
Perhaps these so called Christians should take heed of the teachings of their spiritual leaders.
I am an atheist and I do not believe in the Christian god. Nevertheless, Brother Consolmagno is proof that one can be both a scientist and being a devout religious devotee; and without the perversion of scientific knowledge like championing foolish notions like “Intelligent Design”.
It should be widely acclaimed by scientists and clergy that “Intelligent Design” is bad science and bad theology.
From: The Scotsman
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer (excerpt)
IAN JOHNSTON
...BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday...
...He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.
Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods...
..."Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do..."
9 comments:
You argue with both sides of your mouth Michael.
When I pointed out that the Catholic Church does not teach the Bible is infallible, you said they taught it was only allegorical or something. Now you point to a Catholic theologian who counters your point and supports mine. Make up your mind young man!
It is important to seperate the Catholic Church from Evangelical Christians within the American political sphere. It is not too long ago that some Evangelical preachers pointed towards Pope John Paul as being the anti-Christ. Roman Catholics tend to be liberals in most forms as it affects society. The Roman Catholic church preaches "good works" while evangelicals preach "good works" are not necessary to get to heaven.
In politics, the current alliance of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals revolves around one single issue, abortion. Please do not try to understand the creation issue from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. You have to dig deeper. Roman Catholicism accepts evolution.
If you want to understand American Christianity do not try to understand Roman Catholics. Todays "Cat Lickers" are a forgiving bunch until it comes to the abortion issue. The southern KKK stood against "Cat Lickers" as much as they stood against blacks and Jews. You have to delve into some Protestant churches that spend as much or more time in the Old Testament as they do in the New.
As for me? I do not understand why a church needs to go to the Old Testament for answers to lifes problems and ignore what the New Testament has to say. Jesus condemned the Pharisees. The Pharisees relied on the Old Testament. Why do some preachers spend more time preaching the Old Testament while ignoring the New? If they think the Old Testament is the answer, then why don't they just become Jewish?
If they want to call themselves Christians, why do they not preach the Gospels. As a song I often sang in church went: "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love. Yes they will know we are Christians by our love."
Jesus was love. I return his love. I regret my love is not as perfect as his.
I wish to critique myself. I stated: "In politics, the current alliance of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals revolves around one single issue, abortion."
I wish to add that another important issue is same sex marriage. Roman Catholic Christians seem to agree that homosexuality is still at least regretable and should not be encouraged.
This issue is particularly poignant for Roman Catholics in that their insistance on celibancy for their preachers has evidently led towards pedophilia within those who can not remain celibant.
I believe that you lacking understanding in the subtlety of the issue. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is infallible. The Bible, after all, is supposed to be a "holy text", i.e., the indirect word of God.
The Catholic Church, however, does not teach that the Bible should necessarily be taken literally. That is, when it states that the world was created in "seven days", it does not necessarily mean 7 x 24 hours. Rather, seven periods of creation. Thus, "allegorical". If you look at Genesis in such a frame of mind, it is not incompatible with evolution or modern theories on planetary formation.
This is in stark contrast to fundamentalist Christians who wave around a modern English translated version of the Bible as literal factual truth which is nonsense, something that the Catholic Church believes in as well.
As for your lack of understanding of the "Old Testament", that is probably because you are not a Christian. The Bible is a compilation of both testaments, not just one.
I do not understand why a church needs to go to the Old Testament for answers to lifes problems and ignore what the New Testament has to say.
That can also be reversed as well. "I do not understand why a church needs to go to the New Testament for answers to life's problems and ignore what the Old Testament has to say".
As before, your form of "religion" is less like the teachings of Christianity, and more like a "cult of personality" surrounding an idealised version of Jesus.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Michael, I wish you would pick a position and stick with it. You are like an American politian who refuses to be nailed down.
When I stated the Catholic Church does not teach the Bible is infallible you stated it does too.
Now you say it doesn't (both times you included "allegorical" in your statements).
For the record, I was raised as a Christian. It is my opinion that my understanding of Christianity exceeds yours. You can hold fast to your opinion that my understanding is limited, but my belief is that you have exposed your own limited understanding in your posts.
Of course you have been "only human" in that you point to your limited education in the medical field makes you an expert even though your tender age and limited experience limits you to only being, at best, considered an "average" Doctor. Hardly an expert.
I am not trying to trample your self confidence or anything. However I am offended by your dismisal of my opinions as being uninformed. We can learn from each other. You might know "something", but your limited education and experience sure does not prove you know "everything".
When I stated the Catholic Church does not teach the Bible is infallible you stated it does too.
Now you say it doesn't (both times you included "allegorical" in your statements).
Eh? I still state that the Catholic Church teaches the Bible as infallible. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps we have different understandings of the term "allegorical" or "allegory".
The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
Genesis is an allegory, according to the modern interpretation of the Catholic Church. It is a representation of an abstract idea (creation) in a narrative. It is not meant to be taken in the literal sense (as in God literally said the words "let there be light" and in a 24 period Him doing certain things).
You're not going to find a Catholic churchman who is going to say "Genesis is fallible". That goes against the very point of a "holy text". It is the "interpretation" that is fallible, not the text itself. If you can find me a single example of a pope / cardinal / bishop / etc. stating that the "Bible could be wrong", then send me a link.
As for you being "raised a Christian", my experience is that the average Christian is remarkably ignorant of the history of their own religion. I have studied various religions from a historical point of view and feel relatively comfortable with my understanding on the state of the modern Christian churches, for an "amateur" anyway.
Regards,
Michael Tam
OK, maybe you only had too much beer when you tried to communicate. If you would accuse me of this, I would have to admit "Guilty as charged." Grin.
In response to your statement: "Eh? I still state that the Catholic Church teaches the Bible as infallible. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise." I will only qoute back at you your own statement. "The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is infallible." I wish to point out you even emboldened the "does not" portion in your original post.
Perhaps you only stated what you did not mean in your enthusiasm?
Oh, I see the problem.
A double negative. Hah. I actually meant to say "The Catholic church does not teach that the Bible is fallible".
Perhaps the rest of my comments make more sense in that context.
Regards,
Michael Tam
OK, to resolve my own "misunderstanding", I went to do a little research. There seems to be some debate about this subject even amongst the Roman Catholic community.
(See here) one of the websites I visited. I picked to quote from this site because it describes with relative simplicity the majority, and on occasion authoritive, opinions I took in.
This site states the Roman Catolic Church does not teach the Bible is "inerrant" and states "The term 'inerrant' is foreign to Roman Catholic... traditions".
Evidently most Roman Catholics do believe the Bible is "infallible" and the Vatican does teach this, however their definition of "infallible" might not agree with Merriam-Webster's, or with that of many other Christians. The above site gives the following definition: "This means that when the Scripture is speaking the Good News of Christ and describing the character, vision and purpose of God, through the Holy Spirit's work it transcends the spiritual flaws of its writers, of the media of communication (such as print or preaching), and of the readers/hearers." It then goes on to describe where at least some (most?) Roman Catholics differ with at least some Christians on their understanding of the meaning of the word: "Fundamentalists overplay the term, saying that the Bible is infallible on every matter it covers, in just about all its uses."
So I will humbly admit I was wrong. The Roman Catholic Church does teach the Bible is infallible (however not inerrant). However you must be very careful when discussing this because of the Roman Catholic Church's very narrow definition of the word infallible. This narrow definition is not commonly understood when the word is used.
Oh, and as for my personal beliefs, I do not hold the Bible is either "inerrant" or even "infallible" even within the Roman Catholic understanding of the meaning of the word.
For defense of my belief I would point to Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse. Here you will find the Parable of the Shrewd (sometimes Prudent) Manager, and I reject what I take to be the moral of this parable.
While I do not describe myself as a Christian, I am heartened to come to the understanding that if I ever should decide to thus describe myself I might not be alone in my beliefs. Quoting again from the previously linked website: "Some of them (especially among US Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ, and most of those in the Westar bible-critical project) believe that there is nothing in the Bible that escapes earthly corruption, so even each aspect of its Gospel message (such as the New Testament's answer on the cosmic role of Jesus of Nazareth) must pass the bar of human reason."
I wish to express my gratitude to you, Michael, for motivating me to explore this subject in more detail.
Post a Comment