Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[reggieM]

Correct.

Ok, well I don’t think there are millions of Catholics who reject the existence of Adam and Even as well as the Original Sin. I mean, they would all be dissenting from the Faith to do that.

If they don’t reject evolution and believe in Adam and Eve, I’m not sure how they can reconcile those two views. Some cognitive dissonance at work apparently.

Yes - exactly my point. All of the Catholic evolutionists here on CAF face that problem and just try to squirm around it somehow.

I don’t see a problem with the infusion of a soul at conception if you are Christian. Although you might have some work in defining soul so that it doesn’t conflict with aspects of the human condition that are evolutionary based.

Yes, if the soul was an invisible entity that had no observable effects, then you could add it to anything and it would make no difference to evolutionary theory. However, Catholics believe that the soul is the source of consciousness and rationality, which evolution attempts to explain as emergent physical properties. So there’s a conflict there.

I presume you meant to say that you can’t see a soul in fossils. Which is true. But then I can’t see one in living creatures either. It’s not a scientific concept so isn’t included in the scientific definition of a human being.

From the Catholic view, however, a human being has an immortal soul and we can observe the effects in the moral conscience, conscioius awareness, the desire for purpose and the inclination towards God.
We would say that this would be the most fundamental difference between human and any kind of non-human animal. Evolution claims that all of those features of human life are derived from physical mutations selected for survival and reproductive advantage. So there is another conflict.

 

[reggieM]

I think so. But I would tend towards deism in any case, which is not the same as being a Christian. Maybe I should have said ‘If I believed in God’.

I think that says a lot. In order to reconcile Christianity with evolution you would agree that there would need to be a “God who does not intervene in nature” - and that is consistent with evolution, as I see it. But it also contradicts Catholic belief.
So, I don’t think you’ve provided much help to my Catholic friends who embrace Darwinian theory. You seem to be saying that they basically have to deny fundamental tenets of Catholicism to maintain their belief in evolutionary theory.
I’m just saying they need to reject evolutionary theory - not because it conflicts with Catholicism, but because it is a false idea in scientific terms.

 

[reggieM]

Without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no Original Sin and no reason for Jesus Christ to be born, to tell us how to be saved and what to do, then He died as a sacrifice for us all. And rose to life, wounds and all, bodily.
Ed

Yes, that’s a very significant problem for those Catholics who deny the existence of Adam and Eve and Original Sin.

 

[Bradski]

Without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no Original Sin and no reason for Jesus Christ to be born, to tell us how to be saved and what to do, then He died as a sacrifice for us all. And rose to life, wounds and all, bodily.

True.But you are speaking to an atheist. This is not news to me.

 

[edwest2]

True.But you are speaking to an atheist. This is not news to me.

I’m speaking to everyone. As an admin on a totally unrelated board, I know there are lurkers, the bored, the curious. What I write here is for everybody.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

The evolution is the result of random events. A random event is not intelligent. Therefore there is no intervention.

How do you **know ** evolution is the result of random events? An unsupported assertion is worthless.

 

[Bradski]

How do you **know ** evolution is the result of random events? An unsupported assertion is worthless.

I guess that ignorance has its benefits. Evolution, as you say, is not random. It wouldn’t work if it was. Something which Hoyle and his 747-in-junkyard did not appreciate.

Well done, Tony. We’ll make an ‘evolutionist’ of you yet.

 

[reggieM]

I guess that ignorance has its benefits. Evolution, as you say, is not random. It wouldn’t work if it was. Something which Hoyle and his 747-in-junkyard did not appreciate.

Well done, Tony. We’ll make an ‘evolutionist’ of you yet.

If evolution is not random, then it is a law-like process. It’s a law of nature.
Laws cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent sources.
Therefore, the non-random law of evolution is evidence of Design and therefore of God.
Right?

 

[Bradski]

If evolution is not random, then it is a law-like process. It’s a law of nature.
Laws cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent sources.
Therefore, the non-random law of evolution is evidence of Design and therefore of God.
Right?

If you think that it’s a law that says slower runners get caught more often than faster ones, then go for it.

 

[grannymh]

The supernatural world did not evolve
because it is over and beyond the natural material world of evolution.

 

[reggieM]

If you think that it’s a law that says slower runners get caught more often than faster ones, then go for it.

Evolution seems pretty simple. Faster runners always win. So, all runners are the fastest, otherwise they would not have survived.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I guess that ignorance has its benefits. Evolution, as you say, is not random. It wouldn’t work if it was.

If the eye evolved, then it depended on thousands of random mutations. Without random mutations, natural selection would have nothing to select.

Now if you can tell me; how all these random mutations could possibly happen without any guidance from God, I would be interested to know.

 

[reggieM]

If the eye evolved, then it depended on thousands of random mutations. Without random mutations, natural selection would have nothing to select.

Now if you can tell me; how all these random mutations could possibly happen without any guidance from God, I would be interested to know.

Especially since most mutations are neutral or harmful.

 

[grannymh]

I think that says a lot. In order to reconcile Christianity with evolution you would agree that there would need to be a “God who does not intervene in nature” - and that is consistent with evolution, as I see it. But it also contradicts Catholic belief.

Genesis 1: 27 is an excellent example of God intervening in material nature. Check out the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:27.

That bit of disturbing news, Genesis 1: 27, is one of the reasons that some, not all,
Catholics slide the first three valuable chapters of Genesis under the rug aka Notable Progressive Christians.

As soon as the supernatural is mentioned, there is Pandora’s Box.

 

[OneSheep]

I think faith certainly exists on the foundation of hope and a promise, but also i think we experience the world in a very personal and meaningful way which suggests more than just an indifferent Universe. Listening to music is a spiritual experience and doesn’t seem indifferent at all since it speaks to us personally.

I like your observation. I think I also left out our sense of wonder and awe, that faith also has a foundation in such. I’m thinking of the observer of nature who is struck with wonder and awe (its inevitable, right? ) who then has a sense of gratitude not only for the environment, but gratitude for the opportunity to experience such emotion. Then, the gratitude itself is a foundation for a relationship with the world, with oneself.

And then, there is the indifference. As we experience life, do we encounter indifference, do we encounter animosity, or do we encounter a world that nurtures? This is going to be a very personal phenomenon, right? We experience all of the above, but does the nurturing impression stand out, or does it not? It is a matter of phenomenology, do you agree? And then the challenge, of course, is to help others, regardless of creed, to experience the nurturing, the mercy, so that all may know that value within and without is centered on a love that knows no bound. And then, when we experience an outpouring of love from people, do we not know something supernatural?

Or maybe that is too touchy-feely a comment to make on the philosophy forum?

Would you agree that given the heart-aspect, though, the question of “supernatural” is perhaps relatively superficial? I mean, it’s interesting, but there are much deeper aspects of what it means to have faith.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ok, well I don’t think there are millions of Catholics who reject the existence of Adam and Even as well as the Original Sin. I mean, they would all be dissenting from the Faith to do that.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true. We’re all aware of the papal addresses on the topic of evolution that seemed to be rather friendly to the concept.

All of the Catholic evolutionists here on CAF face that problem and just try to squirm around it somehow.

I think the way most squirm is to treat Genesis as a text that contains metaphysical truth rather than strict historical fact. We were sinless, we violated that of our own will in an act of selfishness, our corruption bled out into the creation we occupy. I don’t think that view, as a for-instance, prohibits Mary from being the “New Eve” in the least.

I’m not sure it’s super reasonable to treat a text that was orally passed for centuries before actually being written down as a good source for strictly literal information.

Even as we disagree

Catholics believe that the soul is the source of consciousness and rationality, which evolution attempts to explain as emergent physical properties. So there’s a conflict there.

If you keep them divorced, you’re right. I don’t do that.
No reason at all why evolution can’t be the scientific explanation for God calling us from the dirt.

God created the heavens, the earth and everything that dwells therein. As stated earlier, the assumption that He snapped His fingers six times and poof it was all sequentially here is just an assumption. Any alternative to that is no less miraculous.

 

[reggieM]

Genesis 1: 27 is an excellent example of God intervening in material nature. Check out the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:27.

That bit of disturbing news, Genesis 1: 27, is one of the reasons that some, not all,
Catholics slide the first three valuable chapters of Genesis under the rug aka Notable Progressive Christians.

As soon as the supernatural is mentioned, there is Pandora’s Box.

There are contemporary examples of God intervening in nature. We don’t have to look back at Genesis.

According to Catholic teaching, every child conceived in the womb is an example of God directly intervening in nature with his creative power.

If God didn’t intervene in nature, why would we bother to pray for people?

Lives of the saints, Our Lady’s apparitions, the Sacraments themselves, what do these Catholics think actually happens at the altar? …

The idea that “God does not intervene in nature” is too absurd to even talk about - and yet there it is in a Catholic Answers article.

 

[OneSheep]

Christianity, however, will continue to be damaged as long as believers continue to embrace neo-Darwinism. And that’s what we’re seeing today in the US as the number of believers declines and atheism is on the rise.

Good Morning Reggie,

I think that what you said here is one of the most significant observations you are making.

So in your experience, you see evolutionary theory as a threat to belief? Or did I get that wrong? This is not a question to challenge you, but only to help readers understand your viewpoint.

Blessings

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure that’s entirely true. We’re all aware of the papal addresses on the topic of evolution that seemed to be rather friendly to the concept.

Friendly to the concept that there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin? You could well be right on that, but I’m not aware of them myself. I’d think they’d directly contradict Catholic Tradition and the Scripture on that point as well as Pope Pius XII’s encyclical and St. John Paul II’s statements, but again I don’t know what you’re referring to.

I think the way most squirm is to treat Genesis as a text that contains metaphysical truth rather than strict historical fact. We were sinless, we violated that of our own will in an act of selfishness, our corruption bled out into the creation we occupy. I don’t think that view, as a for-instance, prohibits Mary from being the “New Eve” in the least.

Well, it’s not just Genesis.
There is Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

I’m not sure it’s super reasonable to treat a text that was orally passed for centuries before actually being written down as a good source for strictly literal information.

I haven’t said anything about Genesis in this discussion. The Catechism teaches that Original Sin is a de fide doctrine:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

If you keep them divorced, you’re right. I don’t do that.
No reason at all why evolution can’t be the scientific explanation for God calling us from the dirt.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Do you accept that evolution explains the origin of the immortal soul in humans? Or do you think the human soul is not the source of consciousness and rationality? I’m not sure what you mean by “keep them divorced”. Either evolution explains the origin of human life or not. The consensus of all of the literature from evolutionary biology is that evolution explains the origin of human beings - not just the human body, but the entire “thing” that is a human.

God created the heavens, the earth and everything that dwells therein. As stated earlier, the assumption that He snapped His fingers six times and poof it was all sequentially here is just an assumption. Any alternative to that is no less miraculous.

What do you think is miraculous in the view of atheistic evolution?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I think the way most squirm is to treat Genesis as a text that contains metaphysical truth rather than strict historical fact.

I prefer not to squirm at all. I can’t see any way that evolution could happen without any guidance from God. If God exists fully and totally, then we should just have faith that God can create in the way the Bible states.