T
tonyrey
Guest
Unsubstantiated, discourteous and provocative assertions which do nothing to further the discussion about evidence for Design in addition to breaching the forum rules of conduct…
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Eternal happiness beyond the garden.
G
grannymh
Guest
FYI – heliocentrism invoves the material/physical universe.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Metaphysics is **an interpretation of reality **which includes scientific phenomena.
Irrelevant to the issue of **Design **- quite apart from the fact that the truth is not established by a majority vote… If the majority of scientists were atheists would you cease to be a Christian?
G
grannymh
Guest
God did save the others.
Catholics believe that heaven is a great place to go to. No income taxes.
T
tonyrey
Guest
What are those beliefs?
G
grannymh
Guest
FYI - human rationality does not depend on opinions. It comes with the package called human nature.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- What are your sources of information?
- Haven’t you heard of cases of persons thought to be dead who have recovered?
- Do you believe no miracles have occurred for two thousand years?
G
grannymh
Guest
Design exists independent of scientific confirmation.
G
grannymh
Guest
Then Catholicism must be an unique, one of a kind, religion.
I
inocente
Guest
If you want to call ID metaphysics, fine, while noting of course that it pays less attention to science and phenomena than the metaphysics of Santa Claus.
So you couldn’t find any Catholic authorities, schools or universities which have made statements supporting the teaching of ID as fact? Even when, according to thou, to “omit that fact in the education of children is to present a distorted view of reality”?*Irrelevant to the issue of **Design ***- quite apart from the fact that the truth is not established by a majority vote… If the majority of scientists were atheists would you cease to be a Christian?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
The long lasting religions of course - Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.What are those beliefs?
T
tonyrey
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re welcome. The fact that a Catholic Answers apologist offered that view is even more interesting. I try to read opposing opinions – and I was wondering how you arrived at yours, so it does make sense.Thank you for providing an example of a Catholic’s who hold my position - I was expecting to have to furnish examples myself
Yes, Cardinal Schoenborn condemned Fr. Coyne’s views in his book Chance or Purpose - Page 169.
“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”
This is what many Catholics today claim for themselves and for their belief that “the Church will change”. Where I live, it’s very common to hear any number of “difficult to reconcile ideas” – some of the most popular are abortion rights, gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, artificial birth control – and those kinds of things. Fr. Charles Curran, for example, remains a priest in good standing in his diocese and has taught the legitimacy of all of those ideas for decades.
I can run down a long list of ideas that I’ve heard Catholic priests proclaim either privately or publicly also – that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, that Confession is only necessary for the most extreme sins, that Christ did not ascend into Heaven, that Christ did not work any miracles (all were just natural phenomena), that Christ did not rise bodily from the grave …
Catholic priests … and I could add many of these “difficult to reconcile” ideas that I’ve heard from religious sisters – and thus end up either delighting or outraging the many Catholics here (or just boring them, as I would be).
So, yes – we can see the claim from the Darwinist-Catholic, Fr. Coyne. Admittedly, I am mostly speechless regarding the Catholic Answers article that I cited. I’m afraid to ask any of the Official Apologists here about it for fear of getting more of the same kind of twisted logic and adamant defense for the claim that “God does not intervene” – spoken with dogmatic authority.
I see those Catholic sources and weigh them against:
- The common teaching of Catholic Tradition - that God does intervene (as we say from our human perspective.
- The Catholic Encyclopedia articles that condemned the notion that God does not intervene – explicitly identifying Christian versions of that idea (and condemning them).
- The current and previous Popes referring to God’s intervention in their public statements.
- The convoluted explanations given for God’s supposed non-intervention.
- Your own reasons for accepting that view (supposedly solves the problem of evil, and resolves problem of two people praying conflicting results).
- The logical consequences of the idea basically destroy the Faith
- The idea is not consistent with the list of things I mentioned (Tradition, Scripture, the spiritual teaching of the Church).
R
reggieM
Guest
Again, we have Fr. Coyne – and I quoted his view earlier (condemned by Cardinal Schoenborn) – who thinks that the Darwinian-emergence of human beings was not planned by God. In fact, God did not (could not) know that humans would be the result of evolution. Chance caused something to happen – and then God discovered this after it happened.
That is perfectly consistent with a Darwinian view.
elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Faith-Science-and-Technology/Covalence/Features/George-Coyne-offers-a-universal-view-of-creation.aspx
The assumption [Fr. Coyne] makes is: We have an elegant universe, with dynamism and creativity of its own, and God wanted it that way. The conclusion he draws is: God designed a continually creating universe, not one that was predetermined and this conclusion introduces indeterminacy. “Could God know that I myself would come to be?” Coyne queried. He believes the answer is no, because all is not predetermined.
Ok, perhaps many, like the liberal Protestant site I linked to there, will be delighted by this solution to their problems.
Will they care at all that Pope John Paul II, for example, directly contradicts this idea?
No – they won’t. But others might …
In his response to the disciples, Jesus speaks of “times” (chronoi) and “seasons” (kairoi). These two words for time in biblical language have two nuances which are worth recalling. Chronos is time in its ordinary course and is also under the influence of divine Providence, which governs everything. **But into this ordinary flow of history God makes his special interventions, which give a particular saving value to specific moments. **These are precisely the kairoi, God’s seasons, which man is called to discern and by which he must allow himself to be challenged.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1301
As we saw with the Catholic encyclopedia:
For those who admit the existence of a transcendent First Cause of the universe, naturalism consists essentially in an undue limitation of God’s activity in the world. God is only Creator, not Providence; He cannot, or may not, interfere with the natural course of events, or He never did so, or, at least, the fact of His ever doing so cannot be established. Even if the soul of man is regarded as spiritual and immortal, and if, among human activities, some are exempted from the determinism of physical agents and recognized to be free, all this is within nature, which includes the laws governing spirits as well as those governing matter. But these laws are sufficient to account for everything that happens in the world of matter or of mind. This form of naturalism stands in close relation with Rationalism and Deism. Once established by God, the order of nature is unchangeable, and man is endowed by nature with all that is required even for his religious and moral development. … [this idea] ** is directly opposed to the Christian Religion**. But even within the fold of Christianity, among those who admit a Divine Revelation and a supernatural order, several naturalistic tendencies are found. Such are those of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, who minimize the necessity and functions of Divine grace; of Baius, who asserts that the elevation of man was an exigency of his nature; of many sects, especially among Liberal Protestants, who fall into more or Less radical Rationalism; and of others who endeavour to restrict within too narrow limits the divine agency in the universe.
newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
And there is Pope Benedict XVI:
"http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=40691
God’s response to moral evil is to oppose sin and save the sinner. God does not tolerate evil because he is Love, Justice, Fidelity; and it is precisely because of this that he does not wish the death of the sinner, but desires that the sinner covert and live. God intervenes to save humanity: We see this in the whole history of the Jewish people, beginning with their liberation from Egypt. God is determined to deliver his children from slavery to lead them to freedom. And the worst and most profound slavery is that of sin. This is why God sent his Son into the world: to free men from the rule of Satan, ““origin and cause of every sin.””
“God cannot contradict himself, and so the prayer goes back to describing the painful situation of the one praying in order to convince God to have pity and intervene as he always did in the past,” the pope said.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103645.htm
That is perfectly consistent with a Darwinian view.
elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Faith-Science-and-Technology/Covalence/Features/George-Coyne-offers-a-universal-view-of-creation.aspx
The assumption [Fr. Coyne] makes is: We have an elegant universe, with dynamism and creativity of its own, and God wanted it that way. The conclusion he draws is: God designed a continually creating universe, not one that was predetermined and this conclusion introduces indeterminacy. “Could God know that I myself would come to be?” Coyne queried. He believes the answer is no, because all is not predetermined.
Ok, perhaps many, like the liberal Protestant site I linked to there, will be delighted by this solution to their problems.
Will they care at all that Pope John Paul II, for example, directly contradicts this idea?
No – they won’t. But others might …
In his response to the disciples, Jesus speaks of “times” (chronoi) and “seasons” (kairoi). These two words for time in biblical language have two nuances which are worth recalling. Chronos is time in its ordinary course and is also under the influence of divine Providence, which governs everything. **But into this ordinary flow of history God makes his special interventions, which give a particular saving value to specific moments. **These are precisely the kairoi, God’s seasons, which man is called to discern and by which he must allow himself to be challenged.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1301
As we saw with the Catholic encyclopedia:
For those who admit the existence of a transcendent First Cause of the universe, naturalism consists essentially in an undue limitation of God’s activity in the world. God is only Creator, not Providence; He cannot, or may not, interfere with the natural course of events, or He never did so, or, at least, the fact of His ever doing so cannot be established. Even if the soul of man is regarded as spiritual and immortal, and if, among human activities, some are exempted from the determinism of physical agents and recognized to be free, all this is within nature, which includes the laws governing spirits as well as those governing matter. But these laws are sufficient to account for everything that happens in the world of matter or of mind. This form of naturalism stands in close relation with Rationalism and Deism. Once established by God, the order of nature is unchangeable, and man is endowed by nature with all that is required even for his religious and moral development. … [this idea] ** is directly opposed to the Christian Religion**. But even within the fold of Christianity, among those who admit a Divine Revelation and a supernatural order, several naturalistic tendencies are found. Such are those of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, who minimize the necessity and functions of Divine grace; of Baius, who asserts that the elevation of man was an exigency of his nature; of many sects, especially among Liberal Protestants, who fall into more or Less radical Rationalism; and of others who endeavour to restrict within too narrow limits the divine agency in the universe.
newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
And there is Pope Benedict XVI:
"http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=40691
God’s response to moral evil is to oppose sin and save the sinner. God does not tolerate evil because he is Love, Justice, Fidelity; and it is precisely because of this that he does not wish the death of the sinner, but desires that the sinner covert and live. God intervenes to save humanity: We see this in the whole history of the Jewish people, beginning with their liberation from Egypt. God is determined to deliver his children from slavery to lead them to freedom. And the worst and most profound slavery is that of sin. This is why God sent his Son into the world: to free men from the rule of Satan, ““origin and cause of every sin.””
“God cannot contradict himself, and so the prayer goes back to describing the painful situation of the one praying in order to convince God to have pity and intervene as he always did in the past,” the pope said.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103645.htm
R
reggieM
Guest
A logical contradiction follows from this, though.
You want to avoid having God create suffering, since it would be hard to explain why some suffer and others do not.
To solve that, you find it easier to say that God just created the natural laws. His creation “unfolds” based on those laws.
So, the solution to the problem of suffering is that the laws causes the suffering – not God.
Why did the laws cause suffering?
Because God created the laws that way – it’s part of his creation.
There’s the problem – God created the laws, which cause suffering, destruction, and whatever else we’re trying not to blame on God.
It’s even worse – apparently, He can’t even intervene to lessen the suffering caused by His own laws and creation.
So, he has laws and creation which are out of control, causing entropy, decay, death and suffering – for no other reason than after He created these things He can’t do anything to stop them or lessen their impact.
Fr. Coyne’s answer is much better and easier to understand, actually (as wrong as it is) … and that is (to paraphrase him – you saw the quotes I posted), “God created laws, but didn’t know what would happen after that.”
The Darwinian-apologist, Catholic Ken Miller says exactly the same thing. God was basically surprised by what resulted from evolution. Human beings were not planned, not directly created – they were an accidental result.
God created some evolutionary processes, but supposedly, God didn’t know what would result from them. That’s exactly what Coyne, Miller and other Catholics claim.
Personally – and I’m sorry to sound judgmental, (I guess that’s the way evolution created me
) – I have to say that the idea is blasphemous and incredibly false regarding the nature of God.But that’s really what it is – an ignorant god. That’s what Darwinian theory gives us – at the very best, if you want to hold on to the concept of a god at all.
R
razredge
Guest
granny you are being quite disingenuous - if that was true then it would be called the Tree of Eternal Happiness
So does polygenism and evolution
You know that’s not what I mean by being ‘saved’.God did save the others.
Catholics believe that heaven is a great place to go to. No income taxes.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I know.
Please don’t think that there are no Catholics here who firmly believe in what the Church has told us we can believe, even if we can’t discuss it. It’s a shame that a lack of charity has led the largest Catholic forum in the world to take the action of banning such an important topic and as you say, the debate is hot and furious.I agree with you - except with your closing statement. It is a fact that the Church allows the faithful to believe in *********, even if it is a banned topic here. CAF is a religious forum but I have never believed that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
R
razredge
Guest
Pardon my ignorance - I had no idea resurrections are still happening today!How do you **know **that?
- Status