Adam & Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Granny,

Do you believe we need assurances or do we need truth?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Dear Granny,

Do you believe we need assurances or do we need truth?
Click to expand...
The logic of descending from *one *Adam is assurance that each one of us is actually automatically loved by God. The Catholic Church presents the **truth **of Divine Revelation that one Adam and his spouse are the sole founders of humankind. I believe that both assurance and truth are needed in our 21st century. This belief is based on hundreds of posts I have read since November 2008.
 
grannymh said:
The logic of descending from *one *Adam is assurance that each one of us is actually automatically loved by God. The Catholic Church presents the **truth **of Divine Revelation that one Adam and his spouse are the sole founders of humankind. I believe that both assurance and truth are needed in our 21st century. This belief is based on hundreds of posts I have read since November 2008.
Click to expand...
I have questions for you in PM if you are willing. Not appropriate here.
 
StrawberryJam said:
What makes intuitive sense to us does not make truth. Making a better story does not make the story true.,
Click to expand...
How do you proof truth? Borrowing from Occam’s Razor thinking, this is the simpler story to tell. It doesn’t make it untrue either. Why would one select something that makes less intuitive sense over one that makes more intuitive sense? Why would I go with Darwin when evidence does not support it? Should I continue to look for my missing evidence in a dark unlit road over another road which is brightly lighted?
 
ericc said:
How do you proof truth? Borrowing from Occam’s Razor thinking, this is the simpler story to tell. It doesn’t make it untrue either. Why would one select something that makes less intuitive sense over one that makes more intuitive sense? Why would I go with Darwin when evidence does not support it? Should I continue to look for my missing evidence in a dark unlit road over another road which is brightly lighted?
Click to expand...
Occam’s Razor or parsimony math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

brings to mind the many ways we can examine the natural environment around us. However, it appears to me that philosophy adds to the beauty of our human nature when it reasons to the existence of the spiritual.

Thinking about Ericc’s last sentence in post 141, “Should I continue to look for my missing evidence in a dark unlit road over another road which is brightly lighted?” – I instinctively want to add that the “missing evidence” of real first human parents is found in the infinite brightness of our Creator God. Understanding God’s infinite power is what lights our path to real knowledge of human nature. There is only one God; none stands beside Him. Yet, at the same time, God creates a creature of the material world who is capable of sharing in God’s life through knowledge and love.

All scientific exploration from archaeology to zoology remains restricted to the material/physical universe, including its material/physical living organisms from amoebas to zebras. It is Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Who definitively proves that the human person is also a spiritual being, a species beyond all others. His victory over human death can be considered the logical proof for human nature which is both a decomposing material anatomy and a rational spiritual soul.

Because material whatevers cannot produce the spirituality of God, only God can begin a species with a spiritual principle. Because this spiritual principle, i.e., soul is so unique and super-natural, it follows that the unity of the human species has to come from two, sole, uniquely fully-complete human parents in existence.
 
ericc said:
How do you proof truth? Borrowing from Occam’s Razor thinking, this is the simpler story to tell. It doesn’t make it untrue either. Why would one select something that makes less intuitive sense over one that makes more intuitive sense? Why would I go with Darwin when evidence does not support it? Should I continue to look for my missing evidence in a dark unlit road over another road which is brightly lighted?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but the evidence is in. Evolution by Natural Selection is based on evidence, the best evidence that exists.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I’m sorry but the evidence is in. Evolution by Natural Selection is based on evidence, the best evidence that exists.
Click to expand...
I hope this is simply an intellectual disagreement and that I did not hear a door closing to a universe of eternal wonder. If it is to be the latter, remember the door locks from the inside.
 
Aloysium said:
I hope this is simply an intellectual disagreement and that I did not hear a door closing to a universe of eternal wonder. If it is to be the latter, remember the door locks from the inside.
Click to expand...
Ask Ken Miller if any doors were locked for him.🙂
 
hicetnunc said:
I can see why you think that! But there is a significant difference between Humean empiricism and the Aristotelian/Thomistic principle that “all knowledge begins in the senses”. For Hume, knowledge begins and ends in sense experience; whereas for Thomas all knowledge begins in sense knowledge, but does not terminate in sense knowledge (we are capable of metaphysical conclusions). We can, for example, move from the observation of things in motion to the understanding that there is an Unmoved Mover, etc.

If our knowledge did not begin in sense experience, we would be committed to holding that the human person is endowed with either innate knowledge at birth, or unmediated infused knowledge. Thomas does allow for the possibility of infused knowledge, but that even infused knowledge will involve phantasm or language, both of which are derived from experience and abstraction from experience.

As for the knowledge of Adam, Thomas says that his knowledge of God was not unmediated or immediate, but was knowledge obtained through the created order (De Veritate, q18).

Hope that makes sense…
Click to expand...
Hi Hic,

Yes, very interesting topic. In regard to your comment here, we also have ( De Veritate, q 17, art II, Reply, right at the end)

" Accordingly, there were thus in man two kinds of knowledge of God, one, by which he knew God as the angels do, through an internal inspiration; the other, by which he knew God as we do, through sensible creatures. However, this second knowledge of his differed from our knowledge as the investigation of one who has the habit of a science and proceeds from things he knows to a consideration of things which he had once known differs from the investigation of one who is learning and strives to proceed from what he knows to things which he does not know. However, we cannot have knowledge of God any other way except by coming to know Him from creatures. But Adam, who already knew God in a different way, that is, through an internal inspiration, also possessed a knowledge of Him from creatures. "

So it would seem that the knowledge Adam and Eve had of God, was of two sorts, that by inference from created beings and that by Divine inspiration, as was had by the innocent Angels.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Hi Hic,

Yes, very interesting topic. In regard to your comment here, we also have ( De Veritate, q 17, art II, Reply, right at the end)

" Accordingly, there were thus in man two kinds of knowledge of God, one, by which he knew God as the angels do, through an internal inspiration; the other, by which he knew God as we do, through sensible creatures. However, this second knowledge of his differed from our knowledge as the investigation of one who has the habit of a science and proceeds from things he knows to a consideration of things which he had once known differs from the investigation of one who is learning and strives to proceed from what he knows to things which he does not know. However, we cannot have knowledge of God any other way except by coming to know Him from creatures. But Adam, who already knew God in a different way, that is, through an internal inspiration, also possessed a knowledge of Him from creatures. "

So it would seem that the knowledge Adam and Eve had of God, was of two sorts, that by inference from created beings and that by Divine inspiration, as was had by the innocent Angels.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Why not just post the dogma and end all of the discussions?
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Hi Hic,

Yes, very interesting topic. In regard to your comment here, we also have ( De Veritate, q 17, art II, Reply, right at the end)

" Accordingly, there were thus in man two kinds of knowledge of God, one, by which he knew God as the angels do, through an internal inspiration; the other, by which he knew God as we do, through sensible creatures. However, this second knowledge of his differed from our knowledge as the investigation of one who has the habit of a science and proceeds from things he knows to a consideration of things which he had once known differs from the investigation of one who is learning and strives to proceed from what he knows to things which he does not know. However, we cannot have knowledge of God any other way except by coming to know Him from creatures. But Adam, who already knew God in a different way, that is, through an internal inspiration, also possessed a knowledge of Him from creatures. "

So it would seem that the knowledge Adam and Eve had of God, was of two sorts, that by inference from created beings and that by Divine inspiration, as was had by the innocent Angels.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
It seems to me that knowledge of God by Divine inspiration would be due to the fact that Adam was created in the state of original holiness and justice. As we read the first chapters of Genesis, we find that Adam’s knowledge of God is personal and that God is personal with Adam. There is no indication that a crowd was present when God communicated with Adam and then with Adam’s spouse, Eve.
 
grannymh said:
It seems to me that knowledge of God by Divine inspiration would be due to the fact that Adam was created in the state of original holiness and justice. As we read the first chapters of Genesis, we find that Adam’s knowledge of God is personal and that God is personal with Adam. There is no indication that a crowd was present when God communicated with Adam and then with Adam’s spouse, Eve.
Click to expand...
There is an idea that there were more than just Adam and Eve around just reading Genesis your fave.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Why not just post the dogma and end all of the discussions?
Click to expand...
I would be happy to but I don’t know any dogma about that particular point. But it is part of the ordinary teaching of the Church that Adam and Eve possesed an Infused knowledge of God, their Supernatural End, and how they may obtain their Supernatural End. This is commonly known as Sententia Communis ( a truth held by most Catholic Theologians).

And they also held a heightened ability to infer from creation many philosophical truths in a perfect manner due to the fact that their intellect held perfect sway over their lower natures. Their reasoning powers in their state of innocence and grace were so far superior to human reasoning power after the fall, that they could be regarded as perfect and flawless. Thus their natural knowledge of God through inference and reasoning was as perfect as was possible to human nature unhampered by concupiscience.

These things are what Thomas was teaching in De Vertatae, Q17,II, Reply. and in q. 18

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I would be happy to but I don’t know any dogma about that particular point. But it is part of the ordinary teaching of the Church that Adam and Eve possesed an Infused knowledge of God, their Supernatural End, and how they may obtain their Supernatural End. This is commonly known as Sententia Communis ( a truth held by most Catholic Theologians).

And they also held a heightened ability to infer from creation many philosophical truths in a perfect manner due to the fact that their intellect held perfect sway over their lower natures. Their reasoning powers in their state of innocence and grace were so far superior to human reasoning power after the fall, that they could be regarded as perfect and flawless. Thus their natural knowledge of God through inference and reasoning was as perfect as was possible to human nature unhampered by concupiscience.

This is what Thomas was teaching in De Vertatae, 17,II, Reply.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You mean there isn’t anything at all requiring one to believe in the first parents being Adam and Eve?
I am sorry but I am limited to going any farther than this in replying to you as the science of Evolution by Natural Selection is a banned topic.
 
StrawberryJam said:
You mean there isn’t anything at all requiring one to believe in the first parents being Adam and Eve?
I am sorry but I am limited to going any farther than this in replying to you as the science of Evolution by Natural Selection is a banned topic.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no limit, but please provide us with the e. theory upholded as truth in 2100…or 2200. I bet in the end it will be the Adam and Eve story…Prove me wrong…
 
StrawberryJam said:
You mean there isn’t anything at all requiring one to believe in the first parents being Adam and Eve?
I am sorry but I am limited to going any farther than this in replying to you as the science of Evolution by Natural Selection is a banned topic.
Click to expand...
Apparently, there is some confusion about the content of post 152 by Linusthe2nd.

The truth of Divine Revelation is that Adam and Eve are the two, sole, real, fully-complete, only, first parents or first founders of humankind. This true fact will always be part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Obviously, Adam started life in relationship with God the Creator, which means that Adam knew God and he knew the limits of his own creature status. The nitty-gritty of Adam’s working mind is not spelled out in detail in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Post 152 and previous posts were discussing possible explanations as to how Adam knew what he knew. St. Thomas Aquinas also had the same curiosity and he wrote out what was reasonable. At this point, it is important to realize that not every word out of the mouth of Early Church Fathers and Saints automatically becomes Catholic doctrines. Consequently, details about Adam’s thinking processes are not Catholic doctrines. The existence of two sole human parents, biblically known as Adam and Eve, are a reality and thus their existence is a Catholic doctrine.

What I personally find rewarding about the discussion of Adam’s knowledge is that it is a reasonable explanation of why Adam was fully capable of committing the very serious Original Sin. Too often, I see posts claiming that because Adam was pure or innocent, he was dumb. Catholic doctrine is that Adam, with full knowledge, freely and deliberately chose to go against God by disobeying his Creator’s commandment.
We, too, can freely choose to deny God because we have the same basic human nature as our first parent. Even though, because of Adam’s sin, our human nature is wounded, we still remain capable of choosing to live in God’s eternal love.
 
StrawberryJam said:
You mean there isn’t anything at all requiring one to believe in the first parents being Adam and Eve?
I am sorry but I am limited to going any farther than this in replying to you as the science of Evolution by Natural Selection is a banned topic.
Click to expand...
This was not the point at issue and even if it was it would be O.K, to speak of it.

But since you asked here are the references: If you have a copy of " The Catholic Catechism " by the Servant of God, Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., you will find it on pgs 92 & 94. The first is from a speech by Pius XII, " An Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences ( Nov 30, 1941): you will find it in Denzinger # 2285; also in the encyclical Humani Generis; Denzinger, 2327 { alternate numbering 3896}.

The second is from Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, # 4. Denzinger 1797 ( alternate numbering 3017 ).

Won’t have time to give details until this evening.

Linus2nd
 
grannymh said:
It seems to me that knowledge of God by Divine inspiration would be due to the fact that Adam was created in the state of original holiness and justice. As we read the first chapters of Genesis, we find that Adam’s knowledge of God is personal and that God is personal with Adam. There is no indication that a crowd was present when God communicated with Adam and then with Adam’s spouse, Eve.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Thomas would dispute that, in fact that does seem to be the only justification for such inspiration. And I think we would have to distinguish this type of inspiration ( fruit of contemplation) from the ordinary inspiration we occasionally have. There must have been something very compelling about it, perhaps something like the Visions the Saints have sometimes had.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top