Cave Paintings at Altamira

[batteddy]

art is not a signature of a soul at all. Nothing can scientifically prove a soul. A computer can do art. but only man is conscious and created in the image of God.

 

[Work_of_God]

Kay Cee:

I suggest a reading of G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. He begins the book with an entire chapter devoted to ancient cave paintings. According to him, “Art is the signature of man.” In other words, only human beings create art.

As for a date when man was created, I find the whole issue irrelevant. The fact is he was created, and by God.

That art thing is exactly what I am wondering about. Is it a sure sign of a human soul? It seems more likely to be a sign of humanity than skulls or tools or artifacts. But where does the Church hold that only human beings can create art?

 

[1ke]

Work of God:

Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.

The church does not have a teaching on cave paintings.

 

[Work_of_God]

PhilVaz:

Work << Adam’s sin was transmitted to them before Adam existed. Some scientists today are saying that Adam existed only 4000-6000 years ago. >>

Ah ha I knew it. :yawn: We have discussed this in detail in past threads. I don’t know scientists who try to date Adam/Eve, but certainly young-earth creationists attempt to date them to that range, other old-earth creationists (Hugh Ross) to around 50000 - 70000 years ago, others like Glenn Morton believe Adam was a Australopithecine (millions of years ago), others (this article) that Adam/Eve were Neandertals, and other views (Adam, Eve, and Hominids). We just don’t know but it is an interesting question to try to figure out. Those cave paintings were done by homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) like ourselves.

Phil P

I’m starting to look through your references, PhilVaz. But let me ask you this: Which homo sapiens or pre-homo sapiens creatures must a Catholic Christian acknowledge as fellow human beings with human souls? Is it by their anatomy that you know them? Or what?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Work of God:

That art thing is exactly what I am wondering about. Is it a sure sign of a human soul? It seems more likely to be a sign of humanity than skulls or tools or artifacts. But where does the Church hold that only human beings can create art?

I never said that art is a sure sign of a human soul. Not my point at all.

I just thought you would enjoy reading Chesterton’s book since he covers the topic of caveman art and how it relates to determining what a human being is.

 

[PhilVaz]

Work << I’m starting to look through your references, PhilVaz. But let me ask you this: Which homo sapiens or pre-homo sapiens creatures must a Catholic Christian acknowledge as fellow human beings with human souls? >>

Good question, but the Church doesn’t seem to worry about that. Only that Adam/Eve were historical somehow. I’ve tried to resolve this myself but have been unsuccessful. I accept the evidence for human evolution, but I don’t have an answer to this. One of the articles I’ve linked suggests these as criteria to distinguish us from mere animals:

1. Man has self-awareness.
2. Man has language.
3. Man has religion.

Adam/Eve would be the first truly human beings that exhibited these, and they therefore had souls at this point. Theistic evolutionist (former young-earther) Glenn Morton’s book is very good. Titled Adam, Apes and Anthropology he goes through all the lines of evidence (paleontology, anthropology, genetics). He believes Adam is historical and must be dated to about 2 million years ago, an Australopithecine. Also on the Catholic side, Dennis Bonnette’s Origin of the Human Species is pretty good (a little shaky on the science since he gives credence to creationism somewhat, but good philosophy) though I haven’t finished it.

Phil P

 

[Work_of_God]

PhilVaz:

One of the articles

I’ve linked suggests these as criteria to distinguish us from mere animals:

1. Man has self-awareness.
2. Man has language.
3. Man has religion.

Adam/Eve would be the first truly human beings that exhibited these, and they therefore had souls at this point. Theistic evolutionist (former young-earther) Glenn Morton’s book is very good. Titled Adam, Apes and Anthropology he goes through all the lines of evidence (paleontology, anthropology, genetics). He believes Adam is historical and must be dated to about 2 million years ago, an Australopithecine. Also on the Catholic side, Dennis Bonnette’s Origin of the Human Species is pretty good (a little shaky on the science since he gives credence to creationism somewhat, but good philosophy) though I haven’t finished it.

Phil P

I found the Dennis Bonnette book through one of your references. Thanks. That’s the perspective I’m looking for. I guess I’ll get it. He seems to be the only one who tries to tie it all together from a Catholic perspective. Another question for you: What do you think about those “Forbidden Archaeology” artifacts? Are they really as old as they say? They seem to be evidence of “man” being hundreds of thousands or even millions or even billions of years old.

 

[PhilVaz]

Work << Another question for you: What do you think about those “Forbidden Archaeology” artifacts? Are they really as old as they say? >>

I believe Bonnette has a chapter on that book Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo. I think this is the official site. Appears to be conspiratorial and fringe science, but haven’t studied that in detail.

Here I’ll copy/paste 11 scenarios various Christians have used to maintain a historical Adam/Eve with evolution (or evolutionary creation):

(1) God used evolutionary creation of plants, animals, and some hominids; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, the parents of all modern humans, in a literal Garden of Eden several tens of thousands of years ago.
(2) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden of Eden.
(3) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special selection of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden.
(4-6) The same as 1-3 above, except the Garden of Eden story is an allegorical re-telling of some other historical event. The historical details of The Fall are unknown, but it involved revelation from God, choice, and rebellion.
(7) Same as #1 above, but occurring 5 million years ago with the Genesis flood (a local flood) corresponding to the filling of the Mediterranean basin; Abraham (Genesis 12) is a modern person.
(8) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens. The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden is an allegorical version of some actual historical event, in the distant past, where God revealed Himself to a group of humans (perhaps more than two), and the humans rebelled. The Fall was not inevitable, but a choice. Original sin “spread” from this group who received the first “revelation” outward to eventually include all humans.
(9) Same as #8, but the story of the Fall is a telescoping of multiple events of revelation and rebellion in human pre-history.
(10) Same as #9, but taking into account the slow development of hominid intelligence and self-awareness over time. Analogous to the gradual development from the ordinary self-centeredness of an infant into the sinful selfishness of a toddler.
(11) Same as #10, but the eventual sinful state of humanity was inevitable, given the number of opportunities for it to happen.

From a post by Loren Haarsma on an old creation-evolution discussion board I found. I should have mentioned Glenn Morton’s book dates Adam to around 5 million years ago, when the Australopithecines would have lived. And Hugh Ross to around 50000 years ago. Others take Genesis geneologies more literal and suggest God inserted Adam at 4000-5000 BC. This is the view of Dick Fischer in this article. Of course all of these are Protestant evangelical views, I need more Catholic books on the subject. Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict seems to accept human evolution and take a more symbolical view in his Genesis commentary.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Kay Cee:

I don’t think Chesterton would consider that art. I certainly don’t.

Why not ?​

That’s the snag: the ingredients of a questioncan always be redefined, so that one does not have admit unwelcome consequences.

No one said anything about art having to be representative or figural in order to qualify as art - so there can be art that is neither. Much of Georges Rouault’s art was neither - yet some is reprioduced in the pictures in the CCC. Therefore, whoever chose the pictures for the CCC thought that art which was neither figural nor (apparently) representative, was quite good enough for the CCC. So, it’s not beyond possibility that one of Congo’s pictures might end up being used for Catholic purposes And why not ? There was a time when Gothic was regarded as barbarous - before the Victorians revived it.

I hope that answers your questions ##

Can a chimpanzee paint a portrait of another chimpanzee? Can he, with forethought, make a picture that is recognizable as a house or a horse or a dog or a tree?

A bunch of scribbles that happen to bear a faint resemblence to a flower are hardly what Chesterton had in mind. I call that a coincidence.

I could draw a picture of a chimpanzee. It wouldn’t be very good, but I bet most people would recognize it as the portrait of a primate. I doubt a chimpanzee could do the same by trying to draw a picture of me.

 

[Rebecca_New]

“The Church does not bound us to believe in to the literal account of the creation and states that it does not claim to be authoritative into the scientific facts of the genesis of life. Without taking a stand, it allows room for modern theories of evolution.”

Yes, I know. But I believe the Church does maintain that Adam and Eve were actual literal historical individual persons and that they committed the first sin. Does it not?

Maybe there were other human like creatures that were not the elect like Adam and Eve.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Gottle of Geer:

No one said anything about art having to be representative or figural in order to qualify as art - so there can be art that is neither.

Well, by that definition, anything created would be art. A dog’s footprints left in some wet cement would qualify.

 

[Steven_Merten]

I do not think Work of God should be admonished for asking his question.

Will there be Neaderthals in heaven? Amebias in heaven? Ape like beings walking on their knuckles in heaven? Or even beings with only fifty percent of the thinking capacity of modern man in heaven?

Where does the Church draw the line between “dignity for human beings” and admiting that a creature is just a soulless animal? Controling fire, inventing the wheel, residue from flowers at prehistoric burial sites, paintings on walls, rocks formed into weapons, skull injuries from rocks made into weapons, agriculture, development of language, development of villages, ect.

Is it moral or immoral to contemplate the possiblility of evelution from a Christian prospective?

I think this is a very interesting line of thought.