Pope Fires his Chief Astronomer

Originally posted by no1marauder
You never tire of this untruth. Have a nice time in RightWing, Extremist Catholic World; I debunked pretty much all your assertions months ago in the prior thread.

Sorry to bring you to reality -- you did no such thing. I think someone posted a link to that thread here; I invite readers to take a look at it and decide for themselves.

I don't know how it is in LeftWing, Extremist Liberal World; but where I come from people generally don't claim to "debunk pretty much all ... assertions" unless they've actually done so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sounds familar; where have I heard that before?

Is there a particular theological viewpoint required to be an astronomer for the Vatican?

Naturally - a Catholic one.

I'm surprised you ask.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Naturally - a Catholic one.

I'm surprised you ask.

Oh, but there are as many flavours of Catholicism as there are Catholics. Surely you, of all people, know that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh, but there are as many flavours of Catholicism as there are Catholics. Surely you, of all people, know that.

There are Catholics; and there are people who call themselves Catholics.

Catholicism certainly allows for a wide divergence of theological viewpoints - but not on certain core issues.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There are Catholics; and there are people who call themselves Catholics.

Catholicism certainly allows for a wide divergence of theological viewpoints - but not on certain core issues.

Do you believe that this astronomer wasn't a Catholic then?

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you believe that this astronomer wasn't a Catholic then?

I don't know. Some of his comments (on God - not ID/evolution as everyone seems to think) seem to be close to heresy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know. Some of his comments (on God - not ID/evolution as everyone seems to think) seem to be close to heresy.

Do you mean these or are there more?

God "is not constantly intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves," Fr Coyne wrote, adding: "Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator or designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.

Edit - My point is that there are many many people who call themselves Christians and that agree with him in several ways. Should they all be declared heretics if the Church wasn't afraid of the PR damage this would do?

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you mean these or are there more?

God "is not constantly intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves," Fr Coyne wrote, adding: "Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator or designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.

Edit - My point is that there are many many peop ...[text shortened]... ld they all be declared heretics if the Church wasn't afraid of the PR damage this would do?

Do you mean these or are there more?

I expected better from you.

No, it's passages like these:

But, if we confront what we know of our origins scientifically with religious faith in God the Creator – if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously – it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers. For the believer, science tells us of a God who must be very different from God as seen by them.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:5rUHibV1qwEJ:217.64.113.37/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01063+george+coyne&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

My point is that there are many many people who call themselves Christians and that agree with him in several ways.

Possibly. If his overall vision of God is radically different from the Christian one, I can't say how many would continue to agree.

EDIT: Besides, simply calling yourself a Christian does not make you one.

Should they all be declared heretics if the Church wasn't afraid of the PR damage this would do?

There are strict canonical criteria for being a heretic and incurring the penalty. Not all of them will satisfy those criteria.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Do you mean these or are there more?

I expected better from you.

No, it's passages like these:

[i]But, if we confront what we know of our origins scientifically with religious faith in God the Creator – if, that is, we take the results of modern science seriously – it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the a for being a heretic and incurring the penalty. Not all of them will satisfy those criteria.[/b]

I expected better from you.
[/i]I don't know why. Those were the only quotes that were cited in this thread that could cause controversy. I haven't followed this matter at all.

I see your point and I agree that they are controversial. However, there is the in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers.

I think that he simply attempts to tackle arguments similar to our very own GAFE. He writes this as a justification for your quote:

This stress on our scientific knowledge is not to place a limitation upon God. Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God. Such a view of creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St Augustine in his comments on Genesis. If they respect the results of modern science and, indeed, the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words. Scripture is very rich in these thoughts. It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe, who empties himself in Christ the incarnate Word. Thus God’s revelation of himself in the Book of Scripture would be reflected in our knowledge of the universe, so that, as Galileo was fond of stating, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature speak of the same God.

Theologians already possess the concept of God’s continuous creation with which to explore the implications of modern science for religious belief. God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does. It has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement.

So, basically, his claim is that God is a nurturer of the universe, not an absolute controller. Is that an unnacceptable view of God to you, as a Christian?

I think this man would have made a great Pope. But since I am in no position to argue against what Christians think, I'm trying to understand what makes his views so incompatible.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I expected better from you.
[/i]I don't know why. Those were the only quotes that were cited in this thread that could cause controversy. I haven't followed this matter at all.

I see your point and I agree that they are controversial. However, there is the in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers.

I think that he simply attemp ...[text shortened]... against what Christians think, I'm trying to understand what makes his views so incompatible.[/b]

Sorry, I thought you were citing directly from the Tablet article(s) (turns out there are more than one).

I saw the "scholastic philosophers" bit as well, which is why I can't say if he really does hold heretical views or not. The excerpt you've cited doesn't really support his claim that "it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of many of the scholastic philosophers". At best, his argument is that God is a "hands-off" God (which, with some modification, I can accept) -- not that God cannot be hands-on if He wanted to. See the difference?

LH

PS: I don't know why you think this guy would be a good Pope. Even if he holds orthodox views, I would consider his making such statements as the one I cited in a lay magazine irresponsible -- especially when they come with no clarification.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't be naive.

Would it be too naive to think that Fr. Coyne's retirement may have something to do with the fact that he is suffering from cancer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne#Retirement

Originally posted by lucifershammer
PS: I don't know why you think this guy would be a good Pope. Even if he holds orthodox views, I would consider his making such statements as the one I cited in a lay magazine irresponsible -- especially when they come with no clarification.

Approaching theology and science seems to be quite important on his mind, and I agree. Like I said, it should be up to Christians as to how, but I can't help to think it would be good for both science and Christianity.

As to his views, yes, I see the difference. That's why I don't think his views are incompatible with a Christian God and if you read the previous sentence about an omnipotent God in this context, there is nothing heretic about it. I think.

Originally posted by Palynka
Approaching theology and science seems to be quite important on his mind, and I agree. Like I said, it should be up to Christians as to how, but I can't help to think it would be good for both science and Christianity.

As to his views, yes, I see the difference. That's why I don't think his views are incompatible with a Christian God and if you read the p ...[text shortened]... sentence about an omnipotent God in this context, there is nothing heretic about it. I think.

The problem is that his second paragraph has nothing to do with how God's omnipotence has been formulated (scholastics or otherwise. And where the omniscience comes in, I don't see) - it has to do with the completely distinct (though not unrelated) aspect of divine providence and economy.

Unless you are trying to say that Coyne used the terms "omnipotence" and "omniscience" erroneously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The problem is that his second paragraph has nothing to do with how God's omnipotence has been formulated (scholastics or otherwise. And where the omniscience comes in, I don't see) - it has to do with the completely distinct (though not unrelated) aspect of divine providence and economy.

I think it does, because it relates with God's interaction with the world and therefore it also relates with the justifications for evil and God's responsibility in it.

I believe he tried to disentagle God's creation with God's responsibility of every detail that happens in His creation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Unless you are trying to say that Coyne used the terms "omnipotence" and "omniscience" erroneously.

Not erroneously but maybe not very precisely. He refuted some implications that are assigned to the full use of such "powers".