No, it doesn’t transcend science. There certainly was pain and suffering for tens of millions (if not billions) of years before humans evolved. It would be a bizarre interpretation of observed experience to contend that a gazelle or a baboon – screaming in pain as it is rent by a lion or by a pack of hyenas – is not experiencing pain.
It does, indeed, transcend science. And yes, it is very difficult for people to accept that as being true of anything at all (everything is reduced to a subject for science).
Whether or not a gazelle suffers when being torn apart by a lion, or whether a dog experiences pain when being beaten by its owner, is a question that can be investigated empirically. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and find a puppy to beat in a public place, and I can guarantee you that your view that animal suffering transcends science will very quickly be shown to be a minority view!
Is that a money-back guarantee?
How do you draw this conclusion?
That’s your particular opinion that you’ve formed based on the theory of evolution. All I’ve done is simply state the Church’s teaching that suffering came into existence because of man’s sin. Look at the bold sections from my previous posts from the CCC. I just put it out there and you are free to interpret it as you please. It’s not binding that you believe in Creationism and in fact we are free to form our own opinions on this subject because it is not necessarily vital to our salvation.
Do you understand what the phrase “a complete understanding of the nature of suffering transcends science” means?
Because science in the past 400 years has been extraordinarily successful at finding out about how our world works and how it was formed. Cosmology and astronomy have given us an astonishingly detailed understanding of the universe from the Big Bang through galactic and stellar formation. Geology has shown us how the earth was formed and how it has changed through volcanism, glaciations, degradation and aggradation. Biology and genetics have shown us how all life on earth is related. These are a few of the examples of why science is accepted by so many.
The fal of Satan is normally attributed to the sin of prode. Whan did that sin happen? Once that sin had happened, then animal suffering would be possible, even if there were as yet no true humans.
The world described in Genesis is not “perfect”. It is “good” and “very good”, but not “perfect”. IIRC there is a Hebrew word for “perfect” that is not used in the first chapter of Genesis. I would also point out that before the fall, before the creation of Eve it is said: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” [Genesis 2:18] My emphasis. The pre-fall world described in Genesis was not perfect.
Believe me, I understand that science is an extremely important and lifesaving thing. But certain things remain theory and not proven fact. The Big Bang is a theory for example. It makes sense, but there’s no way to prove it. Some things man will never know until the next life. In the mean time, I do thank God for science and those who devote their lives to it.
You’re right, Satan’s sin of pride occured before the creation of our world. But the Church still states that suffering entered the world because of man’s sin. I’m just skeptical that there could be original justice and yet suffering in the same reality. Since man had a harmonious relationship with animals during original justice, and if animals were allowed by God to suffer, then merely seeing them suffer would cause him to suffer as a result. I’ve seen a couple of dogs struck by cars in my lifetime and it absolutely tore my heart out. If I had been in a state of original justice, would that mean I wouldn’t be bothered by it? I see what you are saying about very good vs. perfect, but I still can’t imagine that God purposefully created a world with suffering already in it. Creation was an act of supreme love and God’s love wouldn’t desire his creatures to experience agony in my opinion.
Originally Adam’s relationship with God was perfect, as was his relationship with the rest of creation – he had dominion over it. It seems to me that if the perfect relationship between God and Adam meant that Adam would not die, then it’s certainly possible that the perfect relationship between Adam and all other living things could have entailed a suspension of the natural processes of suffering and death for them. In that case, the disorder caused by the Fall would have resulted in the death of the First Man and the resumption of suffering and death for the rest of creation.
Good point.
Science is limited. It is not the starting point. There are things only God can do. All life on earth is related because it was designed to live and survive in the same environment. Science, as practiced today, is corrupt, and most leading scientists reject God. That should concern you, being Catholic.
Exactly. God doesn’t have to work inside the box of natural laws, but Catholic evolutionists seem to insist that He must. That God would only have created life in a manner we could comprehend.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,Very good points. I would have less argument with evolution if the proposals were offered in a tentative way – always very cautious about making claims on the origin of things. But Catholic evolutionists tend to treat evolutionary theory as if it is a sacred doctrine. They do not permit any criticism or challenges to the theory. At the same time, there is a weak spot for the Catholic evolutionist – namely, that God did “something” in nature. We have to believe that. But the God-believing evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining what God did. Usually, it is the same approach that the atheists take – “there is no discernable evidence of God to be found in nature” (a denial of the *de fide *teaching of Vatican I). Then they can only say that God “created the natural laws” at the very beginning and did nothing after that.
Exactly correct. Thank you for making that point here Reggie.
Of course we all believe (I hope) that God created the natural laws, but claiming he did nothing after that is Deism, a heresy. You’ve made another excellent point here Reggie.
I agree. It would be well for them to read Wisdom 13, and Job 38-41.
Isn’t it ironic that some of those Catholics so enamored with evolution actually claim that believing that “God did it in 6 days” causes atheism. Although I’m not personally a YEC, at least I admit that a literal reading of Genesis acknowledges a belief that God exists, and continues to interact with his children and in nature.
That must be the reason that they are so desperate to segregate science and God. Then they have a playground in which gluttony is not a sin.
Thanks for putting your post together Reggie, you’ve covered a lot of good ground with it.
Pretty much like gravity. Of course, we know why evolution works, but we still aren’t sure why gravity works.
Observable fact. Would you like to see some evidence?
But YEC denies God’s word in Genesis. That’s a major problem.