How do we respond to someone who bashes creationism?

[Al_Moritz]

If you look at what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught, God literally created everything from nothing. That is not open to debate.

In the document, Comunion and Stewardship, St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: “According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).”

The key word is infallibly.

No, the keywords are infallibly and of necessity, OR from contingency. Your intellectual tunnel vision only allows you to see that which fits your preconceptions.

The context of the quote in Communion and Stewardship is the following below. Everybody please read very carefully and slowly, and try to precisely understand what is actually said here, rather than, as an automatic reflex, warping the meaning in your own mind as you read because it does not fit your intellectual preconceptions (I have repeatedly seen the latter happen on this board):

1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

 

[grannymh]

I’m afraid this is not quite correct. In fact, it is very much open to debate, and there is absolutely NO Church teaching, not in St Thomas or anywhere, which describes God as a “literal” cause.

Understand, I am not denying that God is the Supreme cause, that he is “Ipsum Esse Subsistens” or that God created the world from nothing. What I am taking issue with is the expression ‘literal’ to describe him as a cause, because (a) it doesn’t seem to mean anything or else (b) if it does, it means ‘univocal’ which equates God as a cause like other causes, which he is not. I always get very wary when the word ‘literal’ or ‘univocal’ is used to describe God because it often tends towards anthropomorphising him and ultimately deism. And that, I can assure you, is opposed to Church teaching.

St Thomas in fact uses the expression ‘analogical agent’ to describe God as a cause (ST I.13.5.ad1). God is an agent or cause only analogically speaking–in other words, not literally or ‘univocally’. St Thomas arrives at this awareness through a logical sequence: every species (call it a set) has a cause; the set of all horses for example is caused by the genus animal. If God is in the set of all causes, then that set seems to be without a cause itself, which is impossible. God is not in the set of all causes; God is outside this set, and so is not a cause like other causes. God is a cause, but not literally or humanly speaking.

This is not opposed to Church teaching. This in fact is the constant teaching of the Church, and can be found reiterated in St Paul, St Augustine, Boethius, St Thomas, Bonaventure…to name just a few. Nor does the passage you cite have any bearing on this fact, or lend support to your use of the expression ‘literal cause’.

It sounds like “literal” as in “literal cause” is being used as both an adjective and as a noun. Is that correct?

 

[grannymh]

Really? How about this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7836737&postcount=7

May I respectfully point out that the sound-bite about “there cannot be a true conflict between faith and science, between religious truth and scientific truth” is incomplete. Practically speaking, I automatically dismiss arguments which contain this half-bit info. However, since just about every soul puts their money on this sound-bite, I have stopped posting on it, have gone on to other topics, and now assume that somehow the foundation for this sound-bite is known. But I doubt that.

 

[grannymh]

May I respectfully point out that the sound-bite about “there cannot be a true conflict between faith and science, between religious truth and scientific truth” is incomplete. Practically speaking, I automatically dismiss arguments which contain this half-bit info. However, since just about every soul puts their money on this sound-bite, I have stopped posting on it, have gone on to other topics, and now assume that somehow the foundation for this sound-bite is known. But I doubt that.

Before someone mentions Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and some others, it is obvious from their writings as a whole, that they understand what is involved when someone speaks of religious truth and scientific truth.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

It sounds like “literal” as in “literal cause” is being used as both an adjective and as a noun. Is that correct?

Could be indeed granny! On reflection, I’m thinking that this philosophy thread Abba is starting might do well to focus on some terminology too, since I think a lot of debates I come across are actually not substantial ones but confusion in language.

Ps: thanks for the lovely flowers in your last post! My favourites…

 

[passer_by]

I’m not a creationist (Like the world being a few thousand years old), however I have a lot of atheist friends who quite bitterly bash creationism. Should I be saying something, or should I just let them exercise free speech?

Well, you might not want to defend Creationism, but you might want to show the error in the Atheist’s thinking.

To elaborate:-

Creationism (in the sense of literal 24hr, 7 days etc), I do feel that regardless of whether it be right or wrong, it is certainly not necessary to hold in faith. The Church has made that clear as well.

The church however requires you to hold that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings and the parents of us all. That too is bashed by Atheists on grounds of evolution and seeming impossibility for the human race to come from just two people.

But as another poster said, there are miracles that happen. So it is quiet possible that the whole human race coming from Adam & Eve, was a miracle granted to the human race by God. We know that Christ rose from the dead. That is certainly incompatible with Science. But we don’t go around saying it must therefore be false.

In this same sense, a 24 hr, 7 day creation could also be how God did it. But since there is no sun and moon or anything in the universe at some points in creation, it really doesn’t make sense to say what is a ‘day’.

On a simpler note, it might just be that our current Scientific theories were not applicable at that time. Maybe the universal constants were different due to some phenomenon we do not know etc.

I think this brings us to the major problem of Atheist bashing Creationism. Beneath this bashing lies the idea that anything that is in faith, and cannot be reconciled or proved by current Scientific theory, MUST BE FALSE.

THAT, is a dangerous claim to let go unaddressed for any one who follows any religion. That is actually an errant claim as well which even has some ideas of positivism. It’s also unscientific in that there are many situations in Science’s history where new phenomenon were observed that was incompatible with predictions of existing Scientific theory (ex:- Black Body radiation curves from experiments). If Scientists around the world said, well I guess that means the experiments must be wrong or everyone observing the experiment are delusional, then we wouldn’t have even gotten Quantum Physics.

So I think it is better to let the Atheist know that the foundation in which he is basing his attack is actually in error and unscientific. You can even try to show why his foundation is unreasonable.

 

[buffalo]

If by creationism you mean young earth creationism, or that Genesis is literally true, then it deserves a good bashing because it’s false. Of course, we should always treat others with kindness, even when they say stupid things. But we shouldn’t defend the indefensible. Would you agree?

http://biologicinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/transitions.jpg

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I would suggest that you have to be careful when someone bashes “Creationism” because you don’t know what they think the terms means, compared to what you think the term means.

Does"Creationism" mean a literal belief in all the events of Genesis, including a 6,000 year old Earth? Or does it simply mean that God created the universe?

By the latter definition (but not the first), I am a Creationist. I think God directly created the universe, life, and the human soul. He may have used natural processes (including natural selection) to fashion the rest of the universe we now know, but I believe in direct Divine intervention for the Big 3. This is not an unusual position for Catholics to hold, as you know. It’s pretty basic.

But many atheists would argue against even addressing or mentioning this traditional religious view in a discussion of the origins of the universe, life, or human consciousness, as “Creationism.”

Many atheists say it is necessary to ban the teaching of “Creationism” in schools, and to many people, that seems reasonable. You picture a scene from “Inherit the Wind,” with Spencer Tracy as the stand-in for the brave, brilliant liberal attorney Clarence Darrow taking apart the pompous, fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan stand-in on the witness stand, in a stand-in for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Cool, you think, you should stand on the side of academic freedom against fundamentalist biblical literalism.

(In reality, Darrow was a corrupt proto-fascist who narrowly escaped a prison sentence for bribing a jury and floundered and lost a later debate with the Catholic G.K. Chesterton because he thought all Christians were biblical literalists, Bryan was a progressive populist Democrat who fought against the teaching of evolution in schools because, in addition to religious reasons, felt it could be - and in fact, was - used to justify racism through eugenics against African Americans and poor whites, and Scopes skipped over the lesson on Natural Selection.)

 

[edwest2]

Well, you might not want to defend Creationism, but you might want to show the error in the Atheist’s thinking.

To elaborate:-

Creationism (in the sense of literal 24hr, 7 days etc), I do feel that regardless of whether it be right or wrong, it is certainly not necessary to hold in faith. The Church has made that clear as well.

The church however requires you to hold that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings and the parents of us all. That too is bashed by Atheists on grounds of evolution and seeming impossibility for the human race to come from just two people.

But as another poster said, there are miracles that happen. So it is quiet possible that the whole human race coming from Adam & Eve, was a miracle granted to the human race by God. We know that Christ rose from the dead. That is certainly incompatible with Science. But we don’t go around saying it must therefore be false.

In this same sense, a 24 hr, 7 day creation could also be how God did it. But since there is no sun and moon or anything in the universe at some points in creation, it really doesn’t make sense to say what is a ‘day’.

On a simpler note, it might just be that our current Scientific theories were not applicable at that time. Maybe the universal constants were different due to some phenomenon we do not know etc.

I think this brings us to the major problem of Atheist bashing Creationism. Beneath this bashing lies the idea that anything that is in faith, and cannot be reconciled or proved by current Scientific theory, MUST BE FALSE.

THAT, is a dangerous claim to let go unaddressed for any one who follows any religion. That is actually an errant claim as well which even has some ideas of positivism. It’s also unscientific in that there are many situations in Science’s history where new phenomenon were observed that was incompatible with predictions of existing Scientific theory (ex:- Black Body radiation curves from experiments). If Scientists around the world said, well I guess that means the experiments must be wrong or everyone observing the experiment are delusional, then we wouldn’t have even gotten Quantum Physics.

So I think it is better to let the Atheist know that the foundation in which he is basing his attack is actually in error and unscientific. You can even try to show why his foundation is unreasonable.

When the science text is used to interpret the Bible, the obvious impossibilities occur: No one can give sight to the blind or raise the dead without technology. If you look closely at Genesis, the author makes mention of “And the evening and the morning were the ____ day,” etc. But that’s impossible! OK then, what did God actually do? Or what attributes does God reveal about Himself, especially through the person of Jesus Christ who rose bodily from the dead?

Theology is not science but we, as Christians, had better be careful about using science to interpret scripture. Look at Blessed Pope John Paul II:

cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/14/world/main7245702.shtml

And, once again, some require science to avoid seeing the work of God. I have read other statements that some miracles are simply cases of spontaneous remission. Did God actually send Mary to Fatima and Lourdes?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following from the Catholic Answers library:

catholic.com/tracts/creation-out-of-nothing

Peace,
Ed

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Not a fan of creationism, if by “creationism” you mean young-earth creationism. I believe God created the universe, but I also believe He spent several billion years “tinkering” with it to get it just right.

I also believe in the multi-verse, ie, that ours might not be the only universe. God’s creativity and love are likely so infinite, I doubt He’d lavish His gifts on just one world. Who knows? There could be a universe composed of elements which only He has names for: we won’t find out till we come face to face with Him in heaven…

However, I think people who are dead set against acknowledging God as the Creator need to be dealt with, with patience and charity. In other words, the way every prickly person needs to be dealt with.

 

[buffalo]

Not a fan of creationism, if by “creationism” you mean young-earth creationism. I believe God created the universe, but I also believe He spent several billion years “tinkering” with it to get it just right.

I also believe in the multi-verse, ie, that ours might not be the only universe. God’s creativity and love are likely so infinite, I doubt He’d lavish His gifts on just one world. Who knows? There could be a universe composed of elements which only He has names for: we won’t find out till we come face to face with Him in heaven…

However, I think people who are dead set against acknowledging God as the Creator need to be dealt with, with patience and charity. In other words, the way every prickly person needs to be dealt with.

Tinkering?

 

[RPRPsych]

You want a great read concerning dualism of the person? Try Dr. Edward Feser’s “Philosophy of the Mind.” Perfect premises and defenses of hylemorphic dualism (Thomistic dualism) and soundly defeats Cartesian and Property dualism. David S. Oderberg wrote a great piece on this dualism as well in “Personal Idenity.”

Thanks a lot! I’ll look it up as soon as I get the time.

 

[JDaniel]

I invite everyone to read the following from the Catholic Answers library:

catholic.com/tracts/creation-out-of-nothing

Peace,
Ed

Good article, Ed. It is so frustrating that we can’t figure out a better way of stating what “creation” is without making it sound as though ‘nothing’ is some pre-existing reality which God uses to make things out of. God does not make ‘something’ out of ‘nothing.’ God makes something where there was(were) no-thing(s) before. The latter is a very different statement which much more precisely comports with what the Church teaches.

Thanks for letting me get that out. Whew! “I’m much better now;” as one of the characters in the earlier version of The Thing was heard to say - which puts me in mind of a related topic:

If there are other planets, which God came from to build the earth, one could easily postulate that there could actually be other planets from which monsters might come. Why limit planetary travel to God? If he came from another planet, did he fly? Or, did he make a space craft of some sort? Or, did some other god-like critter already make a space craft, which God borrowed, or perhaps . . . ? The illogical implications of God traveling around in space, from one place to another, make the idea a rather disrespectful joke; don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Tinkering?

Sure . . . the hard work was already done! Makes perfect sense to me. :nope:

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

sounds like a potentially divisive topic. Ask yourself what your primary motivations are in interacting with these people and how well such a conversation would lend towards or against it. If these are people whose friendship you enjoy and if you find the topic only brings up arguments then leave it alone.

If it is something that you still want to take on I would suggest only listening. There is a wide range of topics that fall under “creationism” that are parts of several disciplines, including cosmology, biology, geology, and several others. You might find that you are not in total disagreement with the people to which you are speaking. Asking questions for clarity just to see where points of disagreement are and which of those points is the most important to the other person.