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

[inocente]

As I recall, years ago there was a folk saying that the more we learn, the more we find out how little we really know. This was a tribute to the vast knowledge in our universe. In my old neighborhood, it meant that we could keep learning for a thousand years and there would still be more things to learn. It was an exciting challenge to keep exploring the vast universe and the millions of years it existed.



Personally, I do not understand the “gaps” thing. This only possible thing would be the shift from Genesis 1: 25 to1: 27 when God used a spiritual soul to animate the human body of matter.

Theologians invented the term god-of-the-gaps to disparage those who limit God to areas yet to be explained by science - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Dietrich Bonhoeffer summed it up with “… how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

But there are still many god-of-the-gaps fans, who limit God to what science has not yet explained, or what they claim science has not explained.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But there are still many god-of-the-gaps fans, who limit God to what science has not yet explained, or what they claim science has not explained.

It should be called science of the gaps, rather than God of the gaps. Did God leave any gaps in creation?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14830065:

IWantGod;14813499:

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 minority worldview?

No.

Religion is actually increasing worldwide.

Meanwhile, science is discovering more and more about just how little we know - quite the opposite of what the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was supposed to deliver. More ‘gaps’ for God to fill.

Your argument seems to be that we should exult ignorance, because the more ignorant we are, the less we realize how little we know.

“Seems to be”???

You seem to be saying you haven’t understood what I wrote.

 

[tonyrey]

It should be called science of the gaps, rather than God of the gaps. Did God leave any gaps in creation?

“science of the gaps” sums it up beautifully! When scientists explain free will, human rights, moral responsibility, unselfish love and the purpose of life I shall admit that science is a complete explanation of reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, Apologetics must continue to self-reflect. Are we protecting something? If so, from what? Are we being productive, or counter-productive, in this effort to protect? Is there a light to be directed in such a way as to illuminate a means to reconciliation of different stances?

The best form of defence is to attack and expose the absurdity of scientific materialism!

 

[Bradski]

It should be called science of the gaps, rather than God of the gaps.

Which would mean that you believe that aspects of existence that cannot be explained by God must therefore have a scientific explanation.

I don’t think that you believe that, so I can only assume that you don’t know what the term means, why it was concceived and how it is used.

 

[tonyrey]

Which would mean that you believe that aspects of existence that cannot be explained by God must therefore have a scientific explanation.

I don’t think that you believe that, so I can only assume that you don’t know what the term means, why it was concceived and how it is used.

The term “God of the gaps” was and is used by atheists as an attack on the Design argument which implies that science can in principle give a complete explanation of physical reality - including human behaviour. The onus is on them to justify their theory that we are biological machines incapable of self-control - which would violate the principle of conservation of energy.

 

[inocente]

It should be called science of the gaps, rather than God of the gaps. Did God leave any gaps in creation?

Complain to theologians, they created the term god-of-the-gaps.

 

[inocente]

“Seems to be”???

You seem to be saying you haven’t understood what I wrote.

I was being polite, in case you decided you expressed yourself badly and wanted to rephrase.

If you actually meant what you said: “science is discovering more and more about just how little we know - quite the opposite of what the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was supposed to deliver”, then plainly that’s wrong.

Do you only allow medical treatments from 400 years ago when your child is sick? Do you forgo all modern medical treatments, no vaccines, no medications, no antibiotics, no hygiene, no x-rays, no PET scans, only blood-letting? It’s obvious to all who have eyes to see that the Enlightenment has delivered library upon library upon library of knowledge.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…If you actually meant what you said: “science is discovering more and more about just how little we know - quite the opposite of what the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was supposed to deliver”, then plainly that’s wrong.

No it’s not. And I meant exactly what I said.

…Do you only allow medical treatments from 400 years ago when your child is sick? Do you forgo all modern medical treatments, no vaccines, no medications, no antibiotics, no hygiene, no x-rays, no PET scans, only blood-letting?

No of course not. What do these have to do with my claim about science discovering newer and bigger gaps in our knowledge?

…It’s obvious to all who have eyes to see that the Enlightenment has delivered library upon library upon library of knowledge.

Is Pluto a planet or not?

Are those all those antibiotics we consume defeating infectious disease - or making an even bigger problem just over the horizon?

Are we closer to a unified theory of everything or are scientists starting to realise we will never have one?

Quantum spookiness, dark energy, virtual particles, multiverse theory - oh yeah thanks a lot science. Makes my spine tingle.

 

[tonyrey]

No it’s not. And I meant exactly what I said.

No of course not. What do these have to do with my claim about science discovering newer and bigger gaps in our knowledge?

Is Pluto a planet or not?

Are those all those antibiotics we consume defeating infectious disease - or making an even bigger problem just over the horizon?

Are we closer to a unified theory of everything or are scientists starting to realise we will never have one?

Quantum spookiness, dark energy, virtual particles, multiverse theory - oh yeah thanks a lot science. Makes my spine tingle.

Perhaps one day everyone will realise that in spite of all its achievements science cannot explain itself or solve all our most fundamental problems.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Originally Posted by **Eric Hyom **
It should be called science of the gaps, rather than God of the gaps.

Which would mean that you believe that aspects of existence that cannot be explained by God must therefore have a scientific explanation.

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, so God is the explanation for everything. I feel there is a scientific explanation for all of creation, but science has so many gaps in not knowing the full story.

I don’t think that you believe that, so I can only assume that you don’t know what the term means, why it was concceived and how it is used.

Why should there be only one way of interpreting god of the gaps.

God always was, always is, and always will be. How can science explain no beginning? An infinite regress of causes, multiverses , virtual particles all offer no worthwhile explanation for a first cause.

 

[grannymh]

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 minority worldview?

Could you please elaborate on the main evolution principle that new species evolve as a population from preceding polygenesis type populations. For example, what do you consider important about the populations which diverged from the Homo/Pan Split aka speciation event. Here is a fascinating link which is only an interesting beginning.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

 

[OneSheep]

Theologians invented the term god-of-the-gaps to disparage those who limit God to areas yet to be explained by science - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Dietrich Bonhoeffer summed it up with “… how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

But there are still many god-of-the-gaps fans, who limit God to what science has not yet explained, or what they claim science has not explained.

I watched not long ago Bishop Barron’s commentary on Stephen Hawking’s approach:

youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

There is one very large gap that will never be filled. If Hawking’s approach is that gravity itself generated the universe, then we have still the question of where the gravity came from. It takes as much “belief” (vs actual experiential or experimental knowledge) to believe in the spontaneous generation of a spontaneous generator as it does to believe in God as Creator.

I find no problem with the tenets of evolutionary theory, they do not conflict with my faith. My faith is grounded in prayer, connectedness, wonder and awe, in gratitude and relationship. I know that I am on the right path for me because my Christian experience has been an amazing journey.

 

[Vonsalza]

I watched not long ago Bishop Barron’s commentary on Stephen Hawking’s approach:

youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

There is one very large gap that will never be filled. If Hawking’s approach is that gravity itself generated the universe, then we have still the question of where the gravity came from. It takes as much “belief” (vs actual experiential or experimental knowledge) to believe in the spontaneous generation of a spontaneous generator as it does to believe in God as Creator.

I find no problem with the tenets of evolutionary theory, they do not conflict with my faith. My faith is grounded in prayer, connectedness, wonder and awe, in gratitude and relationship. I know that I am on the right path for me because my Christian experience has been an amazing journey.

 

[inocente]

No it’s not. And I meant exactly what I said.

No of course not. What do these have to do with my claim about science discovering newer and bigger gaps in our knowledge?

Is Pluto a planet or not?

Are those all those antibiotics we consume defeating infectious disease - or making an even bigger problem just over the horizon?

Are we closer to a unified theory of everything or are scientists starting to realise we will never have one?

Quantum spookiness, dark energy, virtual particles, multiverse theory - oh yeah thanks a lot science. Makes my spine tingle.

How are they bigger gaps? In 1600, people only knew of seven planets and knew of no moons except our Moon. They didn’t know about bacteria or viruses or antibiotics. They only knew of a handful of elements, didn’t know of any radiation except the narrow visible band. They had huge gaps in their knowledge since filled. There are large libraries filled with knowledge they didn’t have. How could we possibly have bigger gaps in knowledge?

And it’s far less important to know what dark energy is than to keep children alive. Infant and child mortality in 1600 was so high it’s estimated only 50%-70% survived to adulthood. By 1900 around 80% survived in richer countries, and now 90% or more survive in even the poorest countries. Because lots of people dedicated their lives to filling the important gaps in knowledge.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there are billions of parents who didn’t have to bury their children because scientific medicine filled gaps in knowledge.

 

[inocente]

I watched not long ago Bishop Barron’s commentary on Stephen Hawking’s approach:

youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

There is one very large gap that will never be filled. If Hawking’s approach is that gravity itself generated the universe, then we have still the question of where the gravity came from. It takes as much “belief” (vs actual experiential or experimental knowledge) to believe in the spontaneous generation of a spontaneous generator as it does to believe in God as Creator.

I find no problem with the tenets of evolutionary theory, they do not conflict with my faith. My faith is grounded in prayer, connectedness, wonder and awe, in gratitude and relationship. I know that I am on the right path for me because my Christian experience has been an amazing journey.

Hawking said something like “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”, but he’s just using gravity as an example of physical law in that sentence . I don’t know what his idea is. If it’s an hypothesis published in a peer-reviewed journal then point me at it, otherwise I think maybe he makes throwaway quotes to whip up publicity for his books and himself, like rock stars.

I don’t see why you think we can never fill the gap of knowledge about creation ex nihilo. I mean cosmology tells a pretty good story, with not many gaps, from the point of creation until today, which from WMAP is estimated as 13.772 billion years with an uncertainty of only plus or minus 59 million years. And cosmology put most of that theory together in less than a century.

So it seems a bit adventurous of you to claim cosmology can never work out the final piece. And knowing how God did it doesn’t mean God didn’t do it.

 

[grannymh]

How are they bigger gaps? In 1600, people only knew of seven planets and knew of no moons except our Moon. They didn’t know about bacteria or viruses or antibiotics. They only knew of a handful of elements, didn’t know of any radiation except the narrow visible band. They had huge gaps in their knowledge since filled. There are large libraries filled with knowledge they didn’t have. How could we possibly have bigger gaps in knowledge?

And it’s far less important to know what dark energy is than to keep children alive. Infant and child mortality in 1600 was so high it’s estimated only 50%-70% survived to adulthood. By 1900 around 80% survived in richer countries, and now 90% or more survive in even the poorest countries. Because lots of people dedicated their lives to filling the important gaps in knowledge.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there are billions of parents who didn’t have to bury their children because scientific medicine filled gaps in knowledge.

This is why natural science is a gift from God.

 

[edwest2]

In Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII indicated there was a problem:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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.[12]”

In the document, Communion and Stewardship, a reference is made to Humani Generis and the words “in continuity” are used:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Note:

“As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.”

Science has its place but it is incomplete. The Biology textbook cannot provide this information. Which is crucial for every human being.

Ed

 

[grannymh]

In Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII indicated there was a problem:

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

Polygenism (polygenesis) is the difference between an evolutionary indiscriminate random breeding humanizing large population in the hundreds and a human species which was begun by a population of two fully-complete humans, no evolution needed.

What saves the supernatural concept is that only a supernatural Divine Creator can put together an amazing species (humankind) from only two originators. The supernatural cannot be treated like an ordinary species in our environment. In a few words, because the supernatural is not natural, it will not die out. Because the large number of natural humans have the ability to rationally think about the supernatural, the supernatural will not become a minority world view. Note: When a world view is involved, the supernatural becomes and stays involved.