Cognitive dissonance: postmodernism and catholicism

 

From ChatGPT

The reconciliation of today's vast secular knowledge of:

• physical science and cosmology
• biology, evolution and neurology
• the modern, detailed history of antiquity

with the theology and sacralised texts of the Catholic church, is a topic of some interest to me.

I have been reading “Encountering Scripture: A Scientist Explores The Bible” by John Polkinghorne (1930-2021). Polkinghorne was an interesting person, a theoretical physicist who was also an Anglican priest. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of his scientific colleagues thought his position was “odd”; science still says, with Laplace, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là’.

I have to say that his writing, although erudite and flowing, did not impress me: he writes as priest first and scientist second, he always prefers a gullible reading of scripture - one which obliterates critical thinking except when the incongruities he finds there are simply too egregious to ignore. He switches off his physicist mind all too readily; the insights of the historian, sociologist and anthropologist are foreign to him.

This is not what was meant when Pope John Paul II stated in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: "Truth cannot contradict truth." This statement is often cited to express the Catholic Church's position that there can be no fundamental conflict between science and religion. Since both scientific truth and religious truth come from God, they cannot ultimately be in contradiction. Any apparent conflict is believed to stem from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of either science or religious teachings.

If you want a truly scientific (i.e. critical and evidence-based) analysis of Jewish history, the milieu of first century Palestine under Roman occupation, of Jesus of Nazareth, the early church and the formation of the New Testament, my go-to guy - on methodological grounds - is John Dominic Crossan.

I asked ChatGPT to summarise John Dominic Crossan's published position on Jesus's humanity or divinity, on the historicity of the Resurrection and the content of his own Christianity. This is what I was told (which accords with my own reading of Crossan's works).

John Dominic Crossan is a prominent biblical scholar known for his work on the historical Jesus. His published positions on Jesus's humanity and divinity, the historicity of the Resurrection, and the content of his own Christianity can be summarised as follows:

Jesus's Humanity and Divinity

Crossan emphasises Jesus's humanity over his divinity. He views Jesus as a historical figure who was a Jewish peasant, social revolutionary, and a proponent of radical egalitarianism. Crossan sees Jesus as a prophet who preached about the imminence of the Kingdom of God, focusing on social justice and compassion, rather than as a divine figure in the traditional, orthodox Christian sense.

Historicity of the Resurrection

Crossan is skeptical of the traditional accounts of the Resurrection. He argues that the Resurrection should be understood metaphorically rather than as a literal, historical event. Crossan suggests that the various accounts of the Resurrection were developed by early Christian communities to convey their experiences of Jesus's enduring spiritual presence and to make sense of his death, rather than as eyewitness accounts of a physical resurrection.

Content of His Own Christianity

Crossan's Christianity is deeply influenced by his scholarly work. He identifies with a non-dogmatic, non-supernaturalistic version of Christianity that focuses on the ethical teachings of Jesus. For Crossan, Christianity is about living out the principles of justice, compassion, and inclusivity that Jesus embodied. He sees the essence of Christianity not in doctrinal beliefs but in following the example of Jesus's life and teachings.

Crossan's work presents a Jesus who is fundamentally human, challenges traditional views on the Resurrection, and promotes a Christianity centred on social ethics rather than supernatural beliefs.

I would add that it is not surprising that Crossan's views - scholarly, sophisticated and intellectual as they are - are hardly an effectual foundation for an enduring, inclusive faith for the billions. Although Crossan considers himself a Catholic, I think it is fair to say that his teaching, as far as the Church is concerned, is considered both problematic and 'ambivalent'.

The Church historically has always segued - fluidly and dynamically - between a selective biblical literalism, and a symbolic, metaphorical reading of the sacralised texts. Crossan's innovation is to see the Gospels paradigmatically as 'parable expressed in the form of history': 'parabolic history'.