A World without Religion?

[Al_Moritz]

You are free to believe whatever you want.

Here and elsewhere, it is pretty clear what the church teaches.

Yes, but my beliefs are in accordance with Church teachings and with CCC 375 that you cite. I am afraid you are very quick to dismiss things before studying them. You might want to read the links by Thomistic philosopher Feser in my post linked in # 280; Feser is as orthodox Catholic as it gets, in my view, and he is also frequently cited by other Catholics here who do not appear to be ‘progressive’ in any way.

In my view Feser’s explanation of original sin in accordance with Church teaching, and clearing up fundamental misunderstandings, in the third link in my post linked in # 280 is as good as it gets. Here’s that particular link again:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

 

[BrassAnkles]

Yes, but my beliefs are in accordance with Church teachings and with CCC 375 that you cite. I am afraid you are very quick to dismiss things before studying them. You might want to read the links by Thomistic philosopher Feser in my post linked in # 280; Feser is as orthodox Catholic as it gets, in my view, and he is also frequently cited by other Catholics here who do not appear to be ‘progressive’ in any way.

In my view Feser’s explanation of original sin in accordance with Church teaching, and clearing up fundamental misunderstandings, in the third link in my post linked in # 280 is as good as it gets. Here’s that particular link again:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

An omnipotent Creator that sees everything and evolution is incompatible with evolution from a logical point simply because an all knowing and Omnipotent Creator could not have created the universe and all of it’s components without knowing the outcome, specifically the creation of man, after all since the beginning of time Jesus Christ “is”.

“In the beginning* was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And for the record: no, atheists can’t go to heaven as atheists.** We agree.** Surprised?

At last, well done good and faithful servant! Surprised indeed!

Which is why the Act of Contrition applies not only to Christians but to atheists on their deathbed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

At last, well done good and faithful servant!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, but my beliefs are in accordance with Church teachings and with CCC 375 that you cite. I am afraid you are very quick to dismiss things before studying them. You might want to read the links by Thomistic philosopher Feser in my post linked in # 280; Feser is as orthodox Catholic as it gets, in my view, and he is also frequently cited by other Catholics here who do not appear to be ‘progressive’ in any way.

In my view Feser’s explanation of original sin in accordance with Church teaching, and clearing up fundamental misunderstandings, in the third link in my post linked in # 280 is as good as it gets. Here’s that particular link again:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Al, the link to Feser’s blogspot contains a rather serious error. Feser states that our first parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision but lost it due to sin. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, the Chruch teaches only ( per Catechism ) that our first parents were created in the state of Sanctifying Grace ( original innocence ) and with certain other preternatual gifts and with the promise of possible eternal life. There is no mention that our parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision. They enjoyed a certain friendship with God which was certainly above what has been enjoyed by their children, even when in the state of Sanctifying Grace, but this should not be viewed as that Beatific Vision.

Secondly, only the Blessed in heaven enjoy the Beatific Vision. There is no Catholic teaching I am aware of that states our first parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

Thirdly, it is my understanding and conviction that once we possess the Beatific Vision it will be impossible to fall into sin again. Therefore, since our parents fell into sin, they never enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

Pax
LInus2nd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al, the link to Feser’s blogspot contains a rather serious error. Feser states that our first parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision but lost it due to sin. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, the Chruch teaches only ( per Catechism ) that our first parents were created in the state of Sanctifying Grace ( original innocence ) and with certain other preternatual gifts and with the promise of possible eternal life. There is no mention that our parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision. They enjoyed a certain friendship with God which was certainly above what has been enjoyed by their children, even when in the state of Sanctifying Grace, but this should not be viewed as that Beatific Vision.

Secondly, only the Blessed in heaven enjoy the Beatific Vision. There is no Catholic teaching I am aware of that states our first parents enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

Thirdly, it is my understanding and conviction that once we possess the Beatific Vision it will be impossible to fall into sin again. Therefore, since our parents fell into sin, they never enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

Pax
LInus2nd

You’re right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re right.

I may take a look at the comments, someone must have pointed this out.

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

In my view Feser’s explanation of original sin in accordance with Church teaching, and clearing up fundamental misunderstandings, in the third link in my post linked in # 280 is as good as it gets. Here’s that particular link again:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Fesser’s original blog regarding this subject was an attempt to reconcile the theological version of Adam and Eve with the scientific facts as we know them. There obviously needs to be a cogent argument for an actual Adam and Eve before you can discuss their involvement in original sin.

There were rebuttals and he answers them here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

In that rebuttal, he says:

“Throughout this process, all theologically human beings would be descended from a single original human couple (in the sense of having that human couple among their ancestors) without there ever having been a population bottleneck in the human population.”

Now that is not correct. If two people cannot be considered a bottleneck, then I’m not sure what can. Notwithstanding that we know our most recent common male ancestor and equivalent female ancestor were not contemporary.

However, he foes link to a post by Mike Flynn where he says Flynn answers the question (but in way that discounts Fesser’s theory).

Here’s Flynn’s link: tofspot.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html. In it he says:

“Doctrine holds only that all men are descended from Adam, not that they descend through an unbroken line of fathers. The same applies to descent from Eve through mothers, although oddly enough, that is not doctrine, for reasons adduced (^4) below. Since mito-Eve and chromo-Adam are not necessarily the Adam and Eve of the story, what difference does it make if they were not contemporary?”

So Flynn admits that they weren’t contemporary (contradicting Fesser in the process) and as doctrine only requires descent from Adam, we’re all good. However, we are not all descended from this one man. He is simply our most recent common ancestor as far as the male lineage goes. And that one person was never one person. His identity changed as lineages died out. Whoever he is now, it’s certainly not the same person as it was a few thousand years ago and may not be the same person in the future. So was Adam more than one men?

What both men have written makes no sense from a scientific view.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There were rebuttals and he answers them here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

In that rebuttal, he says:

“Throughout this process, all theologically human beings would be descended from a single original human couple (in the sense of having that human couple among their ancestors) without there ever having been a population bottleneck in the human population.”

Now that is not correct. If two people cannot be considered a bottleneck, then I’m not sure what can. Notwithstanding that we know our most recent common male ancestor and equivalent female ancestor were not contemporary.

…]

What both men have written makes no sense from a scientific view.

The statement by Kemp that Feser quotes is not a scientific one, but a metaphysical one. I have added the relevant emphasis above. No, there was no biological bottleneck, that’s right. May I suggest you read the article again?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fesser’s original blog regarding this subject was an attempt to reconcile the theological version of Adam and Eve with the scientific facts as we know them. There obviously needs to be a cogent argument for an actual Adam and Eve before you can discuss their involvement in original sin.

There were rebuttals and he answers them here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html

In that rebuttal, he says:

“Throughout this process, all theologically human beings would be descended from a single original human couple (in the sense of having that human couple among their ancestors) without there ever having been a population bottleneck in the human population.”

Now that is not correct. If two people cannot be considered a bottleneck, then I’m not sure what can. Notwithstanding that we know our most recent common male ancestor and equivalent female ancestor were not contemporary.

However, he foes link to a post by Mike Flynn where he says Flynn answers the question (but in way that discounts Fesser’s theory).

Here’s Flynn’s link: tofspot.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html. In it he says:

“Doctrine holds only that all men are descended from Adam, not that they descend through an unbroken line of fathers. The same applies to descent from Eve through mothers, although oddly enough, that is not doctrine, for reasons adduced (^4) below. Since mito-Eve and chromo-Adam are not necessarily the Adam and Eve of the story, what difference does it make if they were not contemporary?”

So Flynn admits that they weren’t contemporary (contradicting Fesser in the process) and as doctrine only requires descent from Adam, we’re all good. However, we are not all descended from this one man. He is simply our most recent common ancestor as far as the male lineage goes. And that one person was never one person. His identity changed as lineages died out. Whoever he is now, it’s certainly not the same person as it was a few thousand years ago and may not be the same person in the future. So was Adam more than one men?

What both men have written makes no sense from a scientific view.

That is not what the Church teaches. We come from a common ancestor who was not an animal, he was human and this common ancestor we call Adam. And we have a common human Mother whom we call Eve. And we are directly descended. I don’t care what Flynn or anyone else says. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re right.

Nope, I was wrong and I retract my comment and apologize to Ed and anyone else who may have misunderstood. Here is what Ed said, " In particular, he offered Adam and Eve the beatific vision – a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers. He also offered special helps that …] " The operative word is ’ offered. " He offered them the Beatific Vision eventually if they obeyed his command not to eat of the fruit of the garden. I had interpreted him as saying that Adam and Eve enjoyed the Beatific Vision and that was not what he said. Hope no one is confused. Adam and Eve never had the Beatific Vision and Ed never said they did. I do think that paragraph could have been better written to draw a distinction between what they actually received, sanctifying grace and preternatuaral gifts of integrity as opposed to the Beatific Vision which would be given them after they had passed their test.

Linus2nd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Nope, I was wrong and I retract my comment and apologize to Ed and anyone else who may have misunderstood. Here is what Ed said, " In particular, he offered Adam and Eve the beatific vision – a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers. He also offered special helps that …] " The operative word is ’ offered. " He offered them the Beatific Vision eventually if they obeyed his command not to eat of the fruit of the garden. I had interpreted him as saying that Adam and Eve enjoyed the Beatific Vision and that was not what he said. Hope no one is confused. Adam and Eve never had the Beatific Vision and Ed never said they did. I do think that paragraph could have been better written to draw a distinction between what they actually received, sanctifying grace and preternatuaral gifts of integrity as opposed to the Beatific Vision which would be given them after they had passed their test.

Linus2nd

Interestingly, Linus, before I posted my

You’re right. ,

I had drafted a corrective post similar to yours, but then decided that you were right after all, since Feser continues:

The condition was the obedience of our first parents. Yet they did not obey. And of course, that is the point of the account of their eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It wasn’t fruit per se that was important, but rather the will to rebel against the Creator. (Recall Augustine’s youthful theft of the pears, where what was attractive about the theft was the fact that it was forbidden, not the fact that he got some pears out of it.) The penalty was the loss of the supernatural gifts they had been given and that their descendants would have been given, and a fall back into their merely natural state, with all its limitations. In particular, it was a loss of all the helps that would effectively have removed those limitations – and worst of all, loss of the beatific vision.

So that suggests that Feser thought they had already received all those benefits, but then they lost them.

Yet then he continues further, and that changes things back to your final analysis:

In short, the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed. And it wasn’t the prospect of pitchforks and hellfire that Adam’s descendents had to look forward to because of what Adam did, but rather the privation of this supernatural gift. What is essential to Hell is the loss of the beatific vision, and while Hell can certainly also involve more than that (including the pains of sense) the standard view is that it does so only for those guilty of actual sin, and not those (such as infants who die without baptism) who merely suffer the penalty of original sin, without ever having committed actual sin.

Note the emphasized part. Here it seems that Feser really wanted to say they didn’t actually receive these benefits (“would have received…had they not…”).

That suggests that Fester is doctrinally correct, but that indeed, as you point out, he could have worded things much better in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

So yes, I think we are in agreement.

 

[Bradski]

The statement by Kemp that Feser quotes is not a scientific one, but a metaphysical one. I have added the relevant emphasis above. No, there was no biological bottleneck, that’s right. May I suggest you read the article again?

The theological human being he refers to is the one man to whom God had granted a soul.

This is what Flynn says:

“…how Dr. Coyne envisions the same sapient mutation arising simultaneously in 10,000 ape-men. It is not impossible, I suppose; but it does seem unlikely. So let us default to the sapiens/loquens mutation appearing first in one man and then gradually spreading through a population. Following tradition, let’s call him Adam. This in no way contradicts the existence of 9,999 other ape-men with whom Adam is interfertile”.

He believes it’s the one man from whom we are all descended. Or at least one man whom we can describe as a common ancestor. As he also says, to confirm that:

“…it is easy to see how a group of people may have a common ancestor without having only one ancestor.”

So Adam is the most recent common ancestor. More correctly a most recent common ancestor, as there never has been one MRCA. So there cannot have been one Adam…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Interestingly, Linus, before I posted my

You’re right. ,

I had drafted a corrective post similar to yours, but then decided that you were right after all, since Feser continues:

The condition was the obedience of our first parents. Yet they did not obey. And of course, that is the point of the account of their eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It wasn’t fruit per se that was important, but rather the will to rebel against the Creator. (Recall Augustine’s youthful theft of the pears, where what was attractive about the theft was the fact that it was forbidden, not the fact that he got some pears out of it.) The penalty was the loss of the supernatural gifts they had been given and that their descendants would have been given, and a fall back into their merely natural state, with all its limitations. In particular, it was a loss of all the helps that would effectively have removed those limitations – and worst of all, loss of the beatific vision.

So that suggests that Feser thought they had already received all those benefits, but then they lost them.

Yet then he continues further, and that changes things back to your final analysis:

In short, the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed. And it wasn’t the prospect of pitchforks and hellfire that Adam’s descendents had to look forward to because of what Adam did, but rather the privation of this supernatural gift. What is essential to Hell is the loss of the beatific vision, and while Hell can certainly also involve more than that (including the pains of sense) the standard view is that it does so only for those guilty of actual sin, and not those (such as infants who die without baptism) who merely suffer the penalty of original sin, without ever having committed actual sin.

Note the emphasized part. Here it seems that Feser really wanted to say they didn’t actually receive these benefits (“would have received…had they not…”).

That suggests that Fester is doctrinally correct, but that indeed, as you point out, he could have worded things much better in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

So yes, I think we are in agreement.

Good Al, I just hope I didn’t do any harm to Feser since he is one of the best writing on Thomas today - at least one of the better known.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[KidCatholic1]

Good Al, I just hope I didn’t do any harm to Feser since he is one of the best writing on Thomas today - at least one of the better known.

Pax
Linus2nd

All my doubts of Adam and Eve have been subsided. Thank you guys who posted! And God bless you. †

 

[PRmerger]

No, but this is not necessary, because of the metaphysical nature of humans. See:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

Beautiful!

 

[PRmerger]

And my position? I would be a very happy man if there were no abortions at all.

Why is that? Is it because you are discomfited by the fact that abortion kills a human being in its infancy?

Or are you simply stating you find abortion icky? Kind of like an appendectomy? “I would be a very happy man if there were no appendectomies at all, because that would mean no one would ever have to suffer severe right lower quadrant abdominal pain ever again!” That kind of thing?

 

[Al_Moritz]

The theological human being he refers to is the one man to whom God had granted a soul.

This is what Flynn says:

“…how Dr. Coyne envisions the same sapient mutation arising simultaneously in 10,000 ape-men. It is not impossible, I suppose; but it does seem unlikely. So let us default to the sapiens/loquens mutation appearing first in one man and then gradually spreading through a population. Following tradition, let’s call him Adam. This in no way contradicts the existence of 9,999 other ape-men with whom Adam is interfertile”.

He believes it’s the one man from whom we are all descended. Or at least one man whom we can describe as a common ancestor. As he also says, to confirm that:

“…it is easy to see how a group of people may have a common ancestor without having only one ancestor.”

So Adam is the most recent common ancestor. More correctly a most recent common ancestor, as there never has been one MRCA. So there cannot have been one Adam…

I am not sure what you are trying to get at, and why there cannot have been one Adam. On the other hand, I also don’t understand what Flynn’s ‘sapient mutation’ has to do with the human soul.

Here again is a summary of Feser’s position:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

Perhaps discussing that we’ll get a bit further than trying to decipher Flynn.

 

[Bradski]

Why is that? Is it because you are discomfited by the fact that abortion kills a human being in its infancy?

Or are you simply stating you find abortion icky? Kind of like an appendectomy? “I would be a very happy man if there were no appendectomies at all, because that would mean no one would ever have to suffer severe right lower quadrant abdominal pain ever again!” That kind of thing?

Deciding whether to get pregnant or not is not usually a difficult call for most couples. You don’t think about the potential child that you are avoiding having if you have sex when using contraception.

However, if you do become pregnant, then there is most definitely a potential child, literally in the making. Consequently I would imagine the decision to end the pregnancy as opposed to not starting it in the first place, is a more difficult decision.

I would prefer that all women had the opportunity to decide when they became pregnant so that they wouldn’t have to make the call after the fact. I don’t think that any woman I know would take the decision lightly and I would prefer it if they didn’t have to make it. Consequently, I would prefer it if there were no abortions.

Notwithstanding that in no way whatsoever would I support any move that would result in women being told by the state that if they are pregnant then they are obliged to continue with it.

 

[PRmerger]

Deciding whether to get pregnant or not is not usually a difficult call for most couples. You don’t think about the potential child that you are avoiding having if you have sex when using contraception.

However, if you do become pregnant, then there is most definitely a potential child, literally in the making. Consequently I would imagine the decision to end the pregnancy as opposed to not starting it in the first place, is a more difficult decision.

I find this odd.

Let’s dismiss for now the discussion as to whether it’s a child vs a potential child. Let’s simply presuppose that it’s a “potential child”.

I would never mourn the loss of a potential child. Every time I ovulate and then have a period, it’s the loss of a potential child.

I can assure you that I feel no regrets whatsoever about the loss of a “potential child”.

That’s kind of weird, isn’t it, to mourn the loss of a “potential child”?

Now, if it’s an “actual child” that you are killing, well, then that makes sense to mourn that loss…right?

I would prefer that all women had the opportunity to decide when they became pregnant so that they wouldn’t have to make the call after the fact. I don’t think that any woman I know would take the decision lightly and I would prefer it if they didn’t have to make it. Consequently, I would prefer it if there were no abortions.

Agreed. Very Catholic, this.

Notwithstanding that in no way whatsoever would I support any move that would result in women being told by the state that if they are pregnant then they are obliged to continue with it.

Do you feel the same way about a couple that decides that they no longer want to be parents of a 2 yr old? Isn’t the state forcing them to be parents when they no longer want to be parents? Shouldn’t they have the right to not have parenthood forced upon them against their wishes?