Does What Some Catholics Believe About Genesis Keep You From Converting?

[ralphinal]

Is my understanding on the position of the Catholic church correct…that it does not take an issue on the specifics of creation…that the only item that it is dogmatic about is that Adam and Eve were literal people and that the fall of man in the garden was a literal event.

I would say yes. I think that you must accept that, due to temptation, Adam and Eve fell, but oyu do not have to beleive that there was a “tree” involved. I may be wrong about that specific part. You must accept that they were real and that they fell from their initial state, taking us with them.

If my understanding here is correct, then I don’t have any issues here. I’m somewhere between a progressive old-earth creationist (or maybe even gap theory) and a theological evolutionist myself. In short, I’m not sure of the specifics myself.

Join the club.

But perhaps this is my closet liberal that is coming out here and the most literal interpretation of the Bible in respect to origins is correct…that being of course a flat earth.

Another poster put it best: What does this have to do with salvation?

 

[Trinitarian]

We are bond only to believe that God created everything from nothing. The literal existence of Adam and Eve is not a mandatory belief. The fact is that if one reads the creation stories for facts then the truth of the text is injured. We as Catholics should accept this and all other scripture as truth without the shackles of facts attached to it as we would a news story or a history book. The writers intention is not to give facts but to reveal the truth. We should study what each of the stories say and why the writer chose to put things as they did. This is true for Genesis but is also true for the gospels which is based on recorded history. The writers put events in different order or in different context not because they have faint memories of amazing events but because they are teaching the gospel with different styles and structure.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the scriptures are wrong or that the Bible is simply a myth, for I am not saying that in the least. I am saying that it is more then myth and it is more then history. It is the very truth of God. A truth that neither myth or fact can contain. It is the expression of Mysteries.

 

[Contarini]

What does the traditional RCC believe then, about BOTH the creation of the world and how old it is, and Darwinism?

Because the impression I have gotten from Traditionalist Cathollics is that their view is the same as mine, whereas the impression I’ve gotten from post-V2 Catholics is more in line with a theistic evolutionary belief.

I am not Catholic. I don’t think most Catholics would accept your identification of traditional and Traditionalist. Certainly I would not. I see “Traditionalists” as being like fundamentalist Protestants in that they dogmatically reassert aspects of the tradition in a way that is more hardline than the traditional expressions themselves were.

Pius XII’s (pre-Vatican II) encyclical Humani Generis clearly teaches that it is legitimate to hold to an old earth and to the evolution of the human body, as long as the descent of all human beings from a single original pair is not denied and as long as the direct creation of the human soul by God is affirmed.

I think you’re confusing a bunch of different things:

1. A philosophical naturalism that denies that the natural order points to God. This is of course contrary to orthodox Christianity and certainly to Catholicism (some fideistic Christians might claim that they can accept naturalistic premises because faith needs no rational basis).
2. The Darwinist mechanism as an adequate explanation for the evolution of living things. Many Christians hold that this is scientifically true and perfectly compatible with Christianity, since the mechanisms of evolution themselves point to God. However, the “Intelligent Design” movement challenges these mechanisms.
3. Descent from a common ancestor. One can not only deny philosophical naturalism and affirm this, but one can accept Intelligent Design’s criticism of Darwinism and affirm this (some ID folks believe in common ancestry, and some don’t–at least that’s my impression).
4. The immense age of the universe and the appearance of living things over the space of millions of years. Again, this is distinct from any of the above. Almost all Christians held to this point throughout the 19th century and for much of the 20th, until the Seventh-Day-Adventist “flood geology” began to spread among fundamentalist Protestants in the 1960s.
5. Creation ex nihilo. One can obviously hold to creation ex nihilo and to any of points 2-4 One could even hold to it and to point 1, on the fideistic grounds that God created the world out of nothing even though rational study of the world would not lead us to that conclusion. (This seems to be basically what the medieval Averroists claimed to hold, although some question their sincerity!)

Just because you deny all of points 1-4 and also affirm creation ex nihilo does not mean that there is any connection between creation ex nihilo and common ancestry, or the age of the earth, or even the Darwinian mechanisms. None of these things have anything to do with the original creation of the universe.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I only have one question…what does any of that have to do with your salvation?

Salvation means loving the Lord our God with our hearts and with our minds. Loving God with our minds means that we pursue the truth about the universe God has made. So yes, all of this has a lot to do with salvation. (This doesn’t mean that people who are wrong on one side or the other will go to hell. None of us are fully “saved” until we enjoy the Beatific Vision, which excludes all error.)

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

The message of the creation stories in Genesis is that God created the universe. To say it is wrong by using science is as ridiculous as saying evolution is wrong using theology.

 

[luvlife]

We are bond only to believe that God created everything from nothing. The literal existence of Adam and Eve is not a mandatory belief. .

I thought we had to believe in a literal Adam & Eve? I don’t know the proper way to refrence the CC - but #375 it says that they were our first “parents.” Sounds literal to me?

 

[zerinus]

In recent years many within the Church hierarchy and within the Catholic Church general have compromised on a secular view of the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 through 3. This concerns me because I believe it is an inaccurate view and hinders thinking individuals from converting to the Catholic faith.

There are many, and the numbers are growing, that believe there is no reason not to take a literal view of Genesis Chapters 1 through 3. This understanding is rooted in the Catholic guidance on the study of Sacred Scripture given to us by St. Augustine and reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in an Encyclical letter Providencious Deus. Unless it is proven otherwise, Catholics must believe what the Bible says. No alternate view of Creation has been proven so by this direction Catholics actually have to believe in a literal Creation in the Bible.

God can cutoff the modernists and graft on the Creation believing Protestants. Please come on in and don’t check your Creationism at the door. Those who came before you into the Catholic faith are helping to bring about this renewal within the Church and you can help too.

I just posted an article in my Blog relating to this subject that you might find interesting. I had already discussed that subject several months ago with another poster in a different forum. When I read this thread, it reminded me of that, and I decided to revisit it. After reading it through I decided it was worth writing an article on in my Blog; so I edited it, and added some more material to it, and posted it there. Here is the link:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-do-mormons-think-of-evolution.html

Tell us what you think.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

I just posted an article in my Blog relating to this subject that you might find interesting. I had already discussed that subject several months ago with another poster in a different forum. When I read this thread, it reminded me of that, and I decided to revisit it. After reading it through I decided it was worth writing an article on in my Blog; so I edited it, and added some more material to it, and posted it there. Here is the link:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-do-mormons-think-of-evolution.html

Tell us what you think.

zerinus

Z,
very interesting. One thing that I would say, and this is one thing that really bothers me about this whole debate, is that you should be sure that your use of the word theory is correct in the scientific sense. In science, you start with a hypothesis. If you cannot disprove it, and enough science people agree with your findings, it becomes a theory. If a theory cannot be disproven at all, it can become a law. In the traditional use of the word, a theory is a guess. In science, it is a possibility that has not been disproven, so it must be accepted as a possibility. As long as evolution can not be disproven, it is accepted as a scientific possibility. In science, we cannot throw it out just because. Science works from a disprove standpoint: prove me wrong, and my hypothesis is done or must be re-formed.

 

[rossum]

In recent years many within the Church hierarchy and within the Catholic Church general have compromised on a secular view of the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 through 3. This concerns me because I believe it is an inaccurate view and hinders thinking individuals from converting to the Catholic faith.

I am not a Catholic. If belief in a literal Genesis: firmament, talking snake and all was required then there is no possible way that I could become Catholic. The young earth interpretation of Genesis was shown to be wrong between 1800 and 1850. The interpretation of direct creation of separate species was shown to be wrong between 1859 and 1900. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
The literlist interpretation of Genesis would certainly constitute an obstacle to my believing if the Church insisted on it.

There are many, and the numbers are growing, that believe there is no reason not to take a literal view of Genesis Chapters 1 through 3.

Please explain what is the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis 1:6-8. What are the “waters above”? If you insist on a literal Genesis then you have to accept a literal 1:6-8. What are you asking me to believe in here?

There are many interpretations of Genesis allowed by the Church. Those who want to follow a literalist interpretation are currently free to do so, hence I do not see any real advantage for the Church in mandating an already allowed interpretation. All you would do would be to drive out those who could not in conscience accept the literal interpretation. I suspect that conservative Protestants have a lot more problems with the Catholic Church than just the interpreatation of Genesis. Would you forbid devotions to Mary or drop the claim to Papal infalliability? No, I thought not.

rossum

 

[zerinus]

Z,
very interesting. One thing that I would say, and this is one thing that really bothers me about this whole debate, is that you should be sure that your use of the word theory is correct in the scientific sense. In science, you start with a hypothesis. If you cannot disprove it, and enough science people agree with your findings, it becomes a theory. If a theory cannot be disproven at all, it can become a law. In the traditional use of the word, a theory is a guess. In science, it is a possibility that has not been disproven, so it must be accepted as a possibility. As long as evolution can not be disproven, it is accepted as a scientific possibility. In science, we cannot throw it out just because. Science works from a disprove standpoint: prove me wrong, and my hypothesis is done or must be re-formed.

That is what I mean by a scientific theory.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

That is what I mean by a scientific theory.

zerinus

Ok. I read it as “guess.” To me, the fact that both sides are using different language hurts discussion. A scientist says it is a theory and means that it has not been disproven and must be accepted as a possibility. The creationist says it is a theory and a guess is just a guess. A theory is science is more than a guess. It has to have been studied and evaluated by others before it becomes a theory.

For the record, I am bothered by scientific people who ask me to prove God exists. Science works in the other direction. If you cannot disprove the hypothesis, it must be accepted as possible.

 

[rossum]

For the record, I am bothered by scientific people who ask me to prove God exists. Science works in the other direction. If you cannot disprove the hypothesis, it must be accepted as possible.

Almost. Any scientific hypothesis must be disprovable - you have to think of a way or ways to disprove it. Then you should try to do an experiment to test this disproof. Only when you have done the experiment and not found a disproof, and other scientists have also failed to find a disproof can the hypothesis be accepted. Science works by knocking down hypotheses, the ones that are left standing are usually pretty robust.

The problem with the God hypothesis is that it is not disprovable. What should I look for to show that God does not exist - what experiment should I do or what observation should I make?

A hypothesis that cannot be disproved, such as “The universe was created last Thursday with the prefect appearance of great age” is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be disprovable in principle and actually have survived all attempts to disprove it.

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

Almost. Any scientific hypothesis must be disprovable - you have to think of a way or ways to disprove it. Then you should try to do an experiment to test this disproof. Only when you have done the experiment and not found a disproof, and other scientists have also failed to find a disproof can the hypothesis be accepted. Science works by knocking down hypotheses, the ones that are left standing are usually pretty robust.

The problem with the God hypothesis is that it is not disprovable. What should I look for to show that God does not exist - what experiment should I do or what observation should I make?

A hypothesis that cannot be disproved, such as “The universe was created last Thursday with the prefect appearance of great age” is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be disprovable in principle and actually have survived all attempts to disprove it.

rossum

I am glad that you added the “in principle” to the last line. Some of Einstine’s Theories could not be disproven for years. Some of them have failed in the end, or had to be modified. Can we test the Theory of relativity? E=mcc?

So, if someone can come with a hypothesis that cannot be tested, it must be thrown out as bad? Or can it sit until some testing can be done? There were those who thought there was a tenth body in orbit around the sun, on the scale of another planet. Was that tested? Was it disproven or proven? There is another planet (I know the terms have changed and Pluto was demoted and some of the asteriods in the belt were promoted, but I am old school on this). 10 now. If this had been the hypothesis 150 years ago, would it have been thrown out only to be brought back?

 

[zerinus]

Ok. I read it as “guess.” To me, the fact that both sides are using different language hurts discussion. A scientist says it is a theory and means that it has not been disproven and must be accepted as a possibility. The creationist says it is a theory and a guess is just a guess. A theory is science is more than a guess. It has to have been studied and evaluated by others before it becomes a theory.

For the record, I am bothered by scientific people who ask me to prove God exists. Science works in the other direction. If you cannot disprove the hypothesis, it must be accepted as possible.

You overlook the role of revelation. We have revelation that convinces us that that theory is untrue, and therefore impossible. It is not just a matter of believing in Genesis. We have independent scriptural evidence that to us is more convincing than that. To you it many not be; but to us it is.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

You overlook the role of revelation. We have revelation that convinces us that that theory is untrue, and therefore impossible. It is not just a matter of believing in Genesis. We have independent scriptural evidence that to us is more convincing than that. To you it many not be; but to us it is.

zerinus

I overlook it for a reason: it is not valid in the scientific discussion. It is the same problem that Christians have when discussing homosexual behavior: we argue God’s word with people that put little stock into it. In order to discuss this, we must discuss using proofs accepted by both by sides.

 

[zerinus]

I overlook it for a reason: it is not valid in the scientific discussion. It is the same problem that Christians have when discussing homosexual behavior: we argue God’s word with people that put little stock into it. In order to discuss this, we must discuss using proofs accepted by both by sides.

This is not a scientific discussion; it is a religious one. You may think that you are engaged in a scientific discussion; but I am not. Sometimes the distinction between science and religion becomes blurred, because there is an overlap between the two; although that overlap is small. But here I am engaged in a religious discussion, not a scientific one.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

This is not a scientific discussion; it is a religious one. You may think that you are engaged in a scientific discussion; but I am not. Sometimes the distinction between science and religion becomes blurred, because there is an overlap between the two; although that overlap is small. But here I am engaged in a religious discussion, not a scientific one.

zerinus

I understand. However, in this thread, the point was made that the scientific view of some Catholics is not compatible with the Bible. In fact, there is no conflict. If someone will not join the Catholic Church because they are not required to believe that the Genisis story is literal, there are other issues to discuss. The Bible is not a science book. It is a book about the Love of God for Man.

z,
I respect your love for your faith. I have learned a great deal from you about Mormons and other things. Let me ask these questions. Is the earth flat? Is it the center of the universe? Is there water above the earth? If so, how far up is it?

 

[zerinus]

Let me ask these questions. Is the earth flat? Is it the center of the universe? Is there water above the earth? If so, how far up is it?

We don’t believe that scripture teaches any of those things. Remember that we have additional scripture that complements and clarifies what is in the Bible.

zerinus

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear all,

Do you believe that the first human in just one single human only, called Adam? And the second human would be a single human similar to the first but has different sex called Eve? I am afraid that the creation story in the Genesis does not necessarily means that the creation went exactly as described. The Creation story in the Genesis is a reflection of the mind of ancient people who has no access of modern science and technology. The creation story is the reflection of their Theology (not scientific or technology) about the love of God who created everything for human.

**A resounding & definite “No” to both questions. **​

To insist Gen. 1-11 is inerrant as a record of scientific **processes & facts (& that’'s the issue here, ISTM) is to miscategorise & misunderstand it - & is an excellent example of Fundamentalism. Those who are not Fundamentalists, are not therefore “Bible-disbelievers” - unless “believing the Bible” = doing so in a Fundamentalist manner. ****Unfortunately, Fundamentalism is so taken up with proving the Bible is error-free & accurate in all respects, that the significance of the texts is overlooked - accuracy of reporting is no guarantee that the meaning of what’s reported has not been lost. **

**Knowing that the A & E were really called A & E, & that Adam died aged 930 after having begotten more than three sons (whose names are also stated); & that Noah is a descendant of Adam in the tenth generation, tells one nothing about the significance of Adam. **

**Besides, if Adam was a real individual person living about 4-5,000 BC, how come he has a Hebrew name ? Hebrew is just not that ancient. And how did an account of the snaky goings-on that got Adam ejected from Eden come down to the Hebrew-writing editor of Gen.1-11 ? Adam & Eve are Hebrew names - if Hebrew was spoken in the garden, why do snakes not speak Hebrew today ? And how did it learn ? If ignorance of Hebrew is part of its punishment, why is that not said in Gen. 3, where it is cursed ? Why could it not be condemned to learn some other language ? **

---

**Taken as history, the story is balderdash & piffle, as much so as any of the invented history in the Book of Mormon. Since Gen. 3 (like Gen 1-11 generally) was never meant as a record of actual events, this is to be expected. **

 

[inthecloud]

Well,

What does creation ex nihilo have to do with Darwinism? Darwinism is about how one life form develops from another. It has nothing to do with how the universe was created in the first place.

If fact, according to a Argentine jewish scholar, Daniel Colodenco, there was no consensus in Judaism about creatio ex nihilo until de Middle Ages.

Some rabbis talk about Genesis being a creatio ex Materia. G-D creates the Heavens and the Earth from chaos into cosmos. The Eath was Tohu and Bohu. That can lead to a limited deistic God.
Other rabbis talked about creatio ex Deo. G-d creates the world from himself. That can lead to Pantheism. Cretio Ex Nihilo appears clearly in two books that are not in the modern Jewish and Protestant canon. Maccabees 2 and Ben Sirach.
All apostolic christians canonical books.
So there is no a Scriptural basis for creation Ex Nihilo in Protestant and Jewish Bibles.
And even the Nihilo cannot be absolute according to modern science. Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, a personal hero of mine, did formulate a creation exnihilo in the Big Bang Theory but even him recognized that there might be a higher order of casuality that can eventualy be measured. A inestable quantic vacumm.

I will never join a Church that helds to a YEC view of the creation. Religion is not a excuse to ignore clear reality.