And it's tutti all the way!
Posted on 05/05/2006 8:21:56 AM PDT by 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.
Bravo, an excellent post! Thank you.
As I see it, it is really only through science we begin to understand the astounding elegance and beauty of creation -- complexity far beyond the compass of any one book of scripture.
To limit God to the pages of scripture, with all the viscitudes to which any transmitted text is subject, while ignoring the splendours of creation itself is, IMHO, a shameful folly. It is the closest to what I might even describe as 'sacrilege.'
... at a Texas Kinkos along with Bush's National Guard records.
*NEWS FLASH*World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God, Cites Modern Science!
The best-known atheist of the last 50 years, Professor Antony Flew,
made the announcement in a symposium on science and religion,
that the discoveries of modern science have led him to accept
the existence of God. Flew was joined in the symposium by
leading Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder and
noted Scottish thinker John Haldane.See ABC News story
Good point by you.
No, thank you. It seemed a simple question. Do you feel religion and science are in competition? Does scientific "truth" diminish the "truth" God has revealed to us?
SD
We don't need no stinkin' astronomer to tell us what all reasonable people already know.
And I think that is how most Christians see it.
It is often pointed out in these threads, that science can neither demonstrate nor disprove the existence of a diety; that is true by definition.
But it is still a problem for some that science can demonstrate that some literal interpretations of the Bible (Adam and Eve, the Flood, Tower of Babel, etc.) simply cannot be true. Personally, that does not challenge my faith, for these allegories have (for me, at least) spiritual significance of a high order even without being 'real' (that is, physical) events. I understand that doesn't wash for the sola scriptura groups; one can only advise them to leave science alone.
Does that mean I've got to work for 6 billion years before I can have a day of rest?
I agree. I think I was unclear about my intent. I didn't mean that time is ignored in the scriptures, but that time is measured differently when you're immortal. Since our concept of time is tied to the motion of our earth, it stands to reason that those who don't reside on it would have some other standard. That was all I meant, and that the 1 day = 1000 years might only be written for effect, not precise conversion. Past, present and future are certainly important and concrete in scripture.
No... new union rules are now in effect. You just have to work a lifetime.
But, I get time and a half pay after the first 5 billion years!
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.This is possibly one of the most convolutedly retarded statements I have ever read.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.
[snip]
"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..."
"But if you're a fundamentalist, then you "know" what God did. No humility there."
There appears to be something of a dearth of humility among Catholics and Atheists on this thread, as well.
"Considering we have no idea how long a "day" is in God's time"
A day is 24 hours.
Wow! Thanks for clearing that up. Now that issue is solved.
* sheesh *
And it's tutti all the way!
Sidereal day or solar day?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One word of agreement: "relativity".
IMHO, there is no more egregious form of arrogant hubris than that exemplified by those who insist that the clock rate and calendar of the Creator of our vast and infinitely complex universe must be dictated by the (inconstant) spin rate of this insignificant ball of mud.
This is possibly one of the most convolutedly retarded statements I have ever read.
You must be new here. :-)
"In the beginning, God created..." is NOT a tenet of paganism (but it IS the central theme of creationism).
You don't seem to be getting the underlying theme the Brother is talking about. The literalization of the Genesis Scripture account, even in the face of conflicting scientific evidence, leads to the "de-sciencing" of our understanding of revelation.
If science lies to us, and is not to be believed, we must believe that events that happen happen only because the whims of the gods, or of God in our monotheistic era. It is this attribution of every event in the world to a divine will rather than the systematic interaction of natural forces that leads to all kinds of pagan-like interpretation of events.
Muslims see in Katrina the revenge of Allah on we infidels. Environmentalists see their god getting revenge on the evil Bush regime. Pat Robertsen sees earthquakes in San Fransico as God's smiting of sinners.
These are all pagan attitudes and they all come about when we have no scientific understanding of the natural world.
And thunder and lightning? Chickenfeed compared to the flood, and falling frogs and swarming locusts. (Tho', occasionally when I've said something particularly unChristian-like, I have looked upwards in fear of a recompensatory bolt.)
You jest, but this is exactly the point. What is more awe inspiring, that God suddenly causes a new star to rise in Bethleham? Or that God created a universe where a particular comet's path, from the moment of creation leads it to appear during the Nativity?
Being able to understand how God uses science is not evidence of a lack of faith. On the contrary, having a fear that our study of the natural world will contradict God's written revelation shows a lack of faith that God designed the world to reveal truth to us.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.