Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Continuation of Post 1742

To: Gentle Readers

Re: using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

Post 1742 was edited in stages; thus it is suggested to go back and read the whole thing.

Be careful of the wishy-washy statements in the link in post 1737. As evidenced in Post 1742, the sources of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition assure us that the Catholic Deposit of Faith is handed down correctly.

Here is an out-of-context sample. “And it has less authority than a Conciliar document on faith and morals.” Somehow, the writer missed the Index of Citations which gives where the Conciliar documents are used in the Catechism.

Do pay attention to the abuses listed. These have appeared on CAF by both Catholics and others who come from different faith traditions.

One of the causes for this is that people are using on line Catechisms which do not have all the advantages of a hard copy. A paperback copy is not expensive.

The Catechism is not an easy read. One has to spend hours with it. This is because topics are presented in depth with many paragraphs including the cross-references in the margins. For example, CAF posters will cite the paragraphs on how to read scripture and totally miss paragraph 390. Both the index and the list of contents at the front have to be consulted in order to get the whole picture.

Above all, a person should approach the Catechism with a prayer to the Holy Spirit Who guides the Catholic Church and us.

We need to study the Catholic Faith in humility.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I think this post was written for you:
On the Misuse of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

How do you know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church gets it right?
For example in the article on the fall it also claims that death entered the world at the Fall, which is clearly false as there had already been billions of years of death before that

Do read the “abuses” in the link above. They will help you to understand how the Catechism works. In addition, posts 1742 & 1744 offer additional insights.

One help would be to read the whole paragraph and additional paragraphs of pertinent information. For example this sentence. “Death makes its entrance into human history.” emphasis mine. And this sentence. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Emphasis mine.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you watch the news? It’s readily apparent.

 

[tonyrey]

And what do you consider to be “the Dawkins version” and how does it differ from the scientific cons

 

[reggieM]

Well to me it seems to be the simplest solution to the problem of evil and the conclusion best supported by our experience - it also avoids problems like what happens if two people pray for conflicting requests.

From what I’ve seen, it’s very difficult to reconcile that view with Catholic Tradition and Scriptural evidence – and I think the ideas that follow from the view (such as, that miracles are actually a part of the natural order) are not a simple solution to the problem.

There are quite a few theologians, philosophers and theistic scientists also seem to believe in a God who doesn’t generally interfere in the natural order.

For one – Catholic Answers’ own theologian/philosopher, Michael T. Tkacz does argue that “God does not intervene in nature”.

Here’s a thread from This Rock discussing it:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-id-round-three

I find Mr. Tkacz’s explanation to be extremely convoluted and speculative (he cites few if any Catholic sources).

I also posted earlier in this thread where his views are in direct contradiction with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example.

But you’re right that some Catholics do hold that position.

 

[reggieM]

It is absurd to expect God to prevent all evil - if one is a Christian…

Exactly. As Christians, we know the value and meaning of redemption, atonement, penance, reparation, vicarious suffering, justice and mercy.

There really is no “problem of evil” in the Christian worldview.

Christ calls us to “take up the Cross” – for a very good reason.

We do penance for sins – our own, and for the sins of the whole world.

 

[tonyrey]

From what I’ve seen, it’s very difficult to reconcile that view with Catholic Tradition and Scriptural evidence – and I think the ideas that follow from the view (such as, that miracles are actually a part of the natural order) are not a simple solution to the problem.

For one – Catholic Answers’ own theologian/philosopher, Michael T. Tkacz does argue that “God does not intervene in nature”.

Here’s a thread from This Rock discussing it:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-id-round-three

I find Mr. Tkacz’s explanation to be extremely convoluted and speculative (he cites few if any Catholic sources).

I also posted earlier in this thread where his views are in direct contradiction with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example.

But you’re right that some Catholics do hold that position.

I’m quite sure the vast majority of Catholics, Christians and members of other religions believe miracles often occur in answer to prayer - and even when they are not requested. Support for that view on this forum so far has amounted to 90% - which is consistent with the teaching of the Church that evidence of **at least **two verifiable miracles is required for canonisation. Is it likely that all the saints were restricted to the basic minimum to satisfy the demand of those who maintain that such events are exceedingly rare?

 

[grannymh]

Exactly. As Christians, we know the value and meaning of redemption, atonement, penance, reparation, vicarious suffering, justice and mercy.

There really is no “problem of evil” in the Christian worldview.

Christ calls us to “take up the Cross” – for a very good reason.

We do penance for sins – our own, and for the sins of the whole world.

Emphasis mine

The Catholic Church is well aware of the problem of evil in the real world.

Starting with the ceremony which accompanies Baptism, the Seven Sacraments form the major defense in the battle against the “evil one”.

 

[inocente]

I’m quite sure the vast majority of Catholics, Christians and members of other religions believe miracles often occur in answer to prayer - and even when they are not requested. Support for that view on this forum so far has amounted to 90% - which is consistent with the teaching of the Church that evidence of **at least **two verifiable miracles is required for canonisation. Is it likely that all the saints were restricted to the basic minimum to satisfy the demand of those who maintain that such events are exceedingly rare?

Not sure you can go from that sample, the thread seemed very chocolate box to me.

I didn’t want to spoil the mood, so will say it here instead: If bees making honey or stars twinkling is a miracle, either we’re not thinking it through or a moral statement is being made, that we’re more interested in feeling nice happy thoughts than acknowledging all the suffering in the world.

And if it’s a miracle when a baby is born healthy, or when someone walks away from a car crash or a disaster, either we’re not thinking it through or a moral statement is being made, that we think God condemned the rest, or at best is capricious.

 

[reggieM]

I’m quite sure the vast majority of Catholics, Christians and members of other religions believe miracles often occur in answer to prayer - and even when they are not requested. Support for that view on this forum so far has amounted to 90% - which is consistent with the teaching of the Church that evidence of **at least **two verifiable miracles is required for canonisation. Is it likely that all the saints were restricted to the basic minimum to satisfy the demand of those who maintain that such events are exceedingly rare?

The belief that God is continually active and present in nature and that He reveals Himself through miracles, answers to prayer and evidence of His design (transcending natural laws) is consistent with:

The teaching of the Church today
The Catholic theological tradition since the apostles
The Old Testament & New Testament
Catholic philosophy
the mystical theology of the Church and experience of Saints
and the ordinary experience of believers through the ages.

The idea that God does not intervene in the order of nature, on the other hand …

Has a lot of conflicts with and virtually no support with the above list …
Is parallel to neo-modernist ideas like Open Theology – which proposes that God is ignorant of the future and is subject to and dependent on the natural laws He created.

Tony - the more difficult point that you’ve tried to explore is “how often does God intervene”?

a. Continually (this is what 90% of the Catholic Faithful believe)
b. Rarely
c. Never

Choice “b” really sets a person up as having some kind of omnipotent view. Plus, it’s inconsistent unless someone is going to claim that God acts on the basis of some mechanism or time-line for interventions. It’s an impossible argument. Again, this is theology, not science. The question of God’s providence is solved through theological data, so you have to start with axioms of Faith.

Choice “c” is more consistent but even more absurd from the Catholic perspective. It separates God from His creation.

 

[reggieM]

I didn’t search for this – it came along as a forwarded essay from Archbishop (soon-to-be-Cardinal) Timothy Dolan on his Archdiocese of NY’s website – writing about the importance of the Catholic Faith, he says (my emphasis):

Part of the Enlightenment is Deism, which holds that, while there is, indeed, a Supreme Being, it is distant, aloof, impersonal. This Divinity has set creation, and our lives, in motion, and now leaves us alone, to greet us one day when it’s all over.

We Christians (and Jews) do not have a Deistic approach to God. For us, God is personal; He has revealed Himself to us, entered into covenant with us, called us, formed us, and is intimately part of history.

We Christians dare to take it a step further as we profess that this God took flesh in Jesus Christ, the mystery we call the Incarnation.

Tough to settle only for Deism at Bethlehem, Nazareth, the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the Mount of the Beatitudes, Cana, Capernaum, Naim, Bethesda, and Jerusalem. . .

See why one’s faith is renewed?

blog.archny.org/?p=2221

 

[inocente]

Tony - the more difficult point that you’ve tried to explore is “how often does God intervene”?

a. Continually (this is what 90% of the Catholic Faithful believe)
b. Rarely
c. Never

Is the 90% Catholic Faithful based on tony’s poll, on which just 20 people have voted, or on a statistically valid sample?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I didn’t search for this – it came along as a forwarded essay from Archbishop (soon-to-be-Cardinal) Timothy Dolan on his Archdiocese of NY’s website – writing about the importance of the Catholic Faith, he says (my emphasis):

Part of the Enlightenment is Deism, which holds that, while there is, indeed, a Supreme Being, it is distant, aloof, impersonal. This Divinity has set creation, and our lives, in motion, and now leaves us alone, to greet us one day when it’s all over.

We Christians (and Jews) do not have a Deistic approach to God. For us, God is personal; He has revealed Himself to us, entered into covenant with us, called us, formed us, and is intimately part of history.

We Christians dare to take it a step further as we profess that this God took flesh in Jesus Christ, the mystery we call the Incarnation.

Tough to settle only for Deism at Bethlehem, Nazareth, the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the Mount of the Beatitudes, Cana, Capernaum, Naim, Bethesda, and Jerusalem. . .

See why one’s faith is renewed?

blog.archny.org/?p=2221

Nobody here espouses deism. It is all in your overactive imagination, I am afraid.

 

[ricmat]

Nobody here espouses deism.

I suppose that depends on how one defines deism. After all, there are people who say that murder is wrong, but then turn around and say that abortion is OK (not you obviously, but I’m trying to highlight the “definition” issue).

Just for reference, what is your definition of deism that “nobody here espouses?”

 

[Al_Moritz]

I suppose that depends on how one defines deism. After all, there are people who say that murder is wrong, but then turn around and say that abortion is OK (not you obviously, but I’m trying to highlight the “definition” issue).

Just for reference, what is your definition of deism that “nobody here espouses?”

See Reggie’s post above. It’s not that hard, really.

 

[tonyrey]

The belief that God is continually active and present in nature and that He reveals Himself through miracles, answers to prayer and evidence of His design (transcending natural laws) is consistent with:The teaching of the Church today
The Catholic theological tradition since the apostles
The Old Testament & New Testament
Catholic philosophy
the mystical theology of the Church and experience of Saints
and the ordinary experience of believers through the ages.The idea that God does not intervene in the order of nature, on the other hand …Has a lot of conflicts with and virtually no support with the above list …
Is parallel to neo-modernist ideas like Open Theology – which proposes that God is ignorant of the future and is subject to and dependent on the natural laws He created.Tony - the more difficult point that you’ve tried to explore is “how often does God intervene”?
e
a. Continually (this is what 90% of the Catholic Faithful believe)
b. Rarely
c. Never

Choice “b” really sets a person up as having some kind of omnipotent view. Plus, it’s inconsistent unless someone is going to claim that God acts on the basis of some mechanism or time-line for interventions. It’s an impossible argument. Again, this is theology, not science. The question of God’s providence is solved through theological data, so you have to start with axioms of Faith.

Choice “c” is more consistent but even more absurd from the Catholic perspective. It separates God from His creation.

It is certainly inconsistent with the beliefs of Catholic saints and theologians throughout the last two thousand years:

Augustine (354ñ430), bishop of Hippo, was the greatest theologians of the early medieval Church and systematized much of the theology that governed the teaching of the Western Church for over a thousand years. **Although in his early years Augustine believed that all miracles had ceased by the end of the lives of the apostles, his view was transformed by the compelling evidence of many well-attested miracles **

that occurred during a powerful revival that occurred throughout the churches of North Africa that were under his supervision. In the last section of his epic work The City of God, Augustine wrote about numerous miracles that he had personally witnessed and investigated, including remarkable miraculous healings involving breast cancer, paralysis, blindness, and even people who were resurrected from the dead. He wrote, “For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ”.
Professor Peter Brown wrote in his book Augustine of Hippo that Augustine carefully collected the evidence of a variety of supernatural incidents and miracles "until they formed a single corpus, as compact and compelling as the miracles that had assisted the growth of the Early Church.

For example, Augustine reported on a person healed of blindness, "The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there, and by which a blind man was restored to sight, could come to the knowledge of many; for not only is the city a large one, but also the emperor was there at the time, and the occurrence was witnessed by an immense concourse of people.
grantjeffrey.com/article/mystery.htm

 

[wanstronian]

Reggie has answered that question.

He’s linked to an abstract of a document that I can’t download. So please, indulge me and at the same time prove that you know your subject. Explain the “Dawkins” version of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and how it differs from the scientific concensus.

The Design argument existed two millennia before Wedge!

It did? Can you cite a reference?

Why do apes not appear in court?

Facile answer, I assume you don’t have a proper one. Feel free to prove me wrong.

1. Can you explain your mind scientifically?

1. If everything has a natural cause all your thoughts are determined by natural events and you have no guarantee that any of your conclusions are true…

Okay - your standard reversion to the Argument from Ignorance. I might have known. I guess we’ve got nothing more to say - you’re still making the same poor arguments, and are unable to substantiate a single thing you say.

See ya.

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’re supposed to smile unless you are otherwise disposed!

Ah, but groans are the universal response to puns!

 

[reggieM]

Nobody here espouses deism. It is all in your overactive imagination, I am afraid.

Al, I was responding to the comment:

Yes, I don’t think God answers prayers by intervening in the natural order

You have already said that you reject that view. You accept that God does intervene in the natural order. So that’s where the conflict is.

 

[tonyrey]

He’s linked to an abstract of a document that I can’t download. So please, indulge me and at the same time prove that you know your subject. Explain the “Dawkins” version of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and how it differs from the scientific cons