B
buffalo
Guest
But Catholics are not free to reject dogma.
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
I’d say that there are many theories of common descent as well. If the particular theory in question involves a single pair of male/female (a. la Adam / Eve) then it could be OK. If it denies a single pair from whom we are all descended, then it is not OK.
Z
zachforn
Guest
Truth’s certainly don’t change, but our understanding of the truth can become more complete.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
One answer would be to hold two truths: (1) a scientific truth revealed by genetics, that the breeding population of hominids remained in the range of 3,000-10,000 pairs, and (2) a theological truth that “Adam” and “Eve” symbolize the progenitors of the human race.
B
buffalo
Guest
Organic growth in understanding is good. Which dogmas can be reversed?
Z
zachforn
Guest
No dogmas can be reversed, but truths can become more complete. When science and dogma seem at odds, that are just that: “seemingly” at odds. The “seemingly” is our incomplete understanding of the truth. A more complete understanding of the truth will reveal to us that they are not at odds. Or course, it will be a long time, if ever, that human beings are able to comprehend the complete picture, but God does see the big picture and has the understanding of the complete truth and HE has revealed it us. Now the issue is how do we go about comprehending the gift he has given us?
B
buffalo
Guest
StA - are you reading this?
M
mpartyka
Guest
I’m currently reading a book called Intellectual Morons by Daniel J. Flynn. In Chapter 6 the subject is the late Guatemalan writer and activist Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography is still on the reading list in many colleges, even though it’s full of what she calls “her truth” – not truth, mind you, but “her” truth. For example, she writes about her brother’s torture and murder at the hands of oppressors – except her brother was still alive at the time of her writing. She also wrote about her father’s long struggle with the upper-class ladinos – except his struggle was actually against members of his wife’s family, who were members of the same class as himself. Basically, she wrote about a bunch of things that didn’t happen to her and called it an autobiography, yet people excused and continue to excuse this because “those things may not have happened to her, but surely they happened to somebody.” Really? How do we even know that much? And yet American college students are even today being instructed from this fictional autobiography as if it were all fact, or “just as good as fact.” The simple truth is that her “autobiography” presents the world the way her academic proponents wish the world actually was, rather than the way it really is, and so they’re willing to excuse her lies if her lies get their ideological points across to their impressionable students.
Question: In affirming that the Bible contains “theological truths” that get the point across to its adherents without having to deal with pesky things like actual reality, are we being any different from Rigoberta Menchu’s supporters in the academic world? Does the ends of teaching future generations “theological truths” justify the means of…well, pretty much lying to them about how the world and humanity came to be?
–Mike
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes
B
buffalo
Guest
Good!
Now do you understand it?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Mike, you raise a good question. My children love the stories of creation and the great flood that we hear during the Easter Vigil (they have not missed an Easter Vigil in their lives, having been carried in their bassinets at the age of a few months!) They understand that the Church recounts ifs salvation history through story, and that these accounts are part of the story. They also understand the 13.7 billion year evolutionary history of the universe, because they’ve attended conferences where I’ve spoken about it, and they have met some of the world’s leading physicists and biologists.
So I don’t regard it as lying to children to read and discuss the bible stories with them. Theology has always operated through symbol and story, as evidenced by Jesus’ own constant use of parable. It’s not a question of the end justifying the means.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
Still trying to market evolution here? Why? Is there a deadline to get more converts?
Honestly, this isn’t the first time this subject has been brought up. All of the evidence has been brought up before with a lot of details. And you’re accusing the Church of lying? Science cannot draw conclusions based on what God is capable of doing. Science is not the only source of real knowledge. Jesus Christ is God. He rose from the dead. He turned water into wine. He raised the dead. Do you want evidence for that too?
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Do any of Jesus’ parables reference Genesis?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why do you ask?
B
buffalo
Guest
R
ricmat
Guest
It seems that you have so much faith in science, and so little faith in revelation that it never occurs to you that the “lying part” might be the science, and not the religion?
“You think you are really somebody: your studies – your research, your publications…Precisely because of all this, you, more than others, need a director for your soul.” - St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, #63.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Right, but again, we are drawing the line between parable and reality because we have evidence from the fields of biology and anthropology that the early Church Fathers never had. The Fathers – even the Apostles – did not draw that line because in their experience there was no need to draw that line. They saw no reason why the whole human race couldn’t descend from just two people, nor did they see any reason why a flood couldn’t have engulfed the whole world. We have reasons, and what I’m wondering is how does our knowledge affect our responsibility to “preach the truth, in season and out of season”?
For example, let’s say that you’re a motivational speaker, and long ago your friend told you a very inspiring story about how his father, while serving in the military, had saved the lives of his platoon at great risk to himself. You took this story on the road with you, incorporating it into several of your speeches. Later on, when you wrote a book collecting several of your best speeches, this story of your friend’s became a key point in your book.
Then one day your friend comes to you after reading your book and says, “I can’t believe I never mentioned this to you before, but on his deathbed, my father admitted to me that he made up that whole story. I’m so sorry – I thought I’d told you – and I didn’t realize you’d been using that story in your speeches.”
What do you do now? Do you continue to tell the story, even though you now know it isn’t true? It still gets across the lessons you wanted to communicate, but do the ends of communicating the lessons you want your audience to hear justify the means of telling a false story? After all, the reason the story has been so effective is because all this time your hearers have been thinking, “This really happened. This is a true story.” Your hearers trusted you when you said you were telling them a true story, and now that you know it’s not, you shudder to think how your hearers will feel – not only towards the story, but also towards you – when they find out about it. Frankly, you feel rather betrayed yourself. So what do you do?
–Mike
M
mpartyka
Guest
The DNA doesn’t lie. We can see the DNA. The evidence is right in front of us. We can deny it’s there, or we can pretend it doesn’t mean what it clearly means, or we can accept it.
Do you have so much faith in revelation that it never occurs to you that the “lying part” might be the religion, and not the science?
–Mike
B
buffalo
Guest
I would be careful given the article I cited before that you attach yourself too greatly to the chromosome fusion.
R
ricmat
Guest
You have DNA from Lucy? Or from some other pre-human ancestor? Really? And it’s right in front of you?
I doubt that very much.
And no, I don’t think that my religion lies to me.
- Status