Fweethawt Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer IAN JOHNSTON Fri 5 May 2006 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. FROM HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I totally beat you to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I totally beat you to this. Yep... I was going to tell Fwee this topic has already been posted, and has several responses. Wish I knew where it is... I just have to wait for the next email notification of a response. Sctisofreaky, didn't you post it in Science and Religion? BTW Fwee... it is a great article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I totally beat you to this. Yep... I was going to tell Fwee this topic has already been posted, and has several responses. Wish I knew where it is... I just have to wait for the next email notification of a response. Sctisofreaky, didn't you post it in Science and Religion? BTW Fwee... it is a great article! http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=8809 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 I totally beat you to this. Maybe so. But mine looks better. Seriously though, I didn't see yours until now. Sorry 'bout that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 In Galileo's day, church authorities accepted the then authoritative pagan Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy, turned around and pronounced it Christian, then persecuted Galileo for observing it was false. The Roman Catholic church (and other churches) are obviously still doing the same thing; accepting pagan evolution, labelling it Christian and opposing those who have observed it is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 In Galileo's day, church authorities accepted the then authoritative pagan Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy, turned around and pronounced it Christian, then persecuted Galileo for observing it was false. The Roman Catholic church (and other churches) are obviously still doing the same thing; accepting pagan evolution, labelling it Christian and opposing those who have observed it is false. Yes.... obviously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 In Galileo's day, church authorities accepted the then authoritative pagan Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy, turned around and pronounced it Christian, then persecuted Galileo for observing it was false. The Roman Catholic church (and other churches) are obviously still doing the same thing; accepting pagan evolution, labelling it Christian and opposing those who have observed it is false. And who has been since proven right? That's right, Galileo, the scientist. The church took the Ptolemaic view because it already fell in line with what they believed (earth is special creation and thus center of universe). It took someone devoted to finding accurate descriptions of reality (ie a scientist) to overturn this view. So if the church was forced to acknowledge that reality isn't as they percieved it to be and changed that view to accord w/reality, what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 And who has been since proven right? That's right, Galileo, the scientist. The church took the Ptolemaic view because it already fell in line with what they believed (earth is special creation and thus center of universe). It took someone devoted to finding accurate descriptions of reality (ie a scientist) to overturn this view. So if the church was forced to acknowledge that reality isn't as they percieved it to be and changed that view to accord w/reality, what's the problem? i think redneck is trying to prove that since the church once sided with the ptolemic model, which was wrong, then now that they side with evolution, that means evolution is wrong. that's not a valid argument. as you pointed out, the church only sided with that view because it fell in line with what they believed based on scripture. i think he needs to see it this why: the church switched from following scripture, to believing the earth revolves around the sun, which is right. the church switches from following scripture again, to believing in evolution.... this is article is interesting: the Pope and Evolution i mean the reason why the pope says evolution exists has no merrit, but otherwise... cool. In late October of 1996, John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, reiterating the Catholic view that the human body evolved according to natural processes, but God specially infuses the soul which, like other spiritual phenomena, cannot arise from material causes. He added that the evidence for evolution has increased greatly since Pius XII's Humani generis, emphasizing that the convergence of independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion provides considerable support for evolution. Evolution is "more than a hypothesis"; it is a well-accepted theory of science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 i think he needs to see it this why: the church switched from following scripture, to believing the earth revolves around the sun, which is right. the church switches from following scripture again, to believing in evolution.... Indeed. That's what I was shooting for, but you definitely presented it in a clearer manner. The truth is that the Church is more than happy to use science when it bolsters their own claims, but fiercely opposed to any ideas that might contradict their doctrine. This highlights a major difference between religion and science: Religion is static and absolute - it has THE answers and they don't change Science is dynamic and conditional - it has some answers and will adapt when new evidence presents itself. Of the two, science seems the more honest to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 The truth is that the Church is more than happy to use science when it bolsters their own claims, but fiercely opposed to any ideas that might contradict their doctrine. This highlights a major difference between religion and science: Religion is static and absolute - it has THE answers and they don't change Science is dynamic and conditional - it has some answers and will adapt when new evidence presents itself. Of the two, science seems the more honest to me... Skankboy, what gets me is that the church does not consider their interpretation may be wrong, or there may have been some manipulations and spins that misguided these teachings along the way. I'm very happy to see this guy from the Vatican admit we need science to guide us into the truth, and religion to let us know we don't necessarily have to do everything we CAN do. What an improvement! I know, we don't necessarily need religion to guide our conscience... as we do have some extremely fine Atheist also! It's just we may all be appealing to the same morals/integrity within us... just labeling it different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Skankboy, what gets me is that the church does not consider their interpretation may be wrong, or there may have been some manipulations and spins that misguided these teachings along the way. I know what you mean, and I think it has to do with how many religions view knowledge. To the church, there were no interpretations, there were revelations. Revelations come directly from god and therefore canNOT be at fault. They are as perfect and infallible as the god they are supposed to have come from. Religion offers something very attractive to it's followers: absolute certainty. In the classical christian paradigm, you can have absolute knowledge of certain things, just as god is supposed to have absolute knowledge of everything. These include: the existence of god, the need for redemption, and that this is all, somehow, part of a bigger plan (ie someone is running the show, making sure things work out). Once these certainties are established, other ideas can be placed upon that foundation: miracle births, world wide floods, the infallibilty of the church, etc. The problem is, ALL of these things need to be as absolutely certian or else the whole house of cards starts to crumble. Thus, even when the church recants a previous "infallible" missive, they find a way to word it as such that it appears there was really no change at all and that this particular item doesn't really affect the "big plan". IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Religion offers something very attractive to it's followers: absolute certainty. In the classical christian paradigm, you can have absolute knowledge of certain things, just as god is supposed to have absolute knowledge of everything. These include: the existence of god, the need for redemption, and that this is all, somehow, part of a bigger plan (ie someone is running the show, making sure things work out). Once these certainties are established, other ideas can be placed upon that foundation: miracle births, world wide floods, the infallibilty of the church, etc. I wonder how eastern philosophies escaped this, such as Buddhism? Or did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Religion offers something very attractive to it's followers: absolute certainty. Not all religions, only the Abrahamic ones and maybe a few others. Dammit, all religions are not alike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 I wonder how eastern philosophies escaped this, such as Buddhism? Or did they? That's a tricky one Amanda. Some did and some didn't. I'm my experience, it's the one's whose emphasis is on the afterlife that usually also include these certainties (Mahayana, some forms of hinduism, ancestor worship, etc). The others, who's emphasis is on moral living in this life, tend to avoid certainties (theravada, tao, etc). I think one of the main reasons is right in your question: Most of the eastern paradigms are philosophies as opposed to religions... A belief is much more flexible than a conviction. Not all religions, only the Abrahamic ones and maybe a few others. Dammit, all religions are not alike True. Though I think you're jumping on this a bit. The rest of the paragraph was pretty specifically aimed at christianity... but if I offended, I apologize. IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts