Fundamentalist Mindset

[andrewstx]

If you read the thread you would see that we acknowledge Catholics are just as prone to this mindset as Protestants. That’s why it is here on the NCR forum.
BrotherJr over on the Traditional Catholic forum of CAF gives a very good explaination of the difference between fundamentalist Catholics and mainstream. Radical Trad Catholics, like thier Protestant counterparts, know a lot about the LETTER of Catholic law. They claim to be devout Catholics yet thier actions and words belie what they claim. Thier “certainty” is not examplified in thier actions.
Certainty is not just intellectual. Certainty can only be evidenced by action.
If fundamentalism were truly the moral and doctrinal light of the world, then we would see fundamentalist hospitals, fundamentalist homeless shelters, fundamentalist mental health clinics, fundamentalist soup kitchens, ect.
Certainty is not something to be proclaimed, as much as it is to be worked out. The certainty is there, but worked out differently. That is healthy certainty.
When I was a Baptist pastor years ago I used to say “Show me your Christainity. Can I touch your christianity? What does your Christianity ‘look like’ when it is ‘happening’?”
Carrying a KJV Bible does not make you a Christain anymore than a uniform makes you a General.

Fundamentalists primary concern is in “getting people saved” the rest if it comes is very secondary.

Some fundamental churches do have soup kitchens, food pantries and the like, but it usually comes with a lot of baggage.

Like the missions in down and out areas they will feed you and give you a bed for the night. But first you have to be peached at for an hour or two.

My former denomination had a policy, charity was for only people of that particular denomination.

 

[JustaServant]

Obvious to the one who holds to the answer. When we learn, we learn all sorts of evidences to defend the answer. There are very few of my beliefs that I don’t think are correct, and I think that it is “obvious” considering the evidence. You should know that some of the smartest people I have ever met would be considered fundamentalists. To say that they discourage reasoning or thinking shows that you don’t truly understand the complexities of this group of people.
In response to the original inquiry. I think the attraction of fundamentalism is really just people thinking they are correct. Perhaps they are mistaken, but if they don’t see the alternate evidence as convincing, why should they entertain the possibility that they are wrong? It might be good to note here that fundamentalism is not a very flattering term. Perhaps it is only ascribed to those who obstinately hold to a different type of evidence than us.

To the first bolded, I spent almost 20 years among fundamentalists so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that I am Catholic now does not negate my knowledge of a group of people. And I stand by what I said, which is from experience. Fundamentalism discourages inquiry that is in direct opposition to what they espouse.
To the second bolded, fundamentalism has become an unflattering term, but it was (and among independent Baptists, still is) an ***accepted ***term.

 

[JustaServant]

Fundamentalists primary concern is in “getting people saved” the rest if it comes is very secondary.

Some fundamental churches do have soup kitchens, food pantries and the like, but it usually comes with a lot of baggage.

Like the missions in down and out areas they will feed you and give you a bed for the night. But first you have to be peached at for an hour or two.

My former denomination had a policy, charity was for only people of that particular denomination.

That was my experience too.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Because this essentially makes God deceptive. It means that the reason God gave us is practically useless, because what looks like evidence could simply be God fooling us.

Believing in the possibility of miracles does not commit us to this kind of “deceptive evidence” position. On the contrary, when the Catholic Church declares something miraculous, it’s because the evidence points toward it being miraculous.

Edwin

This is precisely true. I have a fundamentalist friend and I had to explain the reasons to him why I don’t interpret Genesis literally, and that it’s not because I don’t believe God could do those things, or that God himself is constrained to the laws of nature, and I’m certainly not suggesting that I think the Bible is errant, but rather I don’t believe in a literal account of Genesis because the evidence of the world around us suggests a different and longer natural history than the Genesis account does.

As for the original post, I think most of the appeal comes from the community. I attended a fundamental baptist church a few times in California when I was interning there (this was before I became Catholic; I was what you would call a longing agnostic) and I was put off by the judgmental attitude of the pastor but in a way I could understand the sense of community and tightness that the congregation felt there; they really were pretty close knit which is impressive because it was such a large church. It also probably feels good to think that you completely understand the world around you in a way that nobody else does.

 

[JustaServant]

Why couldn’t everything have happened as the bible portrays it? Is God incapable of doing miraculous things that don’t make sense to science? After all they are working with limited knowledge trying to explain the actions of an infinite God. It is clear from scripture people held to a literal interpretation of the word. They certainly held the view of a global flood and the literal destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Also about the issue of mixed race couples remember what God did to Moses’ sister Miriam when she disapproved of his dark skinned wife.

I never said God couldn’t do Miracles. In fact I believe thier was a great flood (the extent of which is unimportant). What I am stating is that if a Christian chooses to beleive the story is an allegory or parable, that doesn’t make them a liberal or an unbeliever. That is the fundamentalist designation Catholics object to.
When I was a pastor years ago I had a Bible study on Genesis, the purpose of which was to show the promise of the Messiah going back deep into Jewish history and writings. But people were more interested in whether there were dinosaurs on the Arc and what the “pre-flood world” looked like. The fact that Genesis doesn’t tell fundamentalists every detail frustrates them. My answer was simple, but unacceptable to fundamentalists:
It might be, that God felt it was unimportant.
But focusing on things unimportant is what fundamentalism is obsessed with.

 

[jericho777]

I never said God couldn’t do Miracles. In fact I believe thier was a great flood (the extent of which is unimportant). What I am stating is that if a Christian chooses to beleive the story is an allegory or parable, that doesn’t make them a liberal or an unbeliever. That is the fundamentalist designation Catholics object to.
When I was a pastor years ago I had a Bible study on Genesis, the purpose of which was to show the promise of the Messiah going back deep into Jewish history and writings. But people were more interested in whether there were dinosaurs on the Arc and what the “pre-flood world” looked like. The fact that Genesis doesn’t tell fundamentalists every detail frustrates them. My answer was simple, but unacceptable to fundamentalists:
It might be, that God felt it was unimportant.
But focusing on things unimportant is what fundamentalism is obsessed with.

I think some people may be selling God short by trying to allegorize some of the difficult scientific issues in scripture. They may be limiting their own faith potential with doubt. If a literal global flood is not fact it creates a doctrinal crisis. It is taught as literal fact in the NT. Mat 7:27, 24:38-39, Luke 17:27, 2 Peter 2:5 and 2 Peter 3:6.

There was a time when the CC believed and taught that everything in the bible was literal. And if you thought otherwise you were branded a heretic and could be burned at the stake. So when did that all change?

There are credible organizations and scientists with all the letters after their name that can shed some light for those who are interested in literal scientific issues with scriptures. It may be worth researching.

 

[Pheonix]

If fundamentalism consists of believing Genesis is not a metaphor, then I would say I am attracted to it because I believe in a supernatural God that invalidates naturalism.

Well, believing in a literal six, 24-hour days of creation is not the only thing in Fundamentalism. It is, however, one of the most common beliefs within the mindset.

All of our scientific knowledge assumes that only the laws of nature exists–that there is no unknown force not accounted for that can mess up naturalist reasoning.

Naturalism is a philosophy in which adherents believe the laws of nature are all there is. That’s true.

Some scientists are naturalists. That’s true, too. But you can’t assume that all scientists are naturalists simply because some scientists are naturalists.

The fact of the matter remains that science, as a field of study, is not synonymous with naturalism. Science doesn’t claim that natural laws are “all there is.” Science claims that natural laws are all it can study. Science seeks to explain the observed physical phenomena of the universe; scientists want to know and explain what these physical phenomena are, how they operate, and why they operate the way they do.

Supernatural phenomena, by definition, are not restricted to the physical world. Because of this, science cannot accurately test and observe supernatural phenomena. At least, this cannot be done consistently. Therefore, science is neutral on anything concerning the supernatural.

Now, there are some atheists who use science to reject God’s existence. This, however, is irrelevant and not a good reason to reject science. Christians also use science to support God’s existence, after all. Science, however, is neither for nor against God; it stays within its realm of expertise by observing physical phenomena, testing these observations through experimentation, and analyzing both the observation and experimental results.

I believe in a God who can break the laws of nature and has by creating the universe from nothing, flooding the earth when people least expected it, sending plagues upon Egypt, and being raised from the dead. It invalidates naturalism, which assumes that the laws of nature are ultimate.

No one is arguing that God cannot perform miracles (such as the Resurrection) that invalidate known scientific evidence and truths. God created this world, but He is not bound by His creation. For example, God created time, but He is not bound by it. God also gave us the sacraments as a way to receive grace, but God is not bound by His sacraments; He can give grace in any way, shape, or form He pleases.

What non-Fundamentalists argue for is for there to be at least some consistency between some scriptural interpretations, usually the literal ones, and modern scientific evidence.

For example, Fundamentalists claim the six days of creation were literally six, 24-hour days. The problem with this is a 24-hour day is only applicable to Earth. Each planet has a different number of hours making up its day. A day on Jupiter is about ten hours long; a day on Venus is close to 6,000 hours long. Since that’s the case, why force a 24-hour Earth day on God?

Do you see the consistency problem? The evidence that each planet has a different sidereal rotation period contradicts a literal interpretation of the days of creation. How, then, are we supposed to look at both things? Do we just throw out the supported facts and stick with what Scripture tells us? That doesn’t work because God created each planet. He therefore gave each planet a different sidereal rotation period. Unless one wants to argue that God is inconsistent, incoherent, or deceptive, the information given from God’s Word and the information given by the evidence God Himself has given us must be reconciled with each other.

God created this universe, and that means He created all the physical phenomena that we currently know of. If that’s true, then He also designed how these physical phenomena operate. In that sense, there can never be a contradiction between God’s revealed truths, theologically-speaking, and science because God created what science studies and explains. There can be a contradiction between how a scientist explains a fact about physical phenomena and God’s revealed truths, but I have yet to see this. Everything I’ve learned in science so far is consistent with Catholic teaching, God, and Scripture.

We do not have Scripture to teach us about history, mathematics, or physical education; we have Scripture to teach about God and the reality of the Christian faith. That being said, the Bible is neither a science book nor is it a be-all/end-all encyclopedia for knowledge of this world. Why then do some insist on treating it as such? I understand that some people like simplicity, and I understand that some people believe a literal interpretation of Scripture is a reasonable way to go (which I don’t disagree with). However, to claim that literal interpretation is the only right way to go (not that anyone on these forums has done this. I’m speaking about people I’ve met off these forums who have) is simply nonsensical.

But if God can create out of nothing, why can’t he create an adult or a universe that looks old (from our natural reasoning about the universe)?

The problem with this is that God also created any evidence we observe that points to the age of the universe. Thus, God must be consistent with Himself, lest He be accused of being imperfect.

Therefore, if God created a universe that’s actually between 6,000 and 10,000 years of age, yet the evidence He has provided us with suggests the universe is approximately fourteen-billion-years-old, then God is being blatantly deceptive.

 

[Contarini]

I think some people may be selling God short by trying to allegorize some of the difficult scientific issues in scripture. They may be limiting their own faith potential with doubt. If a literal global flood is not fact it creates a doctrinal crisis. It is taught as literal fact in the NT. Mat 7:27, 24:38-39, Luke 17:27, 2 Peter 2:5 and 2 Peter 3:6.

What are the doctrinal points being made in these passages, and how is a literal interpretation necessary for those points to be valid?

There was a time when the CC believed and taught that everything in the bible was literal.

No, there wasn’t.

Actually, no one has ever thought that everything in the Bible is literal. And if anyone has, it certainly was never the Catholic Church.

There are credible organizations and scientists with all the letters after their name that can shed some light for those who are interested in literal scientific issues with scriptures. It may be worth researching.

Well, my experience has been that young-earth creationism’s advocates turn out to have few if any relevant credentials, and are often rather deceptive (or at least their supporters are) in trying to make the credentials seem more impressive than they are.

As George Marsden pointed out, the guy who made “flood geology” a mainstream belief for many conservative Protestants, Henry Morris, was an engineer, not a geologist or a biologist. And that seems fairly typical.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That was my experience too.

Not mine.

Fundamentalists do link charity to “proclaiming the Gospel,” but I have never encountered fundamentalists who only offered charity to other fundamentalists.

In Durham, North Carolina, one of the most respected and successful centers working with homeless people is a rescue mission run by BJU-trained fundamentalists. People of all denomninations support this mission even if they have some issues with the underlying theology.

Edwin

 

[jericho777]

What are the doctrinal points being made in these passages, and how is a literal interpretation necessary for those points to be valid?

No, there wasn’t.

Actually, no one has ever thought that everything in the Bible is literal. And if anyone has, it certainly was never the Catholic Church.

Well, my experience has been that young-earth creationism’s advocates turn out to have few if any relevant credentials, and are often rather deceptive (or at least their supporters are) in trying to make the credentials seem more impressive than they are.

As George Marsden pointed out, the guy who made “flood geology” a mainstream belief for many conservative Protestants, Henry Morris, was an engineer, not a geologist or a biologist. And that seems fairly typical.

Edwin

When the flood is quoted in Matthew, Luke and 2 Peter it is portrayed as literal and global not limited or figurative. Why would they quote the flood as fact if it was not true? 2 Peter 2:4 also states only eight people were saved in the whole world. The bible also claims that from Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth came all the modern races of men. The bible also claims these were the only righteous people on the whole earth. That God judged sin in all the earth in a real way. Even the animal kingdom suffered because of mans sin. The word of God would not be true if the flood was not true because it is portrayed as fact. In Genesis 7:21 it says “Every living thing that moved on the earth perished.” If there was no literal judgment in Noah’s time I think there is little credibility for any judgment towards us now. However God doesn’t tell “stories” He demonstrates in real life He is serious.

The cc believed at one time the flood was literal. When did that change?

Modern science and religion will not agree this side of eternity. Even if the bible was true science would disprove it. I don’t think science has to be the enemy of the bible but their world view leaves no place for God.

 

[Hunter24]

I don’t think science has to be the enemy of the bible but their world view leaves no place for God.

That’s not neccisarily true. Theistic evolution leave plenty of room for god. Science cannot disprove god and unfortunately some people try to use science to fight religion. Science can disprove some of the events as being literal, but the bible isn’t suposed to be a history text book is it, it’s suposed to offer spiritual truth to Christians and last time I checked science cant study the spiritual. Science is not opposed to your religion.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.” -Galileo

 

[stewstew03]

There was a time when the CC believed and taught that everything in the bible was literal. And if you thought otherwise you were branded a heretic and could be burned at the stake. So when did that all change?

The Church never burned anyone at the stake…

 

[Hunter24]

The Church never burned anyone at the stake…

Quite a few heratics were burned by local governments after being pressured by the church. The local governments carried it out but it was the church who in some cases pushed for the persecution.

 

[Church_Militant]

Documentation in support of your allegation Hunter?

 

[Hunter24]

Documentation in support of your allegation Hunter?

Giordano Bruno, burned in 1600, was the last person killed by the Roman inquisition. He held heretical views on sever subjects including trinity and virgin birth, and took a very panthiestic approach to god. He also beleaved the there were infinite other worlds orbiting other stars which could contain other inteligent life. He was eventualy captured by the Venitian inquisition and handed over to the Roman Inquisition.

On February 17th, 1600, he was burned in the Campo de’ Fiori in Rome for the crimes of:

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of
Jesus;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;

claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;

believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and;

dealing in magics and divination.

In the 58 years from the formation of the Roman Inquisition to Bruno’s death they tried over 75000 cases and handed down 1250 death sentences. while the inquisition had differing degrees of church control this is the ROMAN inquisition. at the time Rome was a papal state, the holy sea WAS the secular government. obviousely this was 400 years ago and the world and Christianity has com a long way sense, but it is blatantly false and naive to deny that the church was uninvolved in persecutions of heretics, and at other times Jews and Pagans. It was this trial that drove Galileo to renounce his views.

in 1942 Cardinal Giovanni Mercati said the church was “perfectly justified” in condeming him.

Documents:
Luigi Firpo, Il processo di Giordano Bruno, 1993.
Finnocchiaro, Maurice (1989). The Galileo Affair. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. pp. 291
Seife, Charles (March 1, 2000). “Vatican Regrets Burning Cosmologist”. Science Now.

 

[Pheonix]

When the flood is quoted in Matthew, Luke and 2 Peter it is portrayed as literal and global not limited or figurative.

The verses you listed treat the Flood as an actual historical event. Fine. There’s no disagreement from me on that. Where, however, do any of these verses state the Flood was global? I fail to see any such implication or explicit statement.

Why would they quote the flood as fact if it was not true?

At least in my case, I am not denying the Flood happened. I believe the Flood was a historical event, but I believe it happened on a more localized scale than what Scripture describes. I simply do not see any geological or historical evidence supporting a global flood ever happening at any point in time.

However God doesn’t tell “stories”

Oh, really? If God doesn’t tell stories, then what, pray tell, do you make of Jesus’ parables? Those were indeed figurative stories used to convey religious truths about God and Heaven.

The cc believed at one time the flood was literal. When did that change?

In truth, there were certainly individual members of the Catholic Church who believed (and still do believe) in a literal, global Flood. I cannot, however, recall of any instance in the Church’s history where she taught a literal, global Flood as doctrine or dogma. In other words, Catholics were never bound to believe the Flood in Genesis happened literally as written in Genesis.

If you do, however, know of such an instance where the Church taught a literal Flood as doctrine or dogma, then could you please provide the documentation?

Further, I would also like to ask you to provide documentation supporting your earlier claim that “the Church executed anyone who rejected a literal interpretation of the Bible.”

Modern science and religion will not agree this side of eternity.

I’d think you’d be surprised at how much common ground there is between modern scientific evidence and religious teachings.

The Big Bang? Our modern understanding of genetics? The law of conservation of mass? The laws of thermodynamics? The fact that energy moving as heat travels from areas of higher temperatures to areas of lower temperatures? Planets having different sidereal rotation periods? The human body having fourteen body systems? These are just a few of the many well-established scientific truths that are compatible with Christian theology.

The fact of the matter remains that science and religion are effectively neutral about one another. Science cannot definitively define the supernatural, and religion cannot definitively define the natural. That’s exactly why the Catholic Church teaches that she is only infallible on matters of faith and morals. As far as I’m concerned, whether the Flood was global or not is neither a matter of faith nor is it a matter of morality. Thus, the Church teaches that Catholics can interpret the Flood as global or that the Flood was more localized. Believing the former or the latter will simply have no effect on one’s salvation.

As Blessed John Paul II said (and rightly so): “science can purify religion from error and superstition; Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Even if the bible was true science would disprove it.

Nonsense.

First of all, science doesn’t seek to “prove” or “disprove” anything; science seeks to explain. Science is a highly dynamic course of study, meaning explanations are subject to change based on the available evidence we have. Analysis of the available evidence is also limited to the available equipment we have at the time.

For example, one of the original points of Dalton’s atomic theory was “atoms of a given element are identical in size, mass, and other properties; atoms of different elements differ in size, mass, and other properties.” At the time, this was fine. This point, however, was shown to not be completely accurate when we discovered isotopes, which have slightly varying weights. Thus, Dalton’s theory was modified based on the new available evidence.

Second of all, science is simply against literal interpretations of the Bible that have no kind of evidence to support them. However, that doesn’t mean science, as some Christian claim, is “out to destroy religion.” Surely there may be some anti-theist people who make it seem that way, and actually do try and use science to discredit religion, but these extremists’ views do not represent the whole of the scientific community.

I don’t think science has to be the enemy of the bible but their world view leaves no place for God.

How so? As I’ve already stated, science doesn’t care about the supernatural. More accurately, though, science cannot study the supernatural, and thus isn’t worry about it. Science is restricted to observing, testing, analyzing, and explaining the physical universe. God, by His very definition, is supernatural and not restricted to His physical creation.

Since accuracy, consistency, and precision are extremely important things in scientific study, how are scientists supposed to study the supernatural? The answer is simple: they cannot do this, and thus they are effectively neutral on anything concerning supernatural phenomena.

 

[tarboy]

Modern science and religion will not agree this side of eternity. Even if the bible was true science would disprove it. I don’t think science has to be the enemy of the bible but their world view leaves no place for God.

Jericho,
I urge you to read up on James Fowler and his work on Stages of Faith.

While Science will not reconcile with Fundies and their views
Science is perfectly at home with Christian theology

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What in your opinion, is the psychological/emotional reasons people are attracted to fundamentalist Christianity?
I am asking this of both Catholics AND Protestants, since both are afflicted with this phenomenon.

Two things: Desire for attention and justification for lack of knowledge on any subject (along with no desire to improve it).

 

[Contarini]

In the 58 years from the formation of the Roman Inquisition to Bruno’s death they tried over 75000 cases and handed down 1250 death sentences.

Which of your sources gives you this particular figure? It seems a bit high, though that’s not to say it’s inaccurate.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When the flood is quoted in Matthew, Luke and 2 Peter it is portrayed as literal and global not limited or figurative. Why would they quote the flood as fact if it was not true?

Because a point is being made about divine judgment.

2 Peter 2:4 also states only eight people were saved in the whole world.

How is the point of that passage weakened if the story is a mythical one?

The bible also claims that from Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth came all the modern races of men.

The Bible doesn’t mention most “races of men,” so this is a flimsy argument. And you’re begging the question–you’re assuming the point I’m challenging, which is that these texts are meant by God to be taken literally.

The bible also claims these were the only righteous people on the whole earth. That God judged sin in all the earth in a real way. Even the animal kingdom suffered because of mans sin. The word of God would not be true if the flood was not true because it is portrayed as fact.

You aren’t really arguing for this–you’re just asserting the same point over and over.

In Genesis 7:21 it says “Every living thing that moved on the earth perished.” If there was no literal judgment in Noah’s time I think there is little credibility for any judgment towards us now.

No one said that there was no judgment. Human sin has consequences, and God hates violence. That’s true whether or not every human being on the round world no ancient Near Easterner even knew about perished in some ancient cataclysm.

Ancient Near Eastern people told stories about a catastrophic flood (so did the Greeks, and indeed people of a number of ancient cultures–that’s one argument for a real worldwide flood, but the standard answer to it is that most cultures grew up in river valleys, so floods would have been a fairly common occurrence). Instead of arguing over whether the flood was “literal,” we might do well to look at similarities and differences between the true, divinely inspired version of the myth (in Genesis) and the pagan parallels.

For instance, in one Mesopotamian version, the gods are annoyed by the noise people make.

In the Biblical version, God is outraged by human immorality, particularly violence.

Two very different pictures of the divine there.

However God doesn’t tell “stories”

Why are you so sure of this?

I think one of the basic problems with the “fundamentalist mindset” is its lack of appreciation for story-telling. This rips the heart out of the Christian faith.

As C. S. Lewis says, in Jesus myth becomes fact. If you don’t allow for any myth before that, you actually weaken the significance of the Incarnation.

He demonstrates in real life He is serious.

Indeed. It’s not an either/or.

The cc believed at one time the flood was literal. When did that change?

First of all, the word “literal” gets thrown around far too broadly. Let’s be clear on what we are talking about here. The disagreement isn’t on whether there was, at some point in ancient Near Eastern history, a catastrophic flood on which the story in the Bible is based. That’s not a particularly controversial claim. The question is whether the flood
a. literally wiped out the human race (the Catholic Encyclopedia calls this “anthropological universality”) and/or
b. literally covered the whole earth (the CE calls this “geographical universality”).

Since the significance of the flood in salvation history is primarily its importance as an act of primal judgment on the sinful human race as a whole, denying the anthropological universality of the flood is a “non-literal” interpretation in the sense that the theological meaning of the flood (judgment on sinful humanity from which God saves those He has chosen) is decoupled from whatever historical basis it may have.

The CE (published in 1911–not a Magisterial document but reflecting the consensus of Catholic theological opinion regarding church teaching at the time) insists on the anthropological universality, but not the geographical universality, of the flood.

Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943 opened the door to a more positive use of modern Biblical scholarship. I’m not arguing that DAS sanctioned a non-literal interpretation of the Flood, but it led to a more nuanced understanding of literary/historical issues in Catholic scholarship.

I don’t think there’s an official position today on the subject. The CCC speaks in salvation-history terms as if Noah were a real person, and was castigated for this by a liberal Anglican theologian, David Edwards. But I’m entirely with the CCC on this one, and I don’t think the CCC’s language requires one to believe in a historical, anthropologically universal flood.

Modern science and religion will not agree this side of eternity. Even if the bible was true science would disprove it. I don’t think science has to be the enemy of the bible but their world view leaves no place for God.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. If science and religion cannot be reconciled and if science would “disprove” the Bible even if the Bible were true, isn’t science obviously the enemy of the Bible and in fact of truth itself?

Edwin