There is a godless vindication of Mary’s canonisation.  No, this secular leopard has not changed his godless spots.  I haven’t been wandering towards Damascus and suffered a Pauline moment.

But there are always two sides to every complex issue.  So even though I attacked the Papal decision just a couple of blogs ago (see “The Patron Saint of Quack Cancer Cures”) just to be fair (and perhaps because I am contrary little toad), I am now going to defend the Papal decision in order to elucidate the big problem that atheism faces.

To understand this view, let’s go back to basics.  I assert that fundamentalists and atheists have an identical view of scripture.  We both think that the authors intended that we take the words seriously and exactly.  So I read Genesis and think that the bible intends that we take this creation story literally.  And a “fundo” reads the same text and draws the same inference.  The only difference between the fundamentalist and atheists like me is that the fundo is persuaded that that fable is factual whereas I think it is a load of bunk.  But we both think that the plain words are to be taken on their plain meaning.  So our assumptions about the intention of the biblical words are identical.  We both take for granted that the bible is intended to convey the exact truth as written by the authors.

There is however, another way. There is a more poetic approach.  Most believers I know take a less strict approach.  It is at once, a more practicable and metaphorical methodology.  They see the creation mythology for what it is - an ancient attempt to understand the world and put it into some sort of context by metaphor and allegory.  Most modern believers (except disturbingly large parts of the USA and enclaves in an astonishing number of places) don’t actually believe it.  They understand that it is an anachronism but see it in such a way that the incorrectness of Genesis does not inhibit faith in the rest of their particular belief.

So the progressive, thinking believer differs from the atheist and the fundamentalist in looking at the more incredible or supernatural elements of their foundation documents.  They see these incredible bits as just a part of a rich literary and historic fabric that weaves its way in and out of their core beliefs.  Most people can selectively view the bible to edit in the stuff they can or want to believe and edit out the rest.  This selective editing is not understood by atheists like me.  Generally we repudiate that method as being inconsistent and intellectually unsound.  I am becoming increasingly less concerned about this practice of selective belief as I age.  If selective belief leads to more progressive beliefs or happier adherents, then intellectual inconsistency may be less of an issue.  Selective reading of text is not for me but I feel increasingly less inclined to judge others, if they are that rare combination - progressive, humane and compassionate people.  That is why I am the quintessence of the spineless, soft cock atheist.

And so let me return to Mary MacKillop.  I was one of those who blogged on the two miracles that were necessary preconditions for her saintly elevation.  I made the obvious point that they were implausible and the less obvious point that such quack cures give succour to charlatans and increase the vulnerability of the sick.  But if you take a selective view of belief then you look at the necessity of the two miracles as an inconvenient precondition that has to be fulfilled come Hell or high water.  One might not actually believe them.  It is just like ticking two of the boxes in some Vatican form.  So the fact that there are two utterly dubious miraculous claims and these claims survive some arcane pontifical test, then who cares?  Those of the less literal religious view see these miraculous claims in a different context.  They see Mary as someone deserving of recognition both for her earthly legacy and because even a century after her death, people are inspired and uplifted.  Who gives a tinker’s cuss that the miracles are questionable?  This woman gives people consolation in the face of cancer.  As long as that consolation does not lead to exploitation of the vulnerable and as long as faith in her sainthood does not undermine faith in orthodox medicine, then such consolation is precious.  

I even, hush my mouth and wash it out with soapy water, felt a moment of pity for Cardinal George Pell.  It fell to him to defend the decision.  There has to be a good chance that he thought that the claims of two miracles were hokum.  But he had to defend them for the bigger picture – getting our little Aussie battler up.

Remember my mantra:  “The truth, though interesting, is beside the point.”  Accordingly, faith in any number of baffling beliefs will be with us for the rest of time.  And until we understand that, atheism will continue to be the minority pursuit that has been the case since our predecessors’ arms became shorter than their legs.  We need to get a more nuanced position on the literal and metaphorical nature of knowledge.

Of course my secular colleagues will accuse me of being selective myself.  Just because the memory of a saintly person consoles some very ill people doesn’t mean I should accept the legitimacy of religions with selective beliefs.  I admit this and I still actually believe my first blog.  I also believe that the religious establishment cynically trades off the memory of inspiring people like MM.  But I thought that I should put the other side of the argument for it has both powerful resonance with many people and gives us insight into why faith is so popular and unbelief is so not.