Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[mulligan59]

I give up. You don’t want to understand, you want to preach. You know full well the faith I speak of is not in evolution but where God is in the process. All in all, it is to be expected. Jesus explains the rain falls on both the just and the unjust. If that is so, then it follows that the process would produce brains that deny the process as well as brains that understand it.
Go in peace, I will trouble you no more.

I knew what you meant, I just don;t get the need to beleive in it. You too, peace. All the best.

 

[mulligan59]

I challenge you to a debate on the “Evidence for Evolution” thread in “Apologetics” then.

I’ll check it out. I haven;t looked at that thread yet. How does it work? Just like this? Just post and wait for a response or are there special rules?

 

[drpmjhess]

1. This is just ridiculous. Dawkins wants to make reliogion illegal so convinced is he that it makes us stupid, he thinks it should be a crime to teach it to kids. … A professor of Theology should be able to connect these dots.
2. Intelligent Design is a cop-out because it concedes that evolution has some merit, however to say that it has no “explanatory value” is also ridiculous because it seeks to explain precisely what evolution alone cannot. How did it start, where are the transitions, what about the second law of thermodynamics?

Saying something over and over again, … does not constitute “argument”. .

Mulligan,

(1) Whether or not Dawkins wants to make religion illegal has nothing to do with evolution. I know a physicist who holds a similar view, but that doesn’t induce me to say that his views on quantum cosmology led him to atheism.

(2) What dots are there to connect? You have fabricated an interpretation of a Rorschach blot and are desirous of forcing your interpretation on anyone else who stares at the same blot. We don’t see what you see!

(3) “No transitional fossils,” “second law of thermodynamics” – that’s old tired YEC stuff that has been exploded so often it’s not worth our while to retread.

(4) I agree that "Saying something over and over again, … does not constitute “argument” – so why do you do it?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

You know, that is not something I have ever really investigated. That would be interesting to learn about. I guess I always just assumed that people were idiots on that score and let it slide. It sounds like you have done some study. Either here or in another thread it would interesting to go into.

Chuck, an excellent place to start is Michael Buckley S.J.'s At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). He argues that it was religion itself that became alienated from its spiritual roots. When Catholic theologians in the seventeenth century began to call upon philosophy and science to defend the existence of god – rather than any intrinsically religious experience – the game was up. This was two centuries before Darwin, and three centuries before Dawkins!

Petrus

 

[mulligan59]

Mulligan,

(1) Whether or not Dawkins wants to make religion illegal has nothing to do with evolution. I know a physicist who holds a similar view, but that doesn’t induce me to say that his views on quantum cosmology led him to atheism.

(2) What dots are there to connect? You have fabricated an interpretation of a Rorschach blot and are desirous of forcing your interpretation on anyone else who stares at the same blot. We don’t see what you see!

(3) “No transitional fossils,” “second law of thermodynamics” – that’s old tired YEC stuff that has been exploded so often it’s not worth our while to retread.

(4) I agree that "Saying something over and over again, … does not constitute “argument” – so why do you do it?

Petrus

Sorry, not trying to impose anything on you. Just wanted a real answer. But my arguments are exploded, not worth responding to. So be it.

 

[drpmjhess]

Sorry, not trying to impose anything on you. Just wanted a real answer. But my arguments are exploded, not worth responding to. So be it.

I have spoken openly on this forum as I do in my university; I have kept nothing secret from you, and have provided you with answers. Evolution does not lead to atheism, nor does atheism require evolution. My Catholic Christian faith in God’s promises is strengthened by my study of the ancient, dynamic, and evolving cosmos. I am not alone in believing that modern science. For an engaging exploration of this, I encourage you to look at John Haught’s Is Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Petrus

 

[mulligan59]

I have spoken openly on this forum as I do in my university; I have kept nothing secret from you, and have provided you with answers. Evolution does not lead to atheism, nor does atheism require evolution. My Catholic Christian faith in God’s promises is strengthened by my study of the ancient, dynamic, and evolving cosmos. I am not alone in believing that modern science. For an engaging exploration of this, I encourage you to look at John Haught’s Is Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Petrus

Look Doctor,

I’ll concede that one is not required to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis to be inside the Church and to remain in God’s grace. Nor, (I hope you’ll concede), is one required to believe in Darwin. One must believe in the Trinity, and in the Incarnation, and be Baptized. That is the minimum. (Actually, being a modernist Theologian you won’t concede this either I’m sure).

That said, I do not understand you, but I guess I really don’t need to. I’m intrigued as to what an athiest would believe about his origins sans Evolution theory, but if you say it is possible, there’s no point in arguing. Our frames of reference are apparently so far removed from one another that it is although we are speaking different languages. Neither do I see a reason to explore any modernist, relativist, screeds. It isn’t important. Avoiding temptation and fulfilling my duties of state are demanding enough.

It was eye opening though, truly mind boggling to discover, what is being thought by “sophisticated” Catholics today.

 

[drpmjhess]

You know, that is not something I have ever really investigated. That would be interesting to learn about. I guess I always just assumed that people were idiots on that score and let it slide. It sounds like you have done some study. Either here or in another thread it would interesting to go into.

Chuck, an excellent place to start is Michael Buckley S.J.'s At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). He argues that it was religion itself that became alienated from its spiritual roots. When Catholic theologians in the seventeenth century began to call upon philosophy and science to defend the existence of god – rather than any intrinsically religious experience – the game was up. This was two centuries before Darwin, and three centuries before Dawkins!

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Nor, (I hope you’ll concede), is one required to believe in Darwin. One must believe in the Trinity, and in the Incarnation, and be Baptized. That is the minimum. (Actually, being a modernist Theologian you won’t concede this either I’m sure).

I’m intrigued as to what an athiest would believe about his origins sans Evolution theory, but if you say it is possible, there’s no point in arguing. Our frames of reference are apparently so far removed from one another that it is although we are speaking different languages. Neither do I see a reason to explore any modernist, relativist, screeds…It was eye opening though, truly mind boggling to discover, what is being thought by “sophisticated” Catholics today.

Mulligan59, thanks for your note.

(1) I don’t believe in Darwin, or gravity, or quantum mechanics, or plate tectonics; I acknowledge the scientific method and its best-substantiated theories, but I believe in God.

(2) I don’t know what you mean by a “modernist theologian” – I’m a Catholic theologian living in 2008, responding to the world around me, just as every theologian since Paul has responded to the world around him or her. (See N., Max Wildiers, The Theologian and His Universe, 1982.)

(3) Of course I believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and baptism – what Catholic would not?

(4) There were atheists for millennia before evolution was proposed (e.g., Lucretius, 99-55 BCE), so clearly evolution is neither a prerequisite for nor a consequence of atheism.

(5) You are right that our frames of reference are different, but that is precisely why I find theology such a dynamic and exciting field. Every theology class I teach is a hermeneutical exercise: how can I – as one theologian in 2008 – interpret and translate the meaning of ancient texts written thousands of years ago, and communicate and compare my interpretation with those of other people from other cultures, diverse socio-economic backrounds, different genders, and various age groups in 2008?

(6) There is no need for you to explore “any modernist, relativist, creeds,” except insofar as you want to participate in a pluralistic culture like the United States. If you want to participate meaningfully in this culture, you need to know what presuppositions other dialogical partners are bringing with them to the discussion table. Debates about cloning, stem cell research, the meaning of marriage and sexuality, illegal immigration, wars over oil, the ministerial role of women and men in the church – one thing all these debates have in common is that the participants come from diverse frames of reference that need to be recognized before discussion can proceed.

(7) You find it “truly mind boggling to discover, what is being thought by “sophisticated” Catholics today.” I’m glad you had this experience. I too have found it stimulating and helpful to discover on Catholic Answers the diversity of opinions within the “Big Tent” of the Catholic Church. I find it mind-boggling that geocentrism is still a lively and open question for some people four hundred years after the publication of Galileo’s Dialogue! It takes all kinds to make an ekklesia, an assembly of God’s people that is Church!

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[buffalo]

It was eye opening though, truly mind boggling to discover, what is being thought by “sophisticated” Catholics today.

Is this a modern day gnostic sect? (just joking)

 

[mulligan59]

Mulligan59, thanks for your note.

(
(3) Of course I believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and baptism – what Catholic would not?

(4) There were atheists for millennia before evolution was proposed (e.g., Lucretius, 99-55 BCE), so clearly evolution is neither a prerequisite for nor a consequence of atheism.

(5) You are right that our frames of reference are different, but that is precisely why I find theology such a dynamic and exciting field. Every theology class I teach is a hermeneutical exercise: how can I – as one theologian in 2008 – interpret and translate the meaning of ancient texts written thousands of years ago, and communicate and compare my interpretation with those of other people from other cultures, diverse socio-economic backrounds, different genders, and various age groups in 2008?

(6) There is no need for you to explore “any modernist, relativist, creeds,” except insofar as you want to participate in a pluralistic culture like the United States. If you want to participate meaningfully in this culture, you need to know what presuppositions other dialogical partners are bringing with them to the discussion table. Debates about cloning, stem cell research, the meaning of marriage and sexuality, illegal immigration, wars over oil, the ministerial role of women and men in the church – one thing all these debates have in common is that the participants come from diverse frames of reference that need to be recognized before discussion can proceed.

Dear Doctor,

It was actually kind of you to take the time for such a thorough response. I left intact just a few of your points to which I wanted to respond:

Regarding number 3), I framed these three things as minimum requirements. I said “must be balptized”. However I don’t think, but I don’t want to speak for you, that the necessity of baptism is
a feature of the Vatican II church.

Regarding number 4), I confess, I have not studied athiesm and had no idea that they were a big presence in antiquity. I take your word for it, but again, my mind is boggled. What were they thinking? What I do know is that atheism is “respectable” today. It has a shiek sophistication thanks to all this “science” we’ve been discussing.

Regarding number 5), I thought that is why we have the Church, the magisterium and irreformable dogmas. What’s to interpret? It’s already been done for us, that is if we are content merely being Catholic. I am.

Regarding number 6), If you can’t already tell, I’m kind of out of place in the multi-cultural modern world. I function in it, I’ve a professional job in a high tech firm (BioChemistry believe it or not), raised four kids… Look, I can even “blog”! (Is this what I’m doing, might be the wrong jargon), but I’m not happy about it. Look at the fruits of all this freedom. But that was another thread. Did we fight on that one too? Send me back to my time…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow.
Touche’. You’re half right in that you confessed an insight that seems lost on the Theologian (do we both fight with him?). You h pose the question “what difference could that possibly make?” and then you answer it correctly “so that the masses don’t get deceived and lose faith”. Interesting choice of words as well from a defender of evolution, you said “deceived”. I’d call it a Freudian slip but I don’t believe in Freud either. The half in which you’re wrong is that you don’t seem to think it is a bad thing that the masses should lose their faith. You’re really hung up on “paternalism” too. You don’t like men do you.

Well, I will give you credit for honesty. It is seldom that we find a man who is willing to say, I lie to you because I know better than you. too funny. You will have to ask my darling husband whether I like men or not. You’re either very young or very very new to education.

I guess you also think I’m either dishonest (in denying evolution) or mentally incapacitated. I’d say that I’m neither, but if I had to chose one, I’d rather be incapacitated than dishonest.

You really should reconsider your view of evolution, God and or men. I think you’d be much happier.

I stand by what I have said. Since you can write a declarative sentence I can assume you are intellectually sound. To deny evolution means you believe you are far wiser than millions of others before you, many who were considered genius. I believe you know quite well, as as you said above, find it appropriate to keep the truth from people for their own good.

You’re confused, conflating men, God and evolution. youre just plain confused, or just delight in causing upheaval for the mere fun of it. As I said, no one seriously denies evolution. There is always an agenda behind the empty claim.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sadly, it is Dawkins who is the fool. He understands nothing about evolution, or at least he understands only enough to come to false conclusions. If one does a search through the publication record; the refereed publication record, you can find almost nothing published by Dawkins. He shows a complete lack of understanding of the principle of uncertainty and what power that principle gives God in nudging evolution in the paths He wishes it go. The physicists have complained that they have made it all the way back to the beginning only to find theologians sitting at the starting point. Neither the atheist nor the ID advocate takes into account that evolution allows God to have a means of creation that leaves our free will completely intact.
Ultimately evolution joins a long list of things that we have to have faith to understand. One cannot prove that Jesus is Lord. We believe it. One cannot prove that the Church has the truth. We believe it. We can find the archaeological ruins of Jericho but will never be able to prove they fell to trumpet blasts. Again, we believe it. In all of these cases God has allowed that we can reject everything and can walk our own way. We are not puppets. We are called, but not driven to believe. When it is seriously thought about, evolution makes perfect sense in the grand plan of free will. God has made it so we can go two ways. We can look at the world and come to the conclusion that this is all there is, no more; or we can look from the world into our hearts and know there is more. As CS Lewis says, once we give up ourselves we finally get ourselves back, for it is only in God that we can be totally ourselves. Each step of the cosmos from the first light to me standing here today has God at the heart of it. He created a perfect process, a perfect way to get from the starting point to me. It allows change, it allows bios to respond to change and to increase complexity in its armament against challenge. When I study evolution I see the process and give glory to God. When Dawkins looks across his word processor He only sees nothingness. Like Pontius Pilate he asks what is truth in a completely self centered and blind way.
Richard Rohr OFM says that Faith is like walking out over a chasm on a plank and, once you reach what you perceive as the end, God takes the plank away. As man progresses scientifically the old myths (planks) are being pulled out from under us.If a man so choses, he can use science to kill his tiny flawed personal god but science itself will never kill God since that is where it gets its validity from.

I have yet to understand why evolution deniers always cite Dawkins. I don’t know what they think it proves. It appears there is such a lack of depth of intellectual thought that somehow if an atheist believes anything, then the opposite must be true. Such is such a faulty syllogism that it begs laughter.

I am beginning to believe that our “evolution denier” is a fraud. The arguments are simply too simplistic and childish to come from anything but someone who is trying to appear what he is not for the joke factor.

The idea that denier tells us that life originated from non-life according to evolution, suggests our denier has little if any knowledge of biology, or more especially evolutionary biology. .

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Look Doctor,

I’ll concede that one is not required to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis to be inside the Church and to remain in God’s grace. Nor, (I hope you’ll concede), is one required to believe in Darwin. One must believe in the Trinity, and in the Incarnation, and be Baptized. That is the minimum. (Actually, being a modernist Theologian you won’t concede this either I’m sure).

That said, I do not understand you, but I guess I really don’t need to. I’m intrigued as to what an athiest would believe about his origins sans Evolution theory, but if you say it is possible, there’s no point in arguing. Our frames of reference are apparently so far removed from one another that it is although we are speaking different languages. Neither do I see a reason to explore any modernist, relativist, screeds. It isn’t important. Avoiding temptation and fulfilling my duties of state are demanding enough.

It was eye opening though, truly mind boggling to discover, what is being thought by “sophisticated” Catholics today.

It’s even more eye opening for you to learn that there is nothing particularly sophisticated about Peter or the rest of us. your point of view is adhered to by something less than 10% of the church. We are simply reflecting what our Pope and most of our clergy and laity believe.

 

[mulligan59]

SpiritMeadow Darling,

No. I didn’t say I was lying. I pointed out your use of the word “decieved” when referring to the masses. I absolutely believe that evolution is a hoax. I don’t believe this because I think I am smarter than everyone else, I just don;t think it makes sense. It isn’t possible. According to you then I must be dumber than everyone else. Maybe I am.

I didn’t think you were married. You don’t “sound” married. But then you accussed me of being young (confusing my ignorance for youth). I’m not, I have four kids, three in college. New to education? Maybe just uneducated.

Funny isn’t it. We have no idea to whom we are speaking.

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpmjhess
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
…are you really a theologian or an English Teacher?

I truly apologize for my sloppy work… I left out a word that could perhaps help you better understand my post; the text should read: “avidly defend against even the simplest error in grammar while subscribing to such liberalist religious belief that you yourself intimate the Father and the Son in homosexual personas in order to support a female personification of the Holy Spirit.”

Again, my most sincere apologies for the omision of the word “against.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mulligan59]

It’s even more eye opening for you to learn that there is nothing particularly sophisticated about Peter or the rest of us. your point of view is adhered to by something less than 10% of the church. We are simply reflecting what our Pope and most of our clergy and laity believe.

I don’t know where to begin, a symptom I suppose of my childish lack of intellectual sophistication.

Here’s the deal, once again, I’ll go s l o w l y. I did not cite Dawkins to disprove evolution, (hence there is no funny syllagism) I cited Dawkins, to refute “Peter’s” insistance that evolution and atheism have nothing to do with one another. And though Peter proved that there were BC atheists, it has nothing to do with the damage that Darwin’s hoax has done to faith in the modern world. And 10% of the Church? I would venture even less. But I never found truth and popularity to be linked. Christians should understand this well.

Because of their pride I will send them an operation of error and they will be made to believe lying.

 

[Chuck_H]

I don’t know where to begin, a symptom I suppose of my childish lack of intellectual sophistication.

Here’s the deal, once again, I’ll go s l o w l y. I did not cite Dawkins to disprove evolution, (hence there is no funny syllagism) I cited Dawkins, to refute “Peter’s” insistance that evolution and atheism have nothing to do with one another. And though Peter proved that there were BC atheists, it has nothing to do with the damage that Darwin’s hoax has done to faith in the modern world. And 10% of the Church? I would venture even less. But I never found truth and popularity to be linked. Christians should understand this well.

Because of their pride I will send them an operation of error and they will be made to believe lying.

Look Mulligan, let me make a suggestion. There is a pretty decent book out called “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller who is a Roman Catholic and a biologist. Now I think you ought to read it for two reasons. 1. It might just show you why we defend evolution as a science and 2. Even if you don’t buy the argument, at least you will “know your enemy”.
Micheal Behe gets creamed over and over again because he is lawyer not a biologist and he gets into ID arguments arguing from a stance of ignorance. Ignorance, by no means says he is stupid. He just doesn’t know all the science. I am semi literate in biology and evolution. I am ignorant in physics and medieval German literature. To make a case in point I had to back up and rethink when I read Finding Darwin’s God because I ran smack into the uncertainty principle of physics (told you I was ignorant) which declared definitively that at the gene level I could not predict anything because atoms are subject to uncertainty while organisms have that buffered by statistical events. That realigned my thinking quick and gave God a perfect venue for “tweaking” the process without destroying free will.
Invest the 12 bucks. in either case as outlined above you will come out better.

 

[drpmjhess]

Here’s the deal, once again, I’ll go s l o w l y. I did not cite Dawkins to disprove evolution, (hence there is no funny syllagism) I cited Dawkins, to refute “Peter’s” insistance that evolution and atheism have nothing to do with one another. And though Peter proved that there were BC atheists, it has nothing to do with the damage that Darwin’s hoax has done to faith in the modern world. And 10% of the Church? I would venture even less…

Mulligan65, of course one can draw a connection between ideas. Atheists can believe that gravity causes bodies in space to be attracted to each other in inverse proportion to the square of the distances between their centers, rather than God pushing them together. But so too can a theist can believe it is gravity rather than God that causes this. Science doesn’t make one an atheist, although science is compatible with both theism and atheism.

“Darwin’s hoax” (as you call it) has not damaged religious belief at all – there are many religious believers who accept evolution. And it is not a hoax either, by any definition of “hoax” that I know (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax)). 100,000 biologists – with some of whom I work at Catholic universities – presuppose the truth of evolution every day, and are not in some gigantic conspiracy to delude the gullible public. I have three biologist friends who are priests (two Jesuits and one Dominican); one SVD priest who is a chemistry professor and dean of his university, and three Jesuit priest friends who are astronomers with the Vatican observatory. All seven say Mass regularly, as well as going into their labs presupposing an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe. Several have held major positions in chemical, botanical, and astronomical societies. If evolution were a hoax (which it is not), these priests would either be deluded in the extreme, or complicit in an evil scheme. But they are all good, saintly people, excellent scholars, and dear friends. They are not hoaxers, nor are they atheists.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Micheal Behe gets creamed over and over again because he is lawyer not a biologist and he gets into ID arguments arguing from a stance of ignorance. Ignorance, by no means says he is stupid. He just doesn’t know all the science. I am semi literate in biology and evolution. I am ignorant in physics and medieval German literature. To make a case in point I had to back up and rethink when I read Finding Darwin’s God because I ran smack into the uncertainty principle of physics (told you I was ignorant) which declared definitively that at the gene level I could not predict anything because atoms are subject to uncertainty while organisms have that buffered by statistical events. That realigned my thinking quick and gave God a perfect venue for “tweaking” the process without destroying free will.
Invest the 12 bucks. in either case as outlined above you will come out better.

Careful, Chuck – Behe is a biologist, even if a biologist whose department members repudiate his ID creationism.

I agree with you about the utility of Ken Miller’s book.

Petrus