EVOLUTION: what about this

[reggieM]

Not everyone has to wallow in the gruesomeness of a Gibsonian imagination … to appreciate the seriousness of sin.

The question wasn’t “the seriousnes of sin” but was, rather, the Stations of the Cross, the Sorrowful Mysteries or Good Friday.

Apparently, you think Gibson’s film is “gruesome” in a way that these devotions are not.

Do you have a cheerful version of the Stations at your parish? How about a crucifix with a non-gruesome appeal?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eve from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, and infused knowledge all have been constant teachings of the Church. These have to be reconciled.

The stuff in Ott does not need to be reconciled with science, because it is theological, so not empirically testable, as scientific data are.​

**That does not mean those propositions are true - but even if they are not, scientific things are not what cause problems for them. The problems are going to come from Biblical exegesis & the like, not from science. **

 

[StAnastasia]

The question wasn’t “the seriousnes of sin” but was, rather, the Stations of the Cross, the Sorrowful Mysteries or Good Friday. Apparently, you think Gibson’s film is “gruesome” in a way that these devotions are not. Do you have a cheerful version of the Stations at your parish? How about a crucifix with a non-gruesome appeal?

I don’t need the fantasies of Gibson or Emmerich to dictate how I meditate on the passion.

 

[wildleafblower]

There can hardly be a more authoritative figure with regard to the purposes and objectives of the [Altenberg]conference , and he completely demolishes the sort of misrepresentation of the conference aims that you yourself have indulged in repeatedly on this forum.

Well, you had better not be misrepresenting me or the conference, ReggieM or I’ll have to :nunchuk: ya, which should frighten you! You remind of the same old, cute yet mischievous squirrel that pillages the bird feeder in my garden year after year.LOL! Please try to make it Happy New Year for me and others, especially me.

So you [StAnastasia] don’t believe in hell at all?

Peace

Tim

Don’t hold your breath Tim, that person has yet to answer any of my questions from other topics. Have a Happy and Blessed New Year! The best to you and your wife.

 

[Marocchino]

“Adam” was not meant by the authors of Genesis to represent one human; it is the generic term for “humankind.”

Pope Pius XII:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to **original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam **and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Is Humani Generis not any longer binding on the faithful?

 

[buffalo]

The stuff in Ott does not need to be reconciled with science, because it is theological, so not empirically testable, as scientific data are.​

**That does not mean those propositions are true - but even if they are not, scientific things are not what cause problems for them. The problems are going to come from Biblical exegesis & the like, not from science. **

Revelation does not have to reconcile with science, science must reconcile to Revelation.

Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, preternaturally gifts, bodily immortality cannot be empirically tested as you state. So science trying to look back in the past would have to take a philosophical position. That is the crux of the problem.

 

[ricmat]

Here is an article that shows how Darwinism in some cases leads to a mindset which is not just anti-religious / anti-God, but anti-human. I have yet to see a “religious fundamentalist” or “Creationist” or “Intelligent Design supporter” who believes in human un-exceptionalism.

 

[Marocchino]

As far as I know, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is the only clergyman ever to attempt to synthesize Catholicism and evolutionary theory. The result was a denial of Adam and Eve, original sin, and the fall of humankind – all dogmas that have been maintained to this present day and are included in the 1994 Catechism.

Is there any way for theistic evolution to coexist with these central Catholic dogmas?

If you want to know what atheists think about the Catholic dogma of original sin, read this page: atheism.about.com/b/2007/06/19/comment-of-the-week-catholic-church-original-sin-and-evolution.htm

 

[reggieM]

Here is an article that shows how Darwinism in some cases leads to a mindset which is not just anti-religious / anti-God, but anti-human. I have yet to see a “religious fundamentalist” or “Creationist” or “Intelligent Design supporter” who believes in human un-exceptionalism.

From the blog:

I have to admit that if the Dawkins of the world are successful in destroying society’s belief in human exceptionalism, it would send a thrill up my leg too. But unlike his frisson, mine would be of cold fear based on my sure knowledge that doing so would result in the undermining of universal human equality and on the concomitant universal rights that flow, as the UN Charter states, simply from being human.

It’s a frightening consequence of the anti-God ideology.

 

[reggieM]

Well, you had better not be misrepresenting me or the conference, ReggieM or I’ll have to :nunchuk: ya, which should frighten you! You remind of the same old, cute yet mischievous squirrel that pillages the bird feeder in my garden year after year.LOL! Please try to make it Happy New Year for me and others, especially me.

I wish you a happy and blessed New Year, wildleafblower and I will try my best to make it as happy as I can for you.

– and yes, I am frightened enough about getting nunchuked by you, even though I don’t think I could drive you quite that far.

 

[StAnastasia]

As far as I know, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is the only clergyman ever to attempt to synthesize Catholicism and evolutionary theory. The result was a denial of Adam and Eve, original sin, and the fall of humankind – all dogmas that have been maintained to this present day and are included in the 1994 Catechism…Is there any way for theistic evolution to coexist with these central Catholic dogmas?]

Theologians don’t attempt to “synthesize Catholicism and Evolutioanary theory,” any more than they synthesize Catholicism with the theory of gravity, with cell theory, with atomic theory, etc. Rather, theologians interpret theology in light of the progressive understanding of the world around us. Here are some theologians after Teilhard who have interpreted theology in an evolutionary context:

Deane-Drummond, Celia. Biology and Theology Today. London: SCM Press, 2001.

Edwards, Denis. The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999.

Haught, John F. Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2003.

________. Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life. Pandora Press, 2004

Heller, Michal. Creative Tension : Essays On Science And Religion.

Hess, Peter, and Paul Allen, Catholicism and Science (2008)

Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters. Can you believe in God and evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

McMullin, Ernan, ed. Evolution and Creation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.

Rahner, Karl, Hominisation : the evolutionary origin of man as a theological problem, 1965

Zycinski, Josef. God and evolution : fundamental questions of Christian evolutionism, 2006

 

[StAnastasia]

Here is an article that shows how Darwinism in some cases leads to a mindset which is not just anti-religious / anti-God, but anti-human. I have yet to see a “religious fundamentalist” or “Creationist” or “Intelligent Design supporter” who believes in human un-exceptionalism.

ricmat, perhaps we need a more nuanced view. I agree with you about the ontological dangers of human unexceptionalism. But human exceptionalism carries dangers too, such as ignoring the fact that Homo sapiens is constrained by biological limits just as are redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, and elephants.

A good look has been made at this from a Catholic theological perspective by one of the leading British thinkers in this field, Celia Deane DrumMond, who is a double doctor, in both theology and biology. Her book is Eco-Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd,2008). Celia is a solidly Catholic thinker and a good friend of mine; she is Director: Centre for Religion and the Biosciences, Department of Theology and Religious Studies,
University of Chester, England.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Theologians don’t attempt to “synthesize Catholicism and Evolutioanary theory,” any more than they synthesize Catholicism with the theory of gravity, with cell theory, with atomic theory, etc. Rather, theologians interpret theology in light of the progressive understanding of the world around us. Here are some theologians after Teilhard who have interpreted theology in an evolutionary context:

Deane-Drummond, Celia. Biology and Theology Today. London: SCM Press, 2001.

Edwards, Denis. The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999.

Haught, John F. Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2003.

________. Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life. Pandora Press, 2004

Heller, Michal. Creative Tension : Essays On Science And Religion.

Hess, Peter, and Paul Allen, Catholicism and Science (2008)

Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters. Can you believe in God and evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.

McMullin, Ernan, ed. Evolution and Creation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.

Rahner, Karl, Hominisation : the evolutionary origin of man as a theological problem, 1965

Zycinski, Josef. God and evolution : fundamental questions of Christian evolutionism, 2006

Of course the Catholic Church does state what it concludes about evolution, viewing science and revelation as complementary. After referring to Pope John Paul II’s statement about evolution being more than a hypothesis, Pope Benedict said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

What is creating a false worldview today, even among Catholics, is the idea that religious faith and knowledge are somehow separate from the real world and science. Man is not just an animal. The Catholic Church teaches that by the light of natural human reason, anyone can detect God in nature. The Church goes further and states there is actual design in nature.

But because science has blinded itself, it cannot see beyond a narrow slice of reality. However, scientists, as individuals, clearly can, but the journal Nature tells us most leading scientists reject God. So, atheism has taken hold, and scientism, which is the source of the blindness.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

ricmat, perhaps we need a more nuanced view. I agree with you about the ontological dangers of human unexceptionalism. But human exceptionalism carries dangers too, such as ignoring the fact that Homo sapiens is constrained by biological limits just as are redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, and elephants.

But we are more exceptional than redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, and elephants. We live from one end of the earth to the other. They do not. We control much of our environment. They do not. Someday we will probably populate other planets. They will not. We can temper any negative effects on our local environment using technology. They can not.

Their biological limits are NOT the same as our biological limits.

I often see arguments similar to yours to justify abortion and contraception in contradiction to Church teaching. I also see arguments similar to yours which suggest that we must all ride bicycles and live in a primitive agrarian society so as to avoid imposing on “animal rights”, and even “plant rights” (which I posted on earlier). This type of thinking borders on nature worship (Gaia and all that).

As stewards of God’s creation, and priests in his cosmic temple (so to speak), we have a responsibility to nature. But that responsibility does not extend to contradicting church teachings or nature worship.

IMHO.

 

[StAnastasia]

As stewards of God’s creation, and priests in his cosmic temple (so to speak), we have a responsibility to nature. But that responsibility does not extend to contradicting church teachings or nature worship.IMHO.

Who suggested such?

 

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by ricmat forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
As stewards of God’s creation, and priests in his cosmic temple (so to speak), we have a responsibility to nature. But that responsibility does not extend to contradicting church teachings or nature worship.IMHO.

Who suggested such?

The catechism clearly states that we are stewards of God’s creation. It’s more than a suggestion.

Obviously, the catechism would not teach that our responsibility to nature would extend to contradicting church teachings, or extend to nature worship.

There are movements all over the world to extend legally binding “human rights” to great apes (Spain), animals in general, and even “plants” (most lately I believe in Switzerland and Ecuador). In my mind this is one of those “truth is stranger than fiction” situations.

 

[redhen]

But we are more exceptional than redwood trees, salmon, kangaroos, bonobos, and elephants.

How so?

We live from one end of the earth to the other. They do not.

I think all the species of bacteria would beg to differ with you.

We control much of our environment. They do not.

Yup, and what an outstanding job we’ve done.
well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

Someday we will probably populate other planets. They will not.

Hopefully you can bring along some seeds and DNA samples so you can repopulate a new Earth, that we’ve destroyed.

We can temper any negative effects on our local environment using technology. They can not.

Bophal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, need I go on?

Their biological limits are NOT the same as our biological limits.

Care to elaborate on that?

I often see arguments similar to yours to justify abortion and contraception in contradiction to Church teaching.

How many humans do you think can comfortably inhabit this planet? 6 billion? 9 billion? 12 billion? How many?

I also see arguments similar to yours which suggest that we must all ride bicycles and live in a primitive agrarian society so as to avoid imposing on “animal rights”, and even “plant rights” (which I posted on earlier). This type of thinking borders on nature worship (Gaia and all that).

This has nothing to do with pantheism or Gaia worship (whatever that is), but rather it pertains to that stewardship you mentioned. Again, the greatest mass extinction since the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago) has been man made.

As stewards of God’s creation, and priests in his cosmic temple (so to speak), we have a responsibility to nature. But that responsibility does not extend to contradicting church teachings or nature worship.
IMHO.

No one is advocating nature worship. Who has said that on this forum? This is an example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

 

[hecd2]

Revelation does not have to reconcile with science, science must reconcile to Revelation.

Of course science doesn’t have to and will not reconcile its findings with Catholic Revelation. Not only is it absurd to think that science should consider or defer to what any particular religion believes, but science is not a Catholic project. Science is a project that belongs to people of all faiths and no faiths, and its success comes from rejecting all sacred ideas, wherever they arise, in favour of evidence.

Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, preternaturally gifts, bodily immortality cannot be empirically tested as you state

Of course the existence of a biblical Adam and Eve can be empirically tested. The evidence is overwhelmingly that no biblical Adam and Eve, the sole parents of all humans, existed. Since there was no biblical Adam and Eve, the other questions are moot.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[StAnastasia]

Science is a project that belongs to people of all faiths and no faiths, and its success comes from rejecting all sacred ideas, wherever they arise, in favour of evidence…Of course the existence of a biblical Adam and Eve can be empirically tested. The evidence is overwhelmingly that no biblical Adam and Eve, the sole parents of all humans, existed. Since there was no biblical Adam and Eve, the other questions are moot.Alec

Alec, I’m sure you would agree that the recognized scientific impossibility of a literal “Adam” and “Eve” does not negate Catholic hamartiology any more than the impossibility of an literal Aristotelian “transubstantiation” negates Catholic eucharistic theology.

StAnastasia

 

[wildleafblower]

Revelation does not have to reconcile with science, science must reconcile to Revelation.

Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, preternaturally gifts, bodily immortality cannot be empirically tested as you state. So science trying to look back in the past would have to take a philosophical position. That is the crux of the problem.

When you make the mistake as you have above you give every scientist in the world reason to attack the Church! For heavens sake please stop it! The bible isn’t a science book but rather a historical book of events. Adam and Eve were people (a man and woman) who knew God. Adam and Eve aren’t a myth nor are they from a fictionalized storybook. An example of an event pertaining to Adam and Eve in the bible reflects:
EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION
ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE LORD

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

St Peter’s Basilica
Sunday, 6 January 2008

[snip- Please read the entire document]
The Gospel event which we commemorate on the Epiphany - the Magi’s visit to the Child Jesus in Bethlehem - thus refers us back to the origins of the history of God’s People, that is, to Abraham’s call. We are in chapter 12 of the Book of Genesis. The first 11 chapters are like great frescos that answer some of humanity’s fundamental questions: what is the origin of the universe and of the human race? Where does evil come from? Why are there different languages and civilizations?

Among the narratives with which the Bible begins, there appears a first “covenant” which God made with Noah after the flood. It was a universal covenant concerning the whole of humanity: the new pact with Noah’s family is at the same time a pact with “all flesh”. Then, before Abraham’s call, there is another great fresco which is very important for understanding the meaning of Epiphany: that of the Tower of Babel. The sacred text says that in the beginning, “the whole earth had one language and few words” (Gn 11: 1). Then men said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gn 11: 4). **The consequence of this sin of pride, similar to that of Adam and Eve, was the confusion of languages and the dispersion of humanity over all the earth **(cf. Gn 11: 7-8). This means “Babel” and was a sort of curse, similar to being banished from the earthly paradise.
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080106_epifania_en.html.

The Pope goes on by stating:

From the message of His Holiness Benedict XVI on January 1st, 2008: “At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world. I do so by offering for our common reflection the theme which I have placed at the beginning of this message. It is one which I consider particularly important: the human family, a community of peace. The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: “All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth; they also have one final end, God”.
15 October 2008
vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop%20Monete&prod=M_2008_006.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Shop/_dettaglio_prodotto.htm?id=Shop Monete&prod=M_2008_006.

The theological word “human race” as used by the Pope isn’t the same used by scientists. AMEN!