Creationism Is Paganism, says Vatican Astronomer

[China Cat Sunflower]

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."

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


Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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


Chris

Then he must consider parts of the book of genesis to be pagan influenced and therefore invalid...?

interesting

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm just catching up on this story, Q. I don't think the article makes it clear, but what Brother Consolmagno is referring to is literal 6 day creationism. In googling around I came upon several statements from the Vatican basically saying that there is no conflict between the Genesis account and darwinian evolution provided it is not taken literally. Here's an excerpt from another news article:

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”. The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html


What is the "official" point of view of Anglican Communion on this?

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a little something:

LONDON – The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it, he said in a newspaper interview published yesterday.
“I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories,” the Most Rev. Rowan Williams told The Guardian.

The issue of what children should be taught about how the world began has been sharply divisive in the United States, where many evangelical Christians believe that creationism – the belief that the world was created by God as recounted in the Book of Genesis – should be on the curriculum, alongside or instead of the theory of evolution. Some U.S. Christians – including, apparently, President Bush, who spoke approvingly about it last year – also favor teaching the theory of intelligent design, which holds that the world is so complicated that its inception could have been orchestrated only by an intelligent spiritual force.

Although the question has come up in Britain, there is nothing like the U.S. evangelical movement and no move to give creationism or intelligent design equal footing with evolution in schools.

The archbishop, the spiritual leader of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church USA, made it clear that in his view, science is compatible with religion.
“For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time,” Williams said.

His stance echoes the position of the Roman Catholic Church, whose official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was “correct.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...2anglican.html

Chris

[Jeannot]

Literarily speaking, Chapters 2 & 3 are an imaginative, allegorical account of Creation. I don't believe they were ever intended to be taken as history, let alone science.

But at bottom, Creationsism is compatible with the theory of evolution. As the Bishops have indicated, to say that God created the world is not necessarily to say HOW He did it.

[Thomas]

I endorse the common concensus here.

It seems Br Consolmagno is pointing to a kind of fundamentalist attitude with regard to Genesis, opposing the Church's 'theory' to science's 'theory'.

Genesis is not a theory, it is a profound metaphysical discourse, distilled from the wisdom of the Age and inspired by God. Thus whilst many might argue that its concepts can be attributed to 'pagan' sources (the argument for polytheism, for example), the church sees this not as argument, but rather traces the working of the Holy Spirit in bringing all people to the fruition of truth.

As a Roman Catholic I decry creationism as it is commonly taught (and I belieeve this is a peculiarly American phenomena) as a return to superstition, because as it is taught defies reason. It is fundamental to Christian dogma that whilst the Mysteries of Faith transcend the reach of human logic and reason, they do not defy them, nor deny that capacity in man.

Faith will never be preserved nor protected if one is obliged to suspend one's reasoning faculties.

To assume that 'faith is blind' because it requires one to extinguish the light of the intellect is a fallacy and a folly.

Thomas

[China Cat Sunflower]

I guess in my ignorance I assumed that rejection of evolution was a defacto Christian position. Considering the political debate over ID in the States I suppose I might be forgiven for that. I'm heartened to read that the mainline Christian denominations: the RCC, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox have a different view.

Here's a really interesting article on creationism from the orthodox perspective if anyone is interested.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm

In the Book of Genesis God names every creature and by this naming calls every creature from the abyss of non-being. In the lovely expression of St. Philaret of Moscow, the creative "Word articulates all creatures into being." What we see here in Genesis is a dialogue. The call produces a response to God's life-giving action. "The earth germinates, but it does not sprout that which it has but transforms that which it does not have, as much as God gives the strength to act," wrote St. Basil the Great. The seeds of life are not found in the earth; rather, "God’s word creates beings" and plants these in earth, which, in turn, germinates them. Earth is unable to be fertile by itself, yet there is no reason to downplay its role: "Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without." While life proceeds from earth, the very life-giving ability of matter is a gift of the Creator.


On the one hand, biblical thinking is very much unlike the alchemy of Oparin’s materialism that follows the recipe of the sorcerer in Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra: "serpent of Egypt is bred now of your mud by the operation of your sun, so is your crocodile."

On the other hand, unprejudiced reading of Scripture makes one notice a certain degree of activity that created matter has. It is not written that "God created grass," but, "Let the earth bring forth grass." Later on, God is depicted not as simply creating life out of nothing but as calling on waters so that they may "bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life."


Of all the living creatures, God creates only man in a special way, not by way of commanding the earth or the waters. Earth’s ability to respond is apparently finite: earth is unable to bring forth man. The crucial transition between animal and man occurs not by way of God’s command but by His direct act. Even this creation of the "physiological vessel" capable of accommodating human conscience and freedom is not the end of the creation of man: a second stage of the biblical anthropogenesis follows — the "breathing in" of the spirit of life.


The emergence of life in the Book of Genesis is both evolutionary (as earth is producing plants and simple organisms), and also a "leap towards life," occurring by the order of God.

I'm sorry for all the cut and paste, but if anyone is interested, this article has some really interesting concepts in it that might make a good launching pad for a discussion.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I guess in my ignorance I assumed that rejection of evolution was a defacto Christian position. Considering the political debate over ID in the States I suppose I might be forgiven for that. I'm heartened to read that the mainline Christian denominations: the RCC, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox have a different view.

Here's a really interesting article on creationism from the orthodox perspective if anyone is interested.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm


I'm sorry for all the cut and paste, but if anyone is interested, this article has some really interesting concepts in it that might make a good launching pad for a discussion.

Chris

Chris,

Let us remember that it wouldn't be wise to discount the conservative view of the beginning of life. There really is no concrete evidence one way or the other, as to how it began. There are a lot of professional opinions (both scientific and theological), that argue for either way. Scientists tend to be at one end and fundementals at the other end of the spectrum.

Open mind is a learning mind...

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

bump...software glitch

[wil]

Then he must consider parts of the book of genesis to be pagan influenced and therefore invalid...?

This is the polorization that confuses me...just because the bible had pagan influences does not negate the glory of the story. So many are afraid it is opening pandora's box but in reality for anyone that has looked behind the curtain they've found a wonderful world of understanding that the only looking at the surface doesn't allow.

[Prober]

"There is a way that seemeth right (reasonable?) in a man's eyes, but the end thereof is death."

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Chris,

Let us remember that it wouldn't be wise to discount the conservative view of the beginning of life. There really is no concrete evidence one way or the other, as to how it began. There are a lot of professional opinions (both scientific and theological), that argue for either way. Scientists tend to be at one end and fundementals at the other end of the spectrum.

Open mind is a learning mind...

v/r

Q

If only we were to see an 'open mind' from the conservative christian right !! How refreshing that would be!!

David

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

If only we were to see an 'open mind' from the conservative christian right !! How refreshing that would be!!

David

And if only we were to see an open mind from the Scientific people. Now that would be a shock indeed.

v/r

Q

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I guess in my ignorance I assumed that rejection of evolution was a defacto Christian position. Considering the political debate over ID in the States I suppose I might be forgiven for that. I'm heartened to read that the mainline Christian denominations: the RCC, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox have a different view.

As far as I am aware, literal belief in the Genesis stories of creation is a minority position as far as Christian belief worldwide. It sometimes seems like there are more adherents to the literalist view than there actually are because those who do accept Genesis as the literal truth tend to be very vocal about their views, especially here in the States.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

As far as I am aware, literal belief in the Genesis stories of creation is a minority position as far as Christian belief worldwide. It sometimes seems like there are more adherents to the literalist view than there actually are because those who do accept Genesis as the literal truth tend to be very vocal about their views, especially here in the States.

In this case you do not speak for the majority...

You must let the majority speak for itself.

only fair.

v/r

Q