Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[buffalo]

What I’m saying is that you cannot separate God’s creative act from the creation of the universe nor either of those things from God’s nature. Even though we cannot comprehend God totally, we can know some things about his nature via reason (which he gave us). We know for example, that God cannot create a triangle with four sides since that is a self-contradiction. He also cannot will evil, because it is contrary to his nature. What I am saying is that is seems contrary to his nature to create the world which functions irrationally or which requires him to constantly rearange parts, as if he hadn’t planned it well enough.

1. You are using “catalyze” in a totally different sense than Big Bang theorists. They are saying that the properties of matter in the universe were such that is caused it to function in a particular way (a prediction they could only make by assuming the laws of nature are everywhere uniform!)
2. God’s resting on the seventh day is not to be read literally, as obviously God has no need to “rest” in a physical sense since he’s all powerful.
3. There is no evidence that time is slowing down. This claim has been made by certain Young Earth Creationists in order to yield a young earth. The speed of time is one of the universal constants.
4. A “variable law” is a contradiction in terms. A law is a law precisely because it’s invariable (otherwise we’d call it a “trend” or a “tendency”).

God did not get tried. Resting on the 7th day meant He was finished.http://www.physorg.com/news68967509.html
Variable physical laws

**Physical quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant and the electron mass are believed to be the same independent of where and when they appear in the universe. Therefore, they are known as constants of nature.

**Should they deviate from their actual values the universe would have looked different and neither man nor other living organisms would have existed. But imagine that the fundamental constants – and thereby also the fundamental laws – are not at all constant but have gradually changed over time.

Implications that this is the case have been known for some time and are now supported by new measurements – for instance from Lund University, Sweden.

The constants are so fundamental that it is usually impossible to detect any possible changes since the tools we use to measure these changes are also changing. For instance, if the size of the atoms would increase the atoms in the measuring device would also increase to the same extent and everything would appear normal.

More…

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

The article you linked to was interesting I admit, but failed to make your case. For one thing, the findings will have to be vetted by the scientific community for a while before we get a clearer sense of how accurate they are. But let’s assume that they are correct and some dimensionless constants have changed over time. The article says:

“The changes of both the proton/electron mass ratio and the fine structure constant are very tiny. The fine structure constant has changed by some parts per million during six billions years.”

In other words, we are talking about changes that are A) far too small to allow for any significant fiddling with the current picture of the age of the universe, B) gradual, which is not consistent with a magician God who suddenly intervenes to accelerate or decelerate this or that.

This does not really address my point. One still requires invariable constants (such as the fine structure constant) even if it turns out that some of the universal constants are only second-order constants.

 

[buffalo]

The article you linked to was interesting I admit, but failed to make your case. For one thing, the findings will have to be vetted by the scientific community for a while before we get a clearer sense of how accurate they are. But let’s assume that they are correct and some dimensionless constants have changed over time. The article says:

“The changes of both the proton/electron mass ratio and the fine structure constant are very tiny. The fine structure constant has changed by some parts per million during six billions years.”

In other words, we are talking about changes that are A) far too small to allow for any significant fiddling with the current picture of the age of the universe, B) gradual, which is not consistent with a magician God who suddenly intervenes to accelerate or decelerate this or that.

This does not really address my point. One still requires invariable constants (such as the fine structure constant) even if it turns out that some of the universal constants are only second-order constants.

From the article:

…There is no reason to worry – unless you are a physicist or astronomer and don’t want to change the model of the universe we have today. But Sveneric Johansson thinks that the results are more exciting than troublesome.

 

[grannymh]

This sounds like the CC actually does not make a claim about the genetic perfection of Adam.

I don’t know why you did, then. You’re just speculating? Winging it?

You have that one almost right.

There is a huge difference between an officially declared dogma and a claim. There will never be an official dogma regarding genetics per se.

On the other hand there will be plenty of claims that a particular genetic theory is opposed to a specific Catholic Doctrine and there will be plenty of claims that a particular genetic theory supports specific Catholic Doctrine.

Now to what I claimed in post 170: “Actually, my very brief review of scientific literature indicates that the environment definitely could have influenced the generations following Adam. Maybe you saw references to how changes in environment affected* pre*-humans in the PBS special on the origin theory of humans.”

I remember starting a post regarding pristine genetics in Adam and Eve and the next few generations but I thought I deleted it. Do you recall if it was posted instead of being deleted? I know I used the word pristine and not perfection.

So if we can come to the same conclusion about the difference between a dogma and a claim, I can move on to what would follow as a reasonable speculation and what the Catholic Church considers reasonable teaching which follows in a reasonable manner from Divine Revelation.

The only problem left is what should be my claim.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

From the article:

…There is no reason to worry – unless you are a physicist or astronomer and don’t want to change the model of the universe we have today. But Sveneric Johansson thinks that the results are more exciting than troublesome.

I read that part, but it has to be read in conjunction with the previous paragraph. Yes, if the findings are true they would drastically alter the current scientific picture but not as drastically as would be required to change the age of the universe from 13.5 billion years to the several thousand years that protestant literalism demands. I don’t know if that’s your thing or not, but in any event one can’t just cherry pick from anomalous findings here and there. I expect that the scientific picture of the universe will change many times in our lifetimes, that is the way of science. But no science could proceed at all unless the world was structured in an orderly fashion-by God- so that man, with effort, could understand it.

 

[buffalo]

I expect that the scientific picture of the universe will change many times in our lifetimes, that is the way of science. But no science could proceed at all unless the world was structured in an orderly fashion-by God- so that man, with effort, could understand it.

.

Well that is an interesting admission It is agreed that science is provisional.

Revelation is not.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

From the article:

…There is no reason to worry – unless you are a physicist or astronomer and don’t want to change the model of the universe we have today. But Sveneric Johansson thinks that the results are more exciting than troublesome.

Also I made an error in a previous post. I mean to write “the speed of light is a universal constant.” I misread what you wrote there.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

.

Well that is an interesting admission It is agreed that science is provisional.

Revelation is not.

Hardly any scientist or philosopher on earth denies that science is “provisional”. That doesn’t mean that you can simply graft Revelation onto the world of facts. Revelation does not tell us “how the heavens go” etc. Science, when used properly, does. One cannot move directly from theology to scientific fact. They have to be done separately, by their own methods, and then synthesized in a manner that is respectful to the methods and aims of both. We know, from Revelation, that God has created the universe ex nihilo and that he has created man with a spiritual soul. But that does not get us an inch closer to knowing how it happened.

 

[grannymh]

Hardly any scientist or philosopher on earth denies that science is “provisional”. That doesn’t mean that you can simply graft Revelation onto the world of facts. Revelation does not tell us “how the heavens go” etc. Science, when used properly, does. One cannot move directly from theology to scientific fact. They have to be done separately, by their own methods, and then synthesized in a manner that is respectful to the methods and aims of both. We know, from Revelation, that God has created the universe ex nihilo and that he has created man with a spiritual soul. But that does not get us an inch closer to knowing how it happened.

Regarding the last sentence above: “But that does not get us an inch closer to knowing how it happened” The true difficulty today is that there are very many people who believe how (why) it did not happen. Therefore, there is so much talk about figurative representation of events.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Regarding the last sentence above: “But that does not get us an inch closer to knowing how it happened” The true difficulty today is that there are very many people who believe how (why) it did not happen. Therefore, there is so much talk about figurative representation of events.

Well I certainly agree that atheism is on the rise, but I do not think science is the reason. There has been an enormous breakdown in the intellectual infrastructure (so to speak) of our society. There’s this dichotomy between empirical and ontological/phenomenal truth that wasn’t an issue for intellectuals of previous ages. I think perhaps the public school system is to blame, but I really don’t know. In any event, every important Catholic thinker (from Origen to Suarez and beyond) has emphasized the different senses of scripture. Indeed, the trend in the early Church was much more toward figurative interpretation (at least of the Old Testament). Both Aquinas and Augustine emphasized the importance of not confusing these things. I think that some Catholics have uncritically accepted (or are leaning towards) an innapropriate (and really un-Catholic) literalism in reaction to this rise in widespread skepticism. But we cannot allow ourselves to fall into that trap.

 

[buffalo]

Hardly any scientist or philosopher on earth denies that science is “provisional”. That doesn’t mean that you can simply graft Revelation onto the world of facts. Revelation does not tell us “how the heavens go” etc. Science, when used properly, does. One cannot move directly from theology to scientific fact. They have to be done separately, by their own methods, and then synthesized in a manner that is respectful to the methods and aims of both. We know, from Revelation, that God has created the universe ex nihilo and that he has created man with a spiritual soul. But that does not get us an inch closer to knowing how it happened.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Science is a subset of reason. The observations are reasoned. But our reasoning should be illuminated by truth (revelation).

Another way - Revelation gives us a clear direction in our pursuit of knowledge. A compass so to speak.

 

[buffalo]

Well I certainly agree that atheism is on the rise, but I do not think science is the reason. There has been an enormous breakdown in the intellectual infrastructure (so to speak) of our society. There’s this dichotomy between empirical and ontological/phenomenal truth that wasn’t an issue for intellectuals of previous ages. I think perhaps the public school system is to blame, but I really don’t know. In any event, every important Catholic thinker (from Origen to Suarez and beyond) has emphasized the different senses of scripture. Indeed, the trend in the early Church was much more toward figurative interpretation (at least of the Old Testament). Both Aquinas and Augustine emphasized the importance of not confusing these things. I think that some Catholics have uncritically accepted (or are leaning towards) an innapropriate (and really un-Catholic) literalism in reaction to this rise in widespread skepticism. But we cannot allow ourselves to fall into that trap.

I propose that mandatory philosophy and metaphysics be taught to all students. And science class should only teach empirical science.

 

[grannymh]

Well I certainly agree that atheism is on the rise, but I do not think science is the reason. There has been an enormous breakdown in the intellectual infrastructure (so to speak) of our society. There’s this dichotomy between empirical and ontological/phenomenal truth that wasn’t an issue for intellectuals of previous ages. I think perhaps the public school system is to blame, but I really don’t know. In any event, every important Catholic thinker (from Origen to Suarez and beyond) has emphasized the different senses of scripture. Indeed, the trend in the early Church was much more toward figurative interpretation (at least of the Old Testament). Both Aquinas and Augustine emphasized the importance of not confusing these things. I think that some Catholics have uncritically accepted (or are leaning towards) an innapropriate (and really un-Catholic) literalism in reaction to this rise in widespread skepticism. But we cannot allow ourselves to fall into that trap.

Personally, I go by the Catechism’s directions regarding Scripture interpretation via literal or figurative or whatever.

As a basic evolutionist, with the exception of the human species, I support science.
What I am seeing in the younger generations is the inability to learn something that is beyond the limits of the scientific realm. Adam and Eve become symbolic, sin is symbolic and how can a piece of bread be anything but symbolic. So what is the big deal about attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday? Science becomes a crutch.

Regarding Adam and Eve. There is an Achilles heel in the assumptions of modern science regarding the origin of the human species. Knowing this, I continue to defend Adam and Eve as being the sole parents of humanity just like the Catholic Church teaches.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Science is a subset of reason. The observations are reasoned. But our reasoning should be illuminated by truth (revelation).

Another way - Revelation gives us a clear direction in our pursuit of knowledge. A compass so to speak.

No disagreement there.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I propose that mandatory philosophy and metaphysics be taught to all students. And science class should only teach empirical science.

I would love to see these things taught in schools, and logic as well.

 

[larkin31]

You have that one almost right.

There is a huge difference between an officially declared dogma and a claim. There will never be an official dogma regarding genetics per se.

On the other hand there will be plenty of claims that a particular genetic theory is opposed to a specific Catholic Doctrine and there will be plenty of claims that a particular genetic theory supports specific Catholic Doctrine.

Now to what I claimed in post 170: “Actually, my very brief review of scientific literature indicates that the environment definitely could have influenced the generations following Adam. Maybe you saw references to how changes in environment affected* pre*-humans in the PBS special on the origin theory of humans.”

I remember starting a post regarding pristine genetics in Adam and Eve and the next few generations but I thought I deleted it. Do you recall if it was posted instead of being deleted? I know I used the word pristine and not perfection.

So if we can come to the same conclusion about the difference between a dogma and a claim, I can move on to what would follow as a reasonable speculation and what the Catholic Church considers reasonable teaching which follows in a reasonable manner from Divine Revelation…

“perfect” was the word you used. But even if it were “pristine,” I simply want to know what you mean scientifically.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

What I am seeing in the younger generations is the inability to learn something that is beyond the limits of the scientific realm. Adam and Eve become symbolic, sin is symbolic and how can a piece of bread be anything but symbolic. So what is the big deal about attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday? Science becomes a crutch.
.

I agree with much of what you said Granny, but I don’t really see that science as such is the reason that some people think the Eucharist is symbolic and I’m not sure what you mean by sin being seen as ‘symbolic’. In the case of the Eucharist, I think this has more to do with priests who are too wimpy to teach the faith from the pulpit (or who have effectively lost their faith) and bishops who deliberately undermine the faith. When I was a kid we attended a great historic parish in Maryland which was bursting with faithful Catholics…that is until the bishop ordered that no one be allowed to receive the Eucharist on his knees at the communion rail. He also removed the statues of Mary and Joseph and the marble side altars upon which they stood. These same bishops promote a left-wing political agenda and rule over priests who almost never mention the sacraments or sin during homilies. What are people from my generation to do? We’ve heard more sermons about the “virtue” of coercive wealth redistribution than about the personal duty of charity. It’s obvious that high ranking people in the Church no longer believe, so why should the young (already badly catechized) make the effort?

I think most people do believe in sin, even non-Christians. But there’s a lot of effective propaganda out there to the effect that this, that and the other thing is not really a sin. Hollywood and the music industry push a lot of art and music which is very catchy and very corrupt. Meanwhile, Christians create very little music or film that is really good enough to be watchable. The real issue in my opinion is not that science is a big deal–most scientists for the last 400 years have been Christians! No the problem is that the culture has changed and people no longer take the Church seriously…and I’m sorry to say that it’s partly because the Church doesn’t seem to take itself seriously. I know that that’s a broad statement and sort of a change of subject, but I think that’s what is really wrong.

Best Regards

RothbardCatholic

 

[larkin31]

I would love to see these things taught in schools, and logic as well.

These are taught at my high school, but they are not mandatory.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

These are taught at my high school, but they are not mandatory.

Wow, that’s excellent

 

[grannymh]

I agree with much of what you said Granny, but I don’t really see that science as such is the reason that some people think the Eucharist is symbolic and I’m not sure what you mean by sin being seen as ‘symbolic’.

Briefly, I have never intended to indicate science as such to do anything as such.
Later on, I will go back and see how that was implicated in what I wrote and correct it. I will also find the post where I gave the modern names for sin. Due to the fallout principle, the reverse becomes that “sin” is the symbol for these modern euphemisms. One could also say that the current misunderstanding of sin and other Catholic teachings is due to the *domino" principle. Or if one tends toward philosophical explanations, one could say that the relationship between the philosophy of materialisn (which knocks out Adam and Eve) and today’s various forms of relativism, including American humanism is a cause of sin being a symbol of what the community (not God) sees as wrong. Now, if one connects the dots, one can go back to Adam and Eve as non-real.

The real issue in my opinion is not that science is a big deal–most scientists for the last 400 years have been Christians!

Science is science. The real issue is the way science is being interpreted. I truly wish I could find a way to get the idea across that it is the interpretation which is causing the problem.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.