Pagans!!
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
The Scotsman ^ | May 5, 2006 | IAN JOHNSTON
ScotsmanBELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of supers ious 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.
Ouch! That's gotta hurt.
Ouch! That's gotta hurt.
There's no "ouch" there dan, nice try.QUOTE=Brother Consolmagno
Science and faith do not contradict each other, he said. Of course God did it, he said. I want to know how God did it.
http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/...thisissue4.htm
Nice try... but no.
EvolutiOwn3d!!!
Of course God did it, he said. I want to know how God did it. -Brother Consolmagno
Nice.
He said: 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.
I am really not sure what his argument is. Supernatural vs creation. Isn't there
a connection? What God did is supernatural in creating something from nothing,
is it not?
What he's saying is that since God is supernatural, a naturalistic explanation in no way refutes the biblical account, inasmuch as God transcends all that.I am really not sure what his argument is. Supernatural vs creation. Isn't there
a connection? What God did is supernatural in creating something from nothing,
is it not?
I gathered that he's troubled by the whole creation vs. evolution debate, surmising that such a debate lowers God's creation act to the level of naturalistic scientific theory, and misapprehends the nature of God, thereby lowering the perception of Him down to a nature deity. Which would be blasphemy.
The European Christian tradition, especially from the Germanic cultures, is rife with such misconceptions and synchretisms rooted in ancient paganism. It's good at least to be cognizant of them.
Christianity would never have survived in an atmosphere that did not allow local communities to retain some pagan tradition. When Christianity was introduced to Germanic and Frankish cultures communities were very small and self-contained, and most of them revolved around their own pagan rituals - those traditions were a part of their iden y. You can't introduce a new religion and think the old one is ever going to go away - look at the hybrid version of Catholicism that much of Mexico and Central America practices. You might be at Mass one day and visiting a witch doctor the next, and that's been going on ever since Europeans encountered the "new" world.
His semantical definition of Creation implies that GOD did in fact create the Universe.... that Christians not resort to explaining it in simplistic human terms is what he is advocating...
I understand that....
The problem is that the 'other side' thinks, having Science as their exclusive religion, that this argument negates the existence of GOD...
So again, the intent of the thread starter (Nbadan) to try and bash the notion of a GOD-created universe by using this article was... well... flawed ... nice try, but no.
I beg to differ, it seems that the only people who believe that scientists are somehow trying to negate the existence of God with evolution theory, etc. are hard-line creationists and IDers. And you I guess.The problem is that the 'other side' thinks, having Science as their exclusive religion, that this argument negates the existence of GOD
A fundamental plank of the evangelicals' bull campaign is that they put God and evolution as an either/or exclusive choice, which is nothing but another indicator of the primitive, retrogressive, politicized stance.
Nothing of the sort.... When I've given you the math you don't understand it and try to side-track it with some irrelevant arguments. Your own 'primitive' understanding of statistical probabilities does not allow you to see all the inherent problems associated with the belief that life created itself out of nothing. That's not my problem... but don't try and claim that humanity has got it all figured out. After all, it was the pursuit of knowledge that gave rise to the scientific methods and principles we see today... not an agenda to disprove GOD's existence...
I don't claim to know it all... But my belief that the Universe and everthing in it was created by GOD... is placed on faith. That you can't understand that en les you to view it as you please... 'primitive', 'retrogressive' whatever... that's your opinion and nothing else. Just quit with the blind hate already.... Not all of us are as 'politicized' as you claim. Funny thing is that your stance is as extreme and many times as 'bigoted' as those who you constantly complain about.
I second the motion. boutons must have an extremely difficult life, his
hate toward most things is complete and blinding. I do feel sorry for him
and hope he finds a little faith in something that is not self-destructing.
Your stats don't overthrow the huge volume of data of supporting evolutionary theory.
Your stats don't prove God did anything.
your stats don't prove God created the universe in 6 days,
that dinosaurs and man co-existed,
that the universe is a few 1000 years old,
all of which are claimed by benighted assholes of your ilk.
Believe whatever your cult of choice programs you to believe.
But you'll get a huge fight trying force you beliefs into schools and in trying to overthrow all of science to suport your faith.
================================
In the on-going SCIENTIFIC give-and-take about the universe as infinitely expanding vs expanding/contracting/oscillatnig, something from the oscillating crowd, which includes non-scientfic Vedantic cosmology:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050401708.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1126231
Duo Assert Big Bang Is Part of Repeated Cycle
Space and time go on forever, and the big bang that is said to have started the universe is part of a repeating cycle, two scientists assert in a new paper that challenges conventional wisdom in physics.
Infinite space and time would contradict the generally accepted notion of a universe expanding abruptly out of nothing 14 billion years ago, said Neil Turok, a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge in England. Turok wrote the paper in the journal Science with Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University.
An ongoing expansion and contraction is more likely than the big-bang theory subscribed to by cosmologists building on the work of Albert Einstein, Turok said in a telephone interview.
The new study began as an attempt to explain the energy found in vacuums, which is credited with accelerating the universe's expansion. If the energy had been around since the big bang, Turok said, it should have blown the universe apart.
=====================
The struggle of man to fathom the secrets of the universe is wonderful. Creationist/IDers are living insults to man and God.
Aahhh and there it is...
You cry "Separation of Church and State" and then by default claim that ins utionalized Scientific concepts are not to be debated or debunked. They should reign supreme in school and should not be questioned. Who ruled that the 'church of science' superceded all other scholastic doctrines??
There are a great deal of things that Science can't explain. Should discussion about them be kept out of schools... lest students gasp!!! develop a sense of spiritual awareness?
BTW where is all this evolutionary data you gloat about??? All of that data describe processes of adaptation, but none can prove that speciation is driving evolution today or in our past. If you are fooled by your 'religion'... so be it... While you believe you are the decendant of an ape... I know I am the son of a King.
...and that is all I will ever have to read from the likes of you.
Ignorance is bliss.
/ignore
eeehhh.... put me on your ignore list if you want... it's your choice. No one, however, said that I couldn't have an opinion of my own. You have yours, I have mine. And given my recollection of your posts they differ indeed... But in the end we are both people in pursuit of truth.
Bouton's_ negativity however, has led him toward hatred directed at people like myself when I haven't done anything to hurt him... That sort of hatred is never justified...
If I am correct the Creationism is not equal to your newest term you used the last two years. You know what does the term Inteligence Design mean?
Pagans!!
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
The Scotsman ^ | May 5, 2006 | IAN JOHNSTON
Scotsman
Ouch! That's gotta hurt.
So why would this article be important? Who would it hurt? You are not up to date, it seems...?
I think William Jennings Bryan made this same statement during the Scopes Monkey Trial.
I am a decendant of the great Carthaghians. And I cannot prove even that. How can I prove that I am a decendant of a monkey, if they do not have birth certificates even for the time my gradpa was born?
We are people of tradition. Why would be believe in DNA? That's just a Jurassic Park fashion trick.
that should be on a bumper stickerWhile you believe you are the decendant of an ape... I know I am the son of a King.
I'm with hegamboa, add me to the ignore list. Thanks.QUOTE=hegamboa
While you believe you are the decendant of an ape... I know I am the son of a King.
Nice phrase.
With your permition I will use it in the future.
Its a cute phrase, but is this supposed to lend some sort of credence to religious faith? On one side you have the "If man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" misconception, and on the other you have the word "know" in reference to an article of faith. Where we have "believe", there is evidence supporting a hypothesis. Where we have "know", we have a book.
I see statements like this as the wedge constantly placed between faith and science. You mentioned earlier that you feel science has as an agenda to disprove God - but in fact it seems you have the agenda of using God to belittle science.
I read an interesting perspective on things from the late Carl Sagan last week... basically he felt that it seemed foolish for us as humans to think we have everything figured out (which essentially what we do when we claim that everything unexplained can be explained by God). I'll see if I can find the article, it was an interesting perspective on things.
Finally found it...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12586173/#060502a
Carl Sagans spiritual quest: He was often asked whether he believed in God, and his stock answer was that it all depended on what your definition of "God" was.
He's been called an atheist, even though he's also quoted as saying that "by some definitions atheism is very stupid."
When it came to his spiritual perspective, the late astronomer Carl Sagan was always a bit hard to pin down, even though much of what he had to say about the cosmos was filled with spirituality. This year, however a decade after his death from a rare bone-marrow disease some of Sagan's deepest thoughts on the ultimate questions are being brought to light in a newly rediscovered collection of lectures led "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God."
The book, due for publication in November by The Penguin Press, is based on a series of talks Sagan gave at the University of Glasgow in 1985 as part of the Gifford Lectures on natural theology. After lying hidden for decades in Sagan's archives, the transcripts of the nine taped lectures were rediscovered just a few months ago, said Ann Druyan, the scientist's widow and longtime collaborator.
The le of the new book plays off "The Varieties of Religious Experience," a compilation of the Gifford Lectures given by American psychologist/philosopher William James a century ago, Druyan told me today.
"I wanted this book," Druyan said of the new volume, "because Carl put so much of his soul and heart and brain into giving lectures that were nearly perfect as spoken."
Druyan, who is now the chief executive officer of Cosmos Studios, edited the transcripts of the lectures, including the Q&A sessions that followed each talk. She also updated the text's scientific references with the aid of astrophysicist Steven Soter.
"Part of this experience gave me the happy fantasy that I was working with Carl again," she said, "because his voice was talking inside my head even more than it usually does."
So what did Sagan really think about God and religion? Druyan told me that's still the question she sees most frequently in the e-mail she gets via the CarlSagan.com Web site. She doesn't have a simple answer. If you had to put a label on Sagan's views, "agnostic" might come closest to the mark but it's not agnosticism in the sense of an absence of knowledge, or a sense that the spiritual search is irrelevant.
"The little we do know is inspiring," Druyan said. "It's not true that we know nothing. We know something. It's tiny. But it's enough to base a kind of spiritual outlook on."
Druyan said Sagan's main theme was "the devoutness of the search itself, of being absolutely true in your searching to the methodology of science, to the error-correcting mechanism."
"In a way it makes someone who thinks that our spiritual understanding of the universe is complete seem that much less devout," she said. "His argument is not with God in this book. His argument is with those people who think that we know everything that we need to know about God. Rather than being dismissive or contemptuous of anybody, he takes the science he knew, everthing that he gathered in his life, and offers it as a way of explaining how he came to believe what he believed."
Druyan said two of the lectures serve as a "brilliant anticipation" of the claims for intelligent design that is, the idea that some elements of nature are so complex that they had to have been designed by an intelligent agent (e.g., God). Back then, the concept was framed as creationism, or creation science.
"Every 20 years or so it rears its head once again, and scientists have to deal with it," Druyan said.
But it wasn't Sagan's style to belittle the defenders of the faith. "This is a deep Carl, it's a very loving Carl, it's a Carl who is not out to make other people look foolish," Druyan said. Rather, Sagan saw the varieties of scientific experience as stages in a quest on the scale of the spiritual quest.
"Whether he knew it or not and I think he did ... he was talking about science as a kind of informed worship," Druyan said. "Scientists have been very squeamish about this, about really going into it in any depth, until recently. Scientists have been loath to really talk about the oneness and that soaring feeling that science can give us. It's been part of their truce with religion. You know, 'You don't burn us at the stake anymore, and we won't try to attract your clients away from the way that you look at creation.' There have been some really great scientists and writers who hit these notes in one way or another, but I think this is a tremendously fulsome, beautiful expression of that impulse."
Although Druyan herself has been recognized as "one of the world's outstanding atheists," it's clear that her own views are as complex as Sagan's were. She said reviewing her husband's observations on natural theology reinforced life lessons "which I had forgotten, or which I received in a new light."
"Most of all, it was just a confirmation of what a great soul Carl was," she said. "At times I would become really choked up by the complexity and the depth of him as a person. It was a very powerful experience. Carl's been gone nearly 10 years, and yet his presence is more palpable in his absence than most people are when they're vibrantly alive."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
