I’ve finally found something online backing up what I heard on the radio yesterday afternoon. It was Pope Francis embracing people of all faiths, and atheists as well, as allies in practicing good stewardship of the Earth:
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis extended a hand to those who don’t belong to any religion, urging them on Wednesday to work with believers to build peace and protect the environment.
In his first ecumenical meeting, the new pope greeted representatives from Christian churches and other religions, including Jewish and Muslim leaders, who had come to Rome to attend his inaugural Mass on Tuesday.
Francis said that he intends to follow “on the path of ecumenical dialogue” set for the Roman Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
But he also reached out to those who don’t belong “to any religious tradition” but feel the “need to search for the truth, the goodness and the beauty of God.”
Francis echoed his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, saying that the “attempt to eliminate God and the divine from the horizon of humanity” has often led to catastrophic violence.
But Francis, who has set a humbler tone to the papacy since his election on March 13, added that atheists and believers can be “precious allies” in their efforts “to defend the dignity of man, in the building of a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in the careful protection of creation.”…
In looking for that, I also discovered that some atheists, or at least near-atheists, have given the new pontiff some props as well:
Why even atheists love Pope Francis
Never mind all the guff: it is a rare thing indeed for atheists and agnostics to be genuinely impressed and inspired by religious leaders. Speaking personally – as a man who is but two drinks short of atheism – although I try to view such leaders with respect, the reasons informing my lack of faith temper the depth of my admiration.
… But on the whole, in a short period of time [Francis] has become unusually well regarded, especially given the general unpopularity of the Catholic Church.
The reason is simple. This is a man who pays his own hotel bills, travels by bus and jeep, wades out into the crowds unguarded, and makes his own telephone calls. (Yesterday, he telephoned the main number of a Jesuit residence in Rome. The receptionist, upon hearing the identity of the caller, responded “yeah, and I’m Napoleon”.) This might seem like no great shakes, but given the luxury normally showered upon his office, it takes guts.
In other words, whatever one may think of his views, the Pope has genuine humility…
False humility can be spotted a mile off, of course, and we are all used to doing that. But Pope Francis has proved that authentic humility can be just as immediately visible. This most straightforward of qualities has been absent from public life for so long that we have almost forgotten it were possible. If our politicians had a bit of this to offer, the world would be a very different place.
OK, so that’s really just one, sort of semi-atheist. I was misled by his headline. But I thought it was nice, anyway. I like it when people get along.
Related Posts
Right after I posted this, I ran across another post headlined “Why this atheist is (tentatively) optimistic about Pope Francis.”
“Pope Francis extended a hand to those who don’t belong to any religion, urging them on Wednesday to work with believers to build peace and protect the environment.”
The greatest harm to the environment is the consequence of overpopulation. Given the Catholic Church’s outrageous stance on birth control I find that statement extremely offputting.
Count me among those who believe that the Earth is here for people, not people for the Earth.
The whole “population bomb” attitude, which holds that human beings are some sort of cancer on the Earth (as though the planet had any independent moral value without humans on it), is anathema to me. And dead wrong.
I think Mark Twain had the appropriate response to that view over a century ago.
I read Letters from the Earth in high school. Loved it.
But I’m still trying to figure out what value the Earth has without humans here to perceive value.
On my stack of books to read is Why Does the World Exist? (It was on my list of books I wanted, and I got it for Christmas.) Maybe the answer will be in there…
If we keep having so many humans, there won’t be any Earth left for them to appreciate….
That’s why Mother Nature came up with things like epidemics and plagues. It happens all the time in the wild, overpopulation is reduced and it starts over. Humans have just tried to come up with ways to counter-act it. But I’m sure there will be a time when a superbug comes out and we can’t do anything but sit back and watch. The human race is overdue for an enema.
The Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control is just as wrong as the Chinese 1 child policy, perhaps more so. At least the Chinese recognize the dire implications of a world population that outstrips the resources needed to support human life, let alone a quality environment for plants and animals. Thankfully most of the world rejects the backwards thinking of the Catholic hiearchy, including most Catholics. Sub-Saharan Africa is an exception. In part because the Catholic Church stands in the way of promoting birth control in that distressed part of the world the birth rates continue to soar out of control. This reckless increase in population in the part of the world least likely to support them has already led to mass famines and endless wars. And the situation will only get worse. Sadly, in spite of his obvious concern for the poor, the new Pope continues with the same outdated policies of birth control as his predessesors.
I suppose this all hinges on definitions of “moral worth” or “value” as things perceived by human beings, and thus (if I read you correctly) only existing with the presupposition of human existence. But if all the universe is God’s creation, then is there not value in all those parts (everything else so far as we can yet tell) where humanity has no footprint? Does that mean that we could hypothetically (in some future time) base missiles on Mars and for target practice, blast Deimos and Phobos into dust, because they have no value?
These are difficult questions with which to engage in a debate, because it really does come down to some basic theological or religious beliefs on individuals’ part. I will say, though, that the simplest answer I can give others as to why I decided I could not become a Christian and accept Christianity for myself is rooted very much in your statement about the “value in Earth” etc. That is to say, Christianity’s emphasis on the divinity of a human being (and Christianity’s subsequent position of dominance in Western civilization for the past 2000 years) has elevated human beings’ view of themselves to a position of centrality in the universe that the facts (to me anyway) indicate they do not merit. That’s not about humans being bad or good. It’s just about humans only being around for a split second in the cosmic sense of time, the certainty of their ephemerality, and the fact that it seems the universe (created by God, or whatever one wants to call An Unknowable Entity) was around a heck of a long time before people and seems certain to be around a heck of a long time after we’re gone. So to me, if there is a God, It/She/He surely doesn’t think human beings are “all that,” any more that is than God would think that of every facet of creation, of life. (Plus I’m certain there is life somewhere else out there in the universe, it seems mathematically overwhelmingly likely.)
So it seems incumbent upon us to coexist in this universe with that awareness and humility in our minds. And so I was especially pleased to hear of Pope Francis’ exhortations for all of us to exercise consideration for the environment.
The point I’m trying to make here isn’t theologically orthodox. In fact, it may be heretical. After all, in Genesis, God is quoted as seeing Creation as “good” even before he got around to creating humans — which would seem to refute my point.
What I’m trying to say, to quote Cher in “Clueless,” is way existential.
I just don’t see much point in speaking of something as having value if there’s no extant creatures — humans, intelligent aliens, whomever — to perceive it as having value.
Value is subjective. It’s a matter of perception, and judgment.
Yes, I suppose that a universe with God in it and no people (earthlings or aliens) could technically, theologically, be perceived as “good.” But I wouldn’t want to live in a universe like that. Oh, wait; that’s not possible. I’m getting dizzy…
As always Phillip makes excellent and well-reasoned points.
I would suggest that it is better for humans to be few in number but high in quality (as in quality of life) rather than abundant in numbers but with a significant decline in quality of life.
The synthesis of Brad and Phillip’s statements is that God exists in the mind of man.
Maybe we are not yet ready, or able, to begin to contemplate the vastness of the Universe? God may be more comprehensible to us humans – more relateable.
The Bible, still #1 in the Best Seller’s fiction list.