A Few Questions (About Evolution)

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Would you not concede that some saints in the far past might not have done some of the "miracles’ claimed?

Me personally, I have no pronlem admitting miracles happen. I’m sure you already know this. I’m sure you believe in miracles too.

What I am more concerned about is how those involved in the process of Saints’ Causes (who move from the scientific evaluation of the Medical Council [or technical experts] toward a theological examination by the Consultors [and later by the Cardinals and Bishops] not simply engaged in a “God of the gaps” dilemma according to dangers that you youself and others here have brought up?

Given the woeful ignorance of most matters science? What happens when we try to ascribe science as giving a sticker of acceptance on a event which it cannot explain means is that should some time in the future our science can give a natural answer, then we have to remove God from that “gap”. the gaps get filled in all too often.

Then why are we using science to discern that there is no natural explantions for miraclous events before the Church moves forward and considers the possible theological significance of the events?

What exactly are you arguing against here?

That is why a God of the Gaps theory is harmful in the long run. Science rightly IMO says only, we cannot explain it at this time. Their jurisdiction ends at this juncture.

Reasonable people simply adjust their previous beliefs to accept the most recent scientific evidence-- albeit, with the Church’s approval. It happens all the time without people losing faith. I did it. I know many other people who have done so as well.

It’s only when people cherish their ‘perception’ of God’s divine providence even more than how God’s divine providence is ‘actually really working’ that this becomes a serious issue. But then they’re not having a problem with losing faith. They’re having a problem with a kind of ‘intellectual idolatry’ which they are simply unwilling to let go of.

This has always been a problem within the Church and I think this argument is rather puffed up to be honest. More to the point, it’s being stylized as an exclusively huge danger when, in reality, it’s simply a real embarrasment to those who do not believe as the ‘simple people’ do.

That’s pretty much the style of the posts that I’ve read for the most part in these kinds of threads-- and I think it’s really deceptive when someone claims to be deeply concerned when, in reality, their posts seem to be exclusively attempting to humiliate those who don’t agree with them on this matter.

That’s how I see it anyway.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then perhaps you could move toward the questions raised in post 136 above.

**I rather thought I had. I’m not attempting to be obtuse. Could you simply ask what you would like me to attempt to address? **

In the meantime, could you provide me with a comprehenvie list from the Church which specifically defines what is natural and what is supernatural?

**I’m not sure what you mean here. I don’t know of any “list” or why there would be one. We used to find epileptic seizures to be manifestations of being possessed in times past. We now know that there is a biological cause. Clearly I would think that many things in the past were thought supernatural, we now know better. Does that mean all things will be found to be from natural origins? I certainly hope not! Sorry but beyond that I don’t know what you are asking me. **

I’m sure some have done so (which I would truly be interested in reading). But, in general, I don’t think anything exists within the Church that holds a seal of authoty on it regarding this distinction.

-**I would doubt it. **

More often, it seems to be investigated on a case by case basis that is in tune with the scientific knowledge of the time in question.

**Exactly. Hundreds of years later, in some few cases, evidence may explain something we thought supernatural is in fact a natural reproducible event given the right circumstances. **

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]

Science can say nothing about Christ one way or another

[snip]

Only by concluding that there is no known natural explanation for an observation. It cannot say something positive about the cause.

But that is OK.

Steve, ignore Mr. N. Been there done that with him. Likes to interpret text to his liking. I’ve stated before his comprehension level is minimal.

Triune God (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit). No science there. Only God. I give God my felt love. Thank you.

Miracles (1) today are strickly based on people and the events that took place in his or her life. Once the Medical Council (science) or technical experts make known to the Church’s theologians (Bishops and Pope) that there wasn’t a *natural *scientific explanation for ‘incident(s)’, then do they (Bishops and Pope) proceed onward to determine possible beatification and canonization of the individual. Remembering that the Roman Pontiff alone is competent to declare a devotion to a Servant of God.

It’s simple for those who can comprehend written text:

1. • As well as reassuring us that the Servant of God lives in Heaven in communion with God, miracles constitute the divine confirmation of the judgment expressed by the ecclesiastical authority on his/her virtuous life.*vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html
     http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...s/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html

p.s. I told Mr. Nihilo to please leave me alone. Yet you can see he continues to hound me (msg. 135) even when i am writing only to you, Steve.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

**Exactly. Hundreds of years later, in some few cases, evidence may explain something we thought supernatural is in fact a natural reproducible event given the right circumstances. **

And you see no danger in people using science to determine whether or not there is no natural cause for a miraculous event before moving toward the theological ramifications of the reputed miracle?

The Church does this all the time SpiritMeadow-- and I have no problem with it.

But, based on the concerns you’ve raised, it would seem to me that you would be at least partically skeptical of the process which the Causes for Saints use.

At the very least, some of the methodologies that that those who work for a Saints’ Causes would give you a serious concern by virtue of your grave concerns against the ID movement.

It seems that way to me anyway.

 

[edwest2]

Mr. Ex Nihilo,

I am not a sloganist. For some here, you are either a follower of some “ist” (Beheist) or not. I don’t understand the need for this classification.

Either we are praying to a real, living person, true man and true God or we are not. Simple as that. Either we have a relationship with God that is real or we do not. I do not run down to the local science lab to certify my beliefs. Besides, what are they going to tell me? “Uh, we don’t handle that here.”?

This is not a philosophical excersize either. The Bread is the Body of Christ or it is not. Simple.

I believe as Pope Benedict has stated, there is faith and there is some evidence of an evolutionary process. However, both he and Pope John Paul II in continuity with previous 20th Century papal teaching, do not believe this process occurred without divine providence. This, for me, is the necessary linkage. The scientists have presented their results and gone home for the day. The Church takes these same results and compares it to divine revelation and combines the two forms of reason.

The new scientific faith called Science believes that with science, all things are possible. It presumes upon science that more and more will be explained away. So, eventually, following this belief system, only Naturalism will remain and the triumph of man’s mutated genes. Has anyone here actually viewed the image on the tilma of Our Lady of Guadelupe? Does anyone know how long such a garment is supposed to last? That it has outlived its useful life by hundreds of years?

In this image, a ‘modern’ opthamologist examined the eyes. He was surprised that the eyes possessed the same qualities as living eyes. What he discovered reflected in those eyes was the presentation of the tilma and the people present, hundreds of years ago. No one has been able to determine how the image was made and ‘modern’ methods have been used to analyze it.

If your faith is built upon a foundation that reads: “Don’t worry, science will explain this someday.” Ask yourself, did Jesus Christ actually, physically die for me? Is He alive right now?

Faith is not in some little container and God is not an imaginary concept. If you think it is, then you are praying to nobody. If you think your faith has no substance then you are mistaken.

Evolution that explicitly denies any truly causal role for God is simply naturalism. And it leads away from God. Even if you think God used evolution in some fashion, what are you basing that on? Certainly no peer-reviewed papers. Which makes me wonder if some really understand what they are saying. The theory is a fact! And God is what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

At the very least, some of the methodologies that that those who work for a Saints’ Causes would give you a serious concern by virtue of your grave concerns against the ID movement

Agreed. The Church makes a thorough investigation and seeks to explain the workings of the saint through scientific means.

 

[reggieM]

It’s a matter which strikes at the very heart of the very same processes we’ve been engaged in for around 2000 years within Church history.

Absolutely right. Going back to the resurrection – which would be denied under the principles of scientific positivism. But Jesus did rise, He was seen by the apostles, just as He predicted.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. It is now closed.