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

The Scotsman ^ | May 5, 2006 | IAN JOHNSTON

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Interesting perspective. Of course, let me be the first to point out it's one man's opinion, and certainly not canonical.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ping-a-ling

[cripplecreek]

The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began. It also reminds us that scientists, Christian and otherwise have been wrong about a lot of things and right about others.

[theDentist]

Considering we have no idea how long a "day" is in God's time, I can easily reconcile the earth's creation in 6 days to a scietific view of it taking billions of years by men's reckoning.

[Elpasser]

What a shameful apostate.

The Catholic Church has fallen so far!

[fizziwig]

Nice try Padre....but Creationism is not Paganism.

pa·gan (pgn) KEY

NOUN:

One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.
ADJECTIVE:

Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.

---

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European roots

OTHER FORMS:
pagan·dom (-dm) KEY (Noun), pagan·ish (Adjective), pagan·ism (Noun)

[Liberal Classic]

...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.

Interesting.

[TChris]

Considering we have no idea how long a "day" is in God's time, I can easily reconcile the earth's creation in 6 days to a scietific view of it taking billions of years by men's reckoning.

Yup. Also, the very term "day" is frequently used, even in modern English, in very vague ways. For example: "Back in the day of the victrola, audio recording was poor at best.", or, "The day of reckoning had arrived for this corrupt politician."

"Day" is frequently used to mean nothing more specific than "a period of time". Used in that way, the exact length of time is not given and is usually irrelevant. How long the creation took is far less important than the fact that it did occur, and that it was performed by Almighty God.

[Varda]

ping

[orionblamblam]

> The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began.

Greece (Ionia specifically)?

Not sure I see the connection.

[conservative physics]

Either God created the universe and Man or there is no God, it's that simple.

The details of how he did it, or how long it took, are irrelevant.

[cripplecreek]

The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began.

And the church had near total control over it.

[Stingray51]

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.

The point is not whether "nature gods" are responsible for natual events. It is whether God is responsible for (a) nature (by creating it), and (b) manifestly unnatural events such as the Incarnation of God the Son in a virgin mother and the Resurrection. If Christians are to believe in those two events, then I don't see how it could be paganism for them to also believe in "creationism". This brother should stick to astronomy.

[george wythe]

Now you tell me. After believing all these years that God created the dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, but the dinosaurs drowned about 4,000 years ago when they couldn't fit into Noah's Ark.

At least, I know that Noah's Ark was found by a CBS documentary crew.

[/s]

[orionblamblam]

> And the church had near total control over it.

Indeed. But then they lost control, and western science finally really got going. The Vatican observatory wasn't built until, IIRC, sometime in the 1500's... and the Rennaissance, driven by resurgent western science and secular learning, was several hundred years old in Italy at that point.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, being only ONE man's opinion does make it micro-canonical; macro-canonism has not been proved.

[Porkandbeeny]

Yup. Also, the very term "day" is frequently used, even in modern English, in very vague ways. For example: "Back in the day of the victrola, audio recording was poor at best.", or, "The day of reckoning had arrived for this corrupt politician." I think you're ignoring the fact that it is irrelevant how the word is used in English or any other living language, vaguely or otherwise. What matters is how it is used in Hebrew. In the case of the Genesis account, when you combine it with the context of "and there was evening and morning," which is typical Hebrew literature denoting a specific period of time, the clearest meaning of the words is a normal, regular day, not an indefinite period of time. If we stop taking Scripture at its clearest meaning and viewing everything within the context, then we leave all of Scripture up to the wildest forms of interpretation. It's exactly that which leads to all forms of heresy.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Creationism doesn't rise to the level of Paganism.

[Arkinsaw]

God has designed the Bible for his own purposes. He remains vague when he wants, he makes parables when he wants, he explains specifically when he wants, he includes poetry when he wants, he writes allegorically and symbolically when he wants. He does it for reasons. There are reasons why different versions of the gospel are included in the one book (to reach out with different angles of the same story for minds that think in different ways IMO).

To insist that the Bible must speak literally at all times and on all subjects is an attempt to limit an omnipotent and omnipresent God and bind him to literalism. He won't be bound. But people may bind themselves with it. He can write symbolically, allegorically, poetically, artistically, literally, or however he wants and needs for his own purposes and to reach and instruct different people at different times.

[MineralMan]

"If we stop taking Scripture at its clearest meaning and viewing everything within the context, then we leave all of Scripture up to the wildest forms of interpretation. It's exactly that which leads to all forms of heresy."

---

And, it's why we have hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations of Christianity, each based on some interpretation of Scripture.

The creation story in Genesis could hardly have been written any other way, considering its audience, which had no concept of millions of years, nor could it have understood the idea of evolution in the first place.

The first chapters of Genesis are an allegory. It's that simple.

But, I suppose some folks believe it is, as written, a detailed account of how things happened. That's their privilege, as it is the privilege of other Christians and Jews to see it as allegorical.

Anyone who claims to have a full understanding of the Bible is fooling with you. That's impossible, as those hundreds or thousands of denominations of Christianity affirm.