> a lesson you’d think the Catholic Church learned after they condemned Galileo.
In fact they did. The Vatican does not oppose evolution theory.
I don’t care enough about dogs barking at each other to follow this in detail, but I remember that when Ratzinger became the new pope there was a flurry of articles along the lines that he was lukewarm on evolution. This would seem to be a fairly easy issue to fudge, something along the lines of “yeah, it looks like everything was driven by randomness and mutation since the very beginning but in fact, in subtle and mysterious ways, god occasionally intervened to ensure that a certain random event occured”, but the impression I got from the articles was that this sort of fudge was not good enough for Ratzinger, that what he had in mind was rather more god intervention and rather less stochasticity.
At a practical level, it may be good for humanity that both rabbis and the Vatican have chosen not to challenge science. But in my own mind, they are running away from a fight that they deserve to have and lose. Why shouldn’t I read the Bible literally and conclude that it’s wrong?
Greg,
You are, of course, free to read the bible literally and conclude that it is wrong. You could also read Aesop’s fables literally and discard them. However, the fables do carry important truths, as do many other works of fiction.
The Bible can function just fine alongside science if it is treated as a book to be judged on its merits. Take from it what is good and discard the bad. It contains stories that glorify appalling violence and hatred. It also contains profound ideas about compassion and forgiveness.
Having been raised Christian, I continue to find valuable guidance in the Bible. It isn’t scientific truth, but my QFT text doesn’t help me become more compassionate. Neither book is right or wrong, they just have different uses.
Gavin
It seems to me there’s a problem between evolution and the bible for most of the major branches of christianity. I regard one of the most important aspects of science is that, in the ideal case, what you would like to be true doesn’t come in to what you do believe to true. So whilst I’d like to avoid a conflict with religious people, I can’t in conscience support the “there’s no problem here” argument; there is a problem.
To my understanding, a key problem for Christians is whether you can pick which bits of the bible to believe as literal or if it’s “all or nothing”.
This applies basically to christianity but may have parallels in other religions:
(In what follows, I’ll use *expression* for some expression which it would be difficult to state so that a theologian couldn’t say “that’s technically incorrect” but where the vague idea is all that’s needed for the argument.)
My understanding is that it’s crucially important for virtually all Christians that Jesus was *some aspect of divinity* who became *in some sense* a human being and, to provide a route for humans to have their sins forgiven by God, was crucified in great agony in his mortal form and was physically resurrected. To my understanding, for *a Christian* it’s not an option that this is a metaphor, parable or whatever; the *depth of sacrifice, and hence love of God for humanity* depends on this being literally true. Now, modern science isn’t likely to be able to establish with any real certainty the real events of around 2000 years ago, so if this is all there was you can imagine this and science peacefully coexisting.
But there’s the various bits of genesis in the bible as well, which science both contradicts and is better placed to support its theories observationally. So, can a christian not believe genesis is literal but believe Jesus is literal?
If not, then there is a problem and if I’m going to be true to one of my scientific principles, I have to point this out, even though I’d prefer not to.
That’s my take anyway
Yes, Christians can believe in the existence of Jesus but not the literal truth of Genesis. There are, after all, both old-earth and young-earth creationists, and even creationists who accept evolution so long as it is not applied to humans.
The sticking point is not primarily an insistence on literal interpretation, but the core belief in special creation. Christianity holds that individuals possess a personal relationship with god, a result of god’s singular, special act of creating mankind. In the minds of most Christians, human evolution precludes this special creation, and thus precludes a personal relationship with god. This is what is unacceptable.
I am the wrong person to defend the catholic church, but for a long time the Vatican has made it clear that literal and naive interpretations of the bible are misleading and dangerous. The last major statement was 1993 by then cardinal Ratzinger.
Literal interpretations of the bible are typically favored by some protestant churches, e.g. in the US.