Vatican: "Creationism a New Kind of Paganism"

[Midtowner]

Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
IAN JOHNSTON

BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

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. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

"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."

Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

[ibda12u]

Midtowner, I'm kinda confused. I'm probably reading this incorrectly, but does it appear that the vatican's astronomer, is "attacking" the catholic church's stance on the authority of the catholic pope, as well as the literal translation of the old testament. Also if there is another way to translate the creation story in Genesis how could it be translated? I'm not attacking Catholic Dogma, Followers, or even this gentleman, I'm simply curious, because I'm not catholic and don't really know how this story sounds to a catholic.

[Midtowner]

1) No, he was explaining the Catholic Church's stance on infaliability -- not attacking. What he states is the truth of it, if you think anything else, then you have an incorrect perception.

2) The Catholic Church does not literally interpret the events described in the OT as actual historical events. They are merely allegorical. Of course, you are not excommunicated for taking the literalist approach, and many do. We're big tent like that. This gentleman is expressing his own views (and probably those of the Pope as well). Brother Consolmagno is both a clergyman and a scientist, so many would find his view of the subject to be particularly interesting.

ibda, as for the "translated" part, he's not attacking translation, merely interpretation. He says (and I agree completely) that religion needs science to keep it away from superstition. One such superstitious belief that he cites is the belief of a magical God that much like Zeus or Osiris made the world "poof" into existence.

Here's a man with who has an obviously profound faith in God as well as a strong belief in the utility of science. His job is to keep the belief in God as grounded with our current known reality as he can -- the Catholic church I think does not want to persecute another Galileo.

[ibda12u]

I see, thanks I appreciate you clearing that up for me.
Could you enlighten me further on the allegorical view of Creation in the OT? I'm seriously wanting to have an open minded understanding in that regard, as I've never actually heard it allegorically.

Thanks,
M.

[Midtowner]

It's a myth that originated in ancient times with certain moral 'lessons.' Take the story of the Garden of Eden, for example. Talking animals, "fruit of knowledge," etc. not unlike the fables of other cultures and religions.

Jesus often taught through allegory -- and there's no reason to think that He invented it. You can take a few moralistic lessons out of the creation story, otherwise, you can consider it to be the early monotheist's attempt at answering how the world came into being. Every religion has a creation myth, so why should the Jewish/Islamic/Christian religions be any different in that regard? They can't all be right, and in fact, what we know now based on what we've been able to piece together is that more likely than not, all of them are wrong

[ibda12u]

In see, that's an interesting position. So is there a scientific definition of the term "supernatural"?
Or is that more so a term associated with things not yet explained by science yet?
What's your take on that?

[Midtowner]

Supernatural is one of those words that pretty much defines itself.

Super = "more than"

natural = "Present in or produced by nature."

Add 'em to gether, and we get "More than [what] is present or produced in nature."

[CaptainAmerica]

like say a virgin birth, or a resurrection? last time i checked, the catholic church still believed in those.

[MadMonk]

Aren't those New Testament events?

[Midtowner]

like say a virgin birth, or a resurrection? last time i checked, the catholic church still believed in those.

There is a fundamental difference between your two stated beliefs and the evolution debate. With the evolution debate, there is a significant and credible scientific body of evidence such that no reasonable person could believe otherwise.

As to the virgin birth, and the resurrection, there's no science that could give alternate explanations.

[bandnerd]

Well, it is technically possible to get pregnant as a virgin...I don't want to get into details on that but if you think about it, it's possible. Not exactly Immaculate conception, though. Just to clarify.

[CaptainAmerica]

so if science said that resurrection is clearly able to happen, you would stop believing that jesus supernaturally raised lazurus, or came back to life himself?

Another question i ask, how do you "prove" that the earth is old enough to allow evolution?

Moreover, what is the "evidence" that evolution occurs? we have only been recording history for such a short time that we could not have actually seen something evolve. IF you are referring to the "missing links" they are nothing but bones that look slightly human. What evidence are you saying exists?

[Midtowner]

so if science said that resurrection is clearly able to happen, you would stop believing that jesus supernaturally raised lazurus, or came back to life himself?

The first part of the above is a statement, the second part is a question. I'm not sure what you're attempting to ask/say, but you've failed to communicate anything meaningful there.

Another question i ask, how do you "prove" that the earth is old enough to allow evolution?

Carbon dating, physics, other measures. The age of Earth is something which is easily proveable and demonstrable through carbon dating and other such means.

Moreover, what is the "evidence" that evolution occurs? we have only been recording history for such a short time that we could not have actually seen something evolve. IF you are referring to the "missing links" they are nothing but bones that look slightly human. What evidence are you saying exists?

What is the evidence that it did not occur? The evidence that it has occured is the fossil record. Do you have something better?

[CaptainAmerica]

carbon dating and other radioisotope dating methods are not correct. As for how the age of the earth is proved through physics, please enlighten me. If you do not believe me about carbon dating, along with other forms of radio isotope dating, check out this article.


Actually what i said was rather clear. If science said that the resurrection of lazurus/Jesus was not supernatural, aka it was simply a combination of how he died/or that he had not died at all, would you believe that he had really not died, and that he had not taken the keys to hell from the devil?


No, i have the fossil record when viewed with the possibility of a great worldwide flood being possible, in which case the fossil record makes a good bit of sense. If you dont believe me, or want to learn more, check out this article.

[wolf2006]

I seriously doubt that a website called "Answers in Genesis" has good articles that can be considered as accurate representation of science (or the lack thereof). More to the point, fossils and carbon dating have been proven accurate on a number of occasions. In addition to that evidence, there is an extremely strong DNA connection between humans and chimps (about 98%). If evolution is not a reality, then why do we have so much in common with an animal, or did God just get lazy when he was creating and decide to slap some fur on a human and call it good?

[CaptainAmerica]

we have like 95% the same with all animals, not just only chimps. did you read any of the articles? Believe me, they are very scientifically minded. And are ver accurate as well.

[bandnerd]

How do YOU know they are accurate, CA? Because they say so?

[wolf2006]

we have like 95% the same with all animals, not just only chimps. did you read any of the articles? Believe me, they are very scientifically minded. And are ver accurate as well.

If that's true, then that must mean that either God's lazy or else we all came from the same gene pool.....evolution!

As for the articles....I'm more inclined to believe hundreds of years of scientific research than a couple of biased articles published by some nit-picky researcher with an agenda. My father was a geologist for many years of his life, and I have seen how they analyze the age of the planet. Believe me, they have a much more scientifically sound approach than "Answers in Genesis," which uses scientific words to make its rhetoric sound more appealing.

I know that it's tough for many Christians to part with their views on creationism, but the entire creationist saga comes from the Old Testament. The Old Testament was clearly written more as symbolism than as fact. Sure evolutionary science still needs to make progress, so does cancer research, but at this point, there is a ton of scientific evidence to support evolution, and only a story from the Old Testament to support Creationism.

[CaptainAmerica]

i still ask what this overwhelming amount of scientific evidence is.

No i dont believe them, becuase of what they say, i went to one of their confrences and listened to what they said, anaylzed it, looked up there facts that they used, asked several professors, and came to the belief that they were correct.

Most of the old testament is symbolism? Possibly correct, however, the pentatuech is not written as symbolism, it is written in the way of fact. As factual happenings, that occured, so no i am not simply going to believe that something stated completely as fact, by the same writer that wrote exodus, that it is simply symbolism.

[bandnerd]

I have a very hard time believing a book written so long ago and re-written so many times and poorly translated so many times could possibly still have its facts straight. Sure, the Bible has some good stories, and some good guidelines about how to live a good life, but to me, science explains how we are here in a much more believable way for me. For me. I know that none of us will ever change your mind, CA, that's something you have to do for yourself. But to do that, you need to open your mind to the fact that you MAY be wrong, or the people you believe may be wrong, and I don't think you're willing to do that just yet. You're young. Most people change their minds about religion, politics, and other important issues several times during their early adulthood. I know I did.

I think maybe you need to re-read your signature, because you're rebutting first, answering questions that you asked, and not listening to anyone else's point of view.

[Midtowner]

i still ask what this overwhelming amount of scientific evidence is.

No i dont believe them, becuase of what they say, i went to one of their confrences and listened to what they said, anaylzed it, looked up there facts that they used, asked several professors, and came to the belief that they were correct.

Most of the old testament is symbolism? Possibly correct, however, the pentatuech is not written as symbolism, it is written in the way of fact. As factual happenings, that occured, so no i am not simply going to believe that something stated completely as fact, by the same writer that wrote exodus, that it is simply symbolism.

I've posted link after link. Again, as to the overwhelming body of science, I'm just going to have to ask you, go to:

www.google.com

Type in "evolution." Then look for any link which doesn't read "First Church of Jeebus Again' Der evil debbil worshipping Creationists-dot-com." (or something to that effect).

As to the original OT, are you suggesting to me that the entire globe was drowned in a rainstorm while some old kook and sailed around for 40 days in a boat full of two of every single animal?

Are you suggesting that a gentleman by the name of Jonah hung out in the belly of a whale for a respectable period of time before being belched up onto the beach?

Are you suggesting that the ants who worked all year to survive winter taught the grasshopper a valuable lesson? (oh was that a different fable?)

[{la_resistance}]

I didn't really want to get involved, but, I doubt the bible is 100% infallible. I think it is the collection of some of the greatest wisdom in recorded history. I believe that we should use it (and perhaps other religious documents/books) to establish a moral and ethical code. I especially enjoy the techings of Christ and I think it is the best part of most Holy books(he is in a LOT)

[ibda12u]

As to the original OT, are you suggesting to me that the entire globe was drowned in a rainstorm while some old kook and sailed around for 40 days in a boat full of two of every single animal?

Are you suggesting that a gentleman by the name of Jonah hung out in the belly of a whale for a respectable period of time before being belched up onto the beach?

Are you suggesting that the ants who worked all year to survive winter taught the grasshopper a valuable lesson? (oh was that a different fable?)

Midtowner, I think that's a question of individual beliefs. I personaly, belive that the OT is accurate and literal in how it was written. I believe that bible OT/NT, has a literal translation, as well as a spiritual revelation. I don't mean a mystical interpretion, but I truly believe there is a spirit side of mankind, that God created that is truly dead, or should I say without life. And I believe that faith in God, and through recieving God's spirit, it revives the dead spirit within us. And that faith is what allows us to recieve what may seem like unscientifically proven at this time, as hope, and assurance.

I believe it comes down to absolute truth, and if one even believes in an absolute truth. My hope is in the absolute truth of the bible. I believe everything has a literal translation, and a spiritual revelation. I've jumped headfirst into my relationship with God, and his word, instead of cautiously stepping in to it one toe at a time. Science man call it blind faith, but I believe it's something more like trust. A child doesn't know why a chair will hold it up. It just sits in it. Trusting that is will. They grow and later they learn why a chair holds them up. I truly believe for me it's that same principle. I believe God says the bible is his "true" Word. So I simply believe, and the longer I believe, and grow the longer He shows me why, and proves himself to me. I think God personally wants to prove himself to every individual, but at first they simply have to trust.

Well that's my 5cents. I appreciate the info earlier Midtowner, I understand your viewpoint on some of the literal translations of the bible, and I can definatly see how one can hold that view. I definatly don't intend to attack, or think that some one is in complete error, if they don't believe the way I do. So I hope you don't take this as some form of attack. I've still never been able to convince my wife that mayo is not evil.

[bandnerd]

But how can you be so sure that the Bible is "god's word?" It was written by people, and people are not infallible. They make mistakes, they make choices based on what is best for them. Who's to say that some of the Bible has been lost or completely changed due to poor translation skills or peronal agendas?

And have you ever read Leviticus? I think that's how you spell it...anyway, do you take that part of the Bible literally? Because you know, women love getting stoned (actual stones, people, not drug-induced) for menstrating.

[bandnerd]

Stupid school computers and their double posts