Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

No, I think irrelevancy is here, now. In a way, the know-nothings are correct, and Haught is wrong - I do not believe this knot can be untied, particularly if no one is officially trying to untie it. People indeed will not accept a religion that claims truth but requires them to ignore facts…but for Catholics I see no alternative.

Basically, it is not all the general biology and paleoanthropology sciences which present a problem. It is specific assumptions which challenge authentic Catholic doctrine. Here is a current informative link to the Catholic position.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[Zipply]

Grannymh,

That is a scientifically illiterate and wishful article.

Further, unless you know something I don’t about the various bans on discussing evolution in this forum, it seems that linking that article may be against the rules. Suffice to say that if one takes that position (which must not be named) against the other (which must not be named) then indeed the faith becomes irrelevant in the sight of the rest of humanity, because nothing, ever, in the natural world came from one breeding pair. That’s simply miraculous and has nothing to do with nature. That’s exactly, precisely the same as denying evolution (oops, I named it).

Catholics can wish science away all they want (your article does) and give lip service to ‘faith and reason’ but it’s not really possible.

 

[grannymh]

For general information.

Post 1 set the following guidelines for this thread.
Up front, I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *

Two very basic truths are 1. God as Creator exists. and 2. God as Creator interacts with human beings. If someone wishes to debate these two truths, that discussion belongs in another thread.

Natural science is a gift from God which benefits society especially in the medical arena. Obviously, there is a search for natural science knowledge. This search is based on the scientific (inductive) method. Google can be used as a source of information about the inductive method. Again obviously, science must be conducted properly. On the other hand, Catholic doctrines must be properly understood. When this occurs, there is no war between true science and Divine Revelation.

The obvious source of current difficulties regarding some scientific assumptions going thousands of years backwards is that the realm of science is the material/physical world and the realm of God is the spiritual world. God as Creator is the source of both worlds. When a scientific hypothesis challenges authentic Catholic doctrines, Divine Revelation trumps. Recall that the Catholic Church is the basic source of information for this thread.

The point is not that the Catholic Church is an appeal to authority or that there is circular reasoning; the point is that it is valuable to understand Catholicism. The Catholic Church does not define basic scientific truths. Individual Catholics have the same freedom as non-Catholics regarding the definitions of scientific truths. The Catholic Church did not sponsor the Human Genome Project; yet, Catholics use this project in further research. It should be obvious that this Project dealt with the decomposing physical human anatomy and not the rational spiritual soul.

Granted that there are people who deny the presence of the spiritual as part of human nature for this or that reason. However, this thread looks at Adam as having a fully-complete human nature which is soul and body. We need to keep in mind that this or that “scientific” theory of human origin cannot slice off the spiritual just because the spiritual is in a different realm.

 

[Zipply]

GrannyMH,

Thank you for making my point about irrelevancy. When we Catholics divide faith from reason and posit two separate realms of truth, the world ignores or hates us and our faith.

Again obviously, science must be conducted properly. On the other hand, Catholic doctrines must be properly understood. When this occurs, there is no war between true science and Divine Revelation.

Saying that something must be done is not the same as doing it. Catholic doctrine states that Adam was the unique biological father of all the living. Science has discovered that this is as near impossible as makes no odds. Of course no Catholic is capable of explaining exactly how to understand doctrine or, alternately, how science has misunderstood it’s data, to make these compatible.

It was not I who brought biology nor dialectical theology into this thread. That happens organically every time Adam is discussed, because everyone running on all cylinders recognizes the problem. We are irrelevant now, and we will continue to be irrelevant to exactly those people 4 consecutive popes have targeted for a. ‘New evangelization’ while this difficulty remains with us.

 

[grannymh]

GrannyMH,

Thank you for making my point about irrelevancy. When we Catholics divide faith from reason and posit two separate realms of truth, the world ignores or hates us and our faith.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, I will simply point out that human persons, starting with Adam and including us as his descendants, have a distinct human nature.

Our species is peerless among millions of species on planet earth. Thus, it becomes difficult to transfer the science of plants and ants to a species which is particularly called to share in God’s life here and in joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

Catholic teachings are direct and specific when it comes to human nature per se.
For example, one of the foundational Catholic doctrines is that in our own nature, *both *the spiritual world and the material world are united. Isn’t that interesting!

As I clearly said in post 398 – “On the other hand, Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.” A simple suggestion for interested people is to open the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition to page 91, paragraph 355 and keep reading and learning the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

Links to the real teachings of the Catholic Church

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Zipply]

Granny -

What are you saying? I know what I’m saying : para 390-409 of the CCC is the point at issue. If you think a ‘proper understanding’ of these teaching removes the apparent difficulties posed by scientific research, then don’t be coy. Explain it to us so we are no longer afflicted by these difficulties.

Go ahead.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . Catholic doctrine states that Adam was the unique biological father of all the living. Science has discovered that this is as near impossible as makes no odds. . . .

If you are to make such outlandish statements, you should reference any paper outlining two things:

• the scientific understanding of spirit and
• how it is impossible that an omnipotent God could not influence genetics in such a way that our assumptions, in carrying out simulations of what occurred, must be true/cannot be wrong.
  While you’re at it, if you could summarize the scientific explanation for:
• the miracle of the loaves and fishes,
• Jesus’ rising from the dead and
• the Eucharist, being the body and blood of Christ.
  What you call science is mere conjecture on the flimsiest, misunderstood and misapplied evidence.
  I fear we will be treading on areas, which for good reason, should be avoided.
  If you are a scientist working in the field of genetics and anthropology, you might have something interesting to add to these conversations.
  If you are simply reciting “dogma” from textbooks and lecture halls that you had to accept to advance in your studies, you are restating what we have all been fed. Thanks.

Just noticed you indicate you have no religious. I wouldn’t have bothered. Since it’s written, here it is anyway.

 

[cfauster]

Not sure if this will help anyone else, but the following helped me. At the bottom I give a link to the source. It is not specifically Catholic. Nonetheless, it might be consistent with Catholic doctrine. I’ll let my Catholic sisters and brothers in Christ make that determination:

Some among us think there are legitimate biblical and theological reasons for believing there was a real Adam in history who served in a representative capacity for all human beings. Science has nothing to say about that; it’s just not a scientific issue.

[There are] two drivers for people to believe in a historical Adam: biblical authority and Adam’s role in our understanding of salvation.

Regarding the first, many seem to think that the authority of Scripture hangs in the balance here and treat it as though it were a collection of “true but miscellaneous information” or “an early version of the Encyclopædia Britannica.” … It is not a collection of timeless truths to which all people everywhere and every time must intellectually assent in order to be saved. It is the dynamic means through which God transforms people into Christ-followers no matter what their context.

It is possible that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids to be representatives of the entire human race. God’s purpose of making all of creation a place of delight and joy and order was to take place through them. But they failed and “abdicate[d] their image-bearing vocation and follow[ed] the siren call of the elements of chaos still within creation." Instead of reflecting the glory of God back to creation, through their sin of worshiping created things they ended up reflecting death to the rest of the world. It was Jesus who became the obedient human … even to death on a cross.

The source of the above quotation is a review of NT Wright’s book Surprised by Scripture: biologos.org/blog/nt-wright-and-the-historical-adam-reviewing-surprised-by-scripture-part-2

 

[simpleas]

what i understand you are saying is:

• his relationship with god seems no different than our own.
• we do not each, have a unique relationship with god
• he had the same abilities that everyone has
• he was unable to do the “right thing”
  i must say i do not agree with any of it.

How would you describe Adam and Eve’s relationship to God as closer than yours?

Maybe thats because you were born with a wounded nature, although one could image what the first complete non wounded human nature would be capable of, especially as we strive to become more united with God and the effects of that unity should show in how we treat each other, or else it’s all in the mind.

Yes Adam was intelligent, didn’t have concupiscence, never knew pain, or experienced death, yet he was aware of all these things happening should he disobey, but only intellectually, he had never experienced it all.
Being more spiritual than we are, who need not experience something in order to know it will harm us or another, he was in capable of obeying God’s command.

So again, how was Adam’s relationship with God more unique than ours?

PS :
I tried using the quote feature, as you’ll notice I still haven’t worked it out…story of my life!!

 

[Zipply]

Aloysium,

I’m catholic. A convert from the Southern Baptist group. I didn’t realize I was required to fill in all boxes in order to be responded to. You should feel free to avoid me, I don’t like your attitude.

The popes, starting with Pius XII specifically allow a belief in human evolution (this is what pre-existent animal matter is) which Catholics often point to prove how reasonable they are - but this freedom to believe in human evolution is illusory.

Unless one holds a child’s fairy-tale understanding of evolution (which some here seem to) then the idea of a first pair of humans ‘evolving’ at a discrete moment in history is non-sensical.

What the catechism describes is miraculous, plain and simple.

It has no actual relation to evolution at all. I tend to think this is due to a lack of understanding of biology in the Vatican. I’ve spent time in Rone, and know men formed over the last decades at Santa Croce and the Gregorian and San Anselmo. For North American men, these are the prime institutions of formation. None of them reports the subject of Adam, or polygenesis, or human evolution even being brought up.

In that environment, is it any surprise that the Vatican has engaged in some non-dogmatic nonsense?

What the dogmas insist on is special creation of the bodies of Adam and Eve. There is no actual other option, and to say that Catholjcs are free to believe in human evolution is to vastly misunderstand what ‘human evolution’ is, which is tremendously gradual genetic change of a viable breeding population separated from other breeding populations.

If you hold some fantasy about evolution producing two humans, by themselves, capable of breeding only with themselves, then you are ignorant of the topic. The only process capable of simultaneously producing two unique individuals, genetically speciated from their parents but capable of breeding with each other is a miracle.

Why this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me. It is also dogmatic that A&E had the preternatural gifts, and that also requires a miracle, since any non-human parents would have not had them.

Catholicism and human evolution simply aren’t compatible.

 

[Aloysium]

Simpleas:
You write: “having this unique relationship with God, he was still incapable of obeying 100%”

He was not “incapable” of obeying; he chose not to. We have free will.

1 Cor 13:2 - If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Love involves the giving of oneself to God and each other. It is not forced by knowledge or fear. It can only be freely given.
Satan would be far, far more intelligent and knowledgeable than any human being. He chose as we did.

 

[grannymh]

Granny -

What are you saying? I know what I’m saying : para 390-409 of the CCC is the point at issue. If you think a ‘proper understanding’ of these teaching removes the apparent difficulties posed by scientific research, then don’t be coy. Explain it to us so we are no longer afflicted by these difficulties.

Go ahead.

In post 400, I said…
I have now put in bold the starting point for the logic of Adam. If you wish, you could also check Genesis 1; 26-31.
As I clearly said in post 398 – “On the other hand, Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.” A simple suggestion for interested people is to open the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition to** page 91, paragraph 355** and keep reading and learning the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

Thank you sincerely for your comments.

They have given me an idea of which road I need to travel first. This thread is named Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition. For those who are interested in Adam, this is the link to the original thread in the Philosophy Forum. It now has 58,324 views. It was closed when the 1,000 post limit was reached.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785994

What I am thinking, is that I should start with CCC 355 and demonstrate its logic based on two truths, 1. God as Creator exists and .2. God as Creator interacts with human beings,

 

[grannymh]

Attention:

Warning!

It is possible to speak respectfully about Catholic doctrines without violating this ban.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads at the top of this forum.

I truly hope that I will have the opportunity to share what I have learned off CAF regarding the intersection of natural science and Catholicism. I cannot do this in the midst of current misinformation which will eventually lead to the thread’s closure.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Catholicism and human evolution simply aren’t compatible.

You have a choice then.

BTW: Catholicism and good science that does not exceed its mandate are 100% compatable.

When you see something in the environment that is three-sided, you think triangle. That triangle is in the mind and in nature - it is an expression of the relationship between oneself and the object (both of which are mysteries).

When I look into the sky and “see” all the stars, the galaxies, the Hubble images I am doing the same thing.
When I look up and see the blue vault, I am doing the same thing.
In my mind I “see” the sun, which is in a fixed position visually, as the centre around which the earth revolves.
All these emerge out the the relationship I have with the world of which I am a part.

You have decided how it is that we came to be and have an explanation, a description of it in your mind.

When some people think of man emerging from the dirt, they imagine the dirt did so spontaneously, on its own power and influenced only by whatever the dirt around it was doing.
People put this together ignoring not only what has been revealed, which they do not have to accept, but also the very reality of their own individual existence, which is not of the dirt.
Creation was a miracle. The ongoing existence of creation is a miracle.
Scientific theories based on very limited, incorrect and essentially biased assumptions, which will ultimately be debunked, are more than simply idle speculation;
possibly leading one away from the truth, they are dangerous lies.

 

[Zipply]

I presume Grannymh is not a moderator, but just likes to act like one.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Catholic doctrines must be properly understood." A simple suggestion for interested people is to open the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition to** page 91, paragraph 355** and keep reading and learning the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. . . demonstrate its logic based on two truths, 1. God as Creator exists and .2. God as Creator interacts with human beings,

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”
Man occupies a unique place in creation:
(I) he is “in the** image of God**”;
(II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds;
(III) he is created “male and female”;
(IV) God established him in his friendship.

The next line in the Catechism:
336 - Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

:twocents:

God, transcendant Being, Creator of all time and space, the heavens, light and darkness,
He made us in His image and became flesh that we may,
through the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of the Lamb, join in the eternal love and joy, that He is.

Satan made known our choice, the possibility, as illusory as it truly is, that we might be gods, in opposition to God.
All that the world can offer, in the absence of love, is empty and a lie.
All the money, all the power, all the fame and honour, all the pleasure,
if not returned in helping one another, in glorifying God, will reveal itself to be nothing.
What is given and returned in charity, will increase ten fold; what is not will be taken.
The absolutely real wealth is in love.

It is now, through our brokenness, that we come to know what is of value, that we learn to love one another.
With Christ as our Way, again we walk with God, back to the eternal life we rejected at our beginning.

 

[simpleas]

Simpleas:
You write: “having this unique relationship with God, he was still incapable of obeying 100%”

He was not “incapable” of obeying; he chose not to. We have free will.

Love involves the giving of oneself to God and each other. It is not forced by knowledge or fear. It can only be freely given.
Satan would be far, far more intelligent and knowledgeable than any human being. He chose as we did.

Adam had the gifts that should have helped him to obey and was in union with God, but these gifts were not enough, neither was his friendship with God, when tempted he fell, because he had a freewill to do so.

Satan was not a human being, so yeah he would know more, thus tempt Adam. Satan being an angel with freewill to do as he wished, then pull man down too because he was jealous of the love God had for his creatures. Yet when man fell, God still loved him, because he had given him freewill also, knowing he would fall. God couldn’t give freewill then punish Adam for using it, he was a limited being, why wouldn’t he seek or take an offer of becoming a God. He could not have been jealous or envious because he was incontrol of those sort of desires, so how could he feel tempted?

Adam having O.H he was capable of living in friendship with God, free from the wrong sort of desire that would lead to sin, yet some way the temptation desire took hold of him and he disobeyed.

That is what I mean by Adam not having a unique spiritual more than relationship with God than what we can have now. We can mimic Adam very easily, by obeying or disobeying. We have Christ to help us as on the correct path if we freely give ourselves, but just like Adam we can be tempted to go it alone.

Either Adam had all that we say he had, or he did not and still needed to learn how to remain a human being without wanting more.

So what you are saying is Adam did not love God plain and simple.

No problem, if you aren’t answering/giving thoughts on my questions, that’s fine too.

I do try to explain in writing what I’m thinking, not very good at it.

 

[cfauster]

Just a plea for patience, based on my own experience.

I sympathize with Zipply. I understand why Zipply might (if I am interpreting correctly) be expressing some exasperation.

Yet … I’ve learned to remain open to Catholic scholars with more conservative/traditional/classical views of God than my own at this time.

For example, while I’m still open to “Open Theism,” I also knew and will always greatly respect the late Ernan McMullin, whom I had the joy of meeting. In his scholarly field he was a gentle giant. Everyone respected him so much, whether they agreed entirely or not. He defended a classical view of God’s omniscience, and honestly I cannot find any fault in his logic. I’m not yet convinced he was completely right, but that could simply be because I can’t quite grasp everything in his argument. Here’s an essay, publicly and freely available, by McMullin:
cis.org.uk/upload/Resources/Creation/cosmic_purpose.pdf

Thomas C. Oden is another theologian who defends a classical view of God. He didn’t always hold such a view. In his past, he was more of a “movement theologian” enthusiastic about more modern views. His personal memoir was recently published (titled A Change of Heart). I have only read a short review of it, but apparently Oden changed his mind after careful study of Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas. And, apparently he was led to such study by a senior Jewish scholar (Will Herberg)!

Anyway, God moves in mysterious ways. So, I’m just seconding grannymh’s request for a patient and respectful dialogue. That’s one of the great things about this forum.

 

[grannymh]

Granny -

What are you saying? I know what I’m saying : para 390-409 of the CCC is the point at issue. If you think a ‘proper understanding’ of these teaching removes the apparent difficulties posed by scientific research, then don’t be coy. Explain it to us so we are no longer afflicted by these difficulties.

Go ahead.

I am aware of current difficulties in paleoanthropology due to the fossil find last year. As such, those difficulties are within the discipline and do not necessarily impact Catholic doctrines.

Please, may I respectfully inquire as to which “apparent difficulties” you are referring to? Do these difficulties deny the existence of God as Creator? Or do they deny God’s capability of interaction with His human creatures?

And may I respectfully comment that paragraphs 390-409 of the CCC do not specifically address any kind of difficulties in natural science research. I did not find citations for any journal. If I missed a citation, I would appreciate it if you would point it out.

Thank you for your kindness in helping me.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So what you are saying is Adam did not love God plain and simple. . . .

This is the nature of his act. He demonstrates a lack of trust and a wanting to be God’s equal. He liked the idea of doing whatever he wanted to do. He did not give of himself, he took what belonged to God.

God is love and to be in communion with God, one must be love. To be love, Adam would have had to return himself, his will, freely given to God, as does the Son to the Father.

It might be like finding one’s wife in bed with the neighbor and she explains that he deceived her into thinking you just wanted to keep her down and that he could make her happier than you ever could; a loving response on her part would have been to say “no”. Not “He looks good, sounds like fun; why not? it will help me grow as a person.”