B
buffalo
Guest
Yup - or look deeper into the scientific reasoning.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Yes. Be glad that those experts don’t keep hungry lions as pets.
G
grannymh
Guest
Seriously, an in-depth discussion regarding those expert “claims” is currently prohibited by the temporary ban. It is my intention to respect that ban.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Exactly.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Encyclicals are explanations of Catholic teachings, yes, but the personal teachings of a Pope, and to be understood and interpreted in their context. They are not the ways the Church proclaims, authoritatively, dogma.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Anyone who agrees, produce a Magisterial document that teaches dogma that requires Catholics to believe such as dogma.
T
tjm190
Guest
Oh please- when you look at evidence trying to find a conclusion, you’ll find that conclusion. It isn’t a scientists job to say “How can this information support this conclusion” which is exactly what you’re advocating.
T
tjm190
Guest
By creationists? I believe so.You are told to ignore things?
That is sad.
F
fnr
Guest
faith and reason – my name, and game. Faith and Reason/Fides et Ratio is also the title of an encyclical letter by Pope JP2 – stressing no contradictions between true faith and reason.
To define “the Deposit of Faith” free from objective science is difficult. Thomism depends heavily on objective reasoning to reconcile faith and science. Lumen Gentium acknowledges that outside the visible Church, learning about the world from outside it can help to further the cause of Catholicism. Historically, when some doctrines make assertions about verifiable phenomena in opposition to scientific method, the visible Church has erred in persecuting science. The Copernican revolution was viewed through a distorted lens, from an incorrect interpretation of Christian doctrine.
JP2 addressed the topic in 1979:
… I wish that theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, might examine more deeply the Galileo case and, in an honest recognition of wrongs on whatever side they occur, might make disappear the obstacles that this affair still sets up in many minds, to a fruitful concord between science and faith, between the church and world. I give my entire support to this task which will be able to honor the truth of faith and of science and open the door to future collaborations.
The Church is a pilgrim church, not a perfect society. We continually strive to better understand “the Deposit of Faith.”
Please illustrate how I’ve taken the 2004 document out of context.
I don’t downplay the significance of the relationship between the first humans and God. It’s the reason for creation.
There is a significant risk in tying Catholic doctrine to a hypothesis of human origins that – unlike matters of faith – is verifiable as either true or false.
As our earlier exchange addressed, there is significant evidence that humanity’s male and female most recent common ancestors (MRCA) lived tens of thousands of years apart. Also, there is too much genetic variability in the current human population to be explained by the hypothesis drawn from literal biblical reading: two humans living around 6,000-8,000 BC, whose descendants populated the world and now number around 6 billion. As apologist Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers has noted on his blog, in order for such a reading to be accurate description of the history of humanity, the mutation rate would have to be so much greater than has ever been observed to require a miracle. In that mutation rates of sufficient rapidity to explain the genetic variability in the current human population would likely result in exceptionally high rates of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and infant and childhood mortality, it would likely require a second miracle to ensure that a sufficient population survived to produce the currently-observed human population. There’s no evidence for any of that in the historical record.
If faith were to be contingent on the hypothesis that Adam and Eve, living in the Garden of Eden, are the literal historical forebears of the entire human population, it would make itself disprovable using objective scientific methods. Any element of the Deposit of Faith which requires a set of demonstrably false set of facts to explain history results in an inherently contradictory requirement on believers: to be both faithful and honest. An honest believer cannot in good conscience make assertions of faith which are opposed to reason. This tenet is the basic core of Thomism, as made clear in Fides et Ratio.
The ITC avoids describing “the first humans” as a single pair. In fact, in its extensive discussion on human origins, it cites Genesis chapter 1 five times (verse 26x3, verse 27x2, verse 28x1) as the basis of how we are created in the image of God. It cites Gen. chapter 2 without reference to woman being created from man’s rib: verses 7 (once), 15 (twice), 19 (once), and 20 (twice). Gen. 2:21-25 is the alternative creation story of “Eve,” yet is totally absent from reference in the document. Can it be that the ITC thought so little of women as to fail to mention their creation? No. Gen. 1 describes God creating both “man and woman” in his image. Furthermore, there are very clear indications in the document that the first humans could have been a population significantly greater than 2.
In population genetics, it’s well-known that there’s a critical number of mating pairs of a species below which extinction is likely. Humans aren’t extinct, despite the very high extinction rate of other species in the last 150,000 years. There’s also the issue of death preceding sin, with ample evidence of mass extinctions prior to 150,000 years ago, and fossils aplenty!
Please answer this question: does current biblical scholarship, implying that the current form of Genesis was not assembled until after the early first millennium BC prophetic books of the Old Testament, bear any relevance?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Or more importantly, is it a bad thing to be derailed – esp, if the alternative is to be “railroaded.”You have indeed given me lots of things to consider starting with the word lacuna.
And what does AFAIK stand for, please? I have a mental block when it comes to initials and phone numbers.
To begin. What, how, why, and from where did I get derailed?
Perhaps I ought to have said where “Grannymh” choked on the (in)validity of your response… ?
In the post I was citing, the response to your comments were repetitively of the approximate form “I said xxxx, which agrees with church teaching.” etc.
The point where this was not true, was when he commented on Catholics having to believe that “Adam and Eve” came from a specific geographical/river area.
As I recall, the Genesis text says a “river flows out of Eden” not, “Eden is found between some rivers”. So, Genesis is rather cryptic about whether Eden is a place, or the source of water for a rivers used to water a special garden. etc.
So, even the idea of “a place” called Eden is difficult to support scripturally from Genesis, although someone else claims to have seen “Eden” in the later criptures, I am not sure that it is meant literally.
Still, besides the other scriptures which say we all descended from one couple – the Pope himself only speaks of the reason one may not hold any variant of polygenism (known in his day) is because it is – in no-way/wise apparent how polygenism can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin. The pope did not affirm that “polygenism” in any of its potential forms can NEVER be reconciled with original sin; and there is no way to know for certain if it ever will in any form. What is certain, is that for the present, the pope has made a disciplinary command regarding polygenism as presently known.
Blessings to you too.
“AFAIK” is short for “As far as I know.”; but that might be faked if I don’t know.
Hmmm…
I thought threads were supposed to end at 1000 posts, I wonder if my memory is playing tricks on me.
–Andrew.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please note that CAF has banned the existing scientific defense of two sole parents of the human species in the apologetics areas. Please do not assume that just because scientific analysis has been prohibited that it does not exist. Belief in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is warranted on all playing fields.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
From the sticky I just read from the direction of Michael Francis, the discussion of Evolution itself is banned at present on CAF, under philosophy and Apologetics because of intense emotional issues plaguing the topic. For this reason, I will withdraw from the thread, as I think it is playing with fire regarding CAF policies to continue.
Thank you Grannymh for the heads up – I hadn’t seen that sticky.
–Andrew Robinson.
G
grannymh
Guest
Out of respect for CAF banning discussions on atheism and evolution in the apologetic areas, I am prohibited from responding to the beginning of your post.
I will offer that I should not be confused with “creationists”. There is both reality and figurative language regarding Adam and Original Sin. That is why I depend on the teachings of the Catholic Church for discernment.
Since this thread is about to close, you may want to start a thread regarding the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam, Original Sin, and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It is my understanding that the Catholic Deposit of Faith has not been banned. It is only certain areas of its defense which have been banned.
As to your question above. I am not familiar with the various kinds of current biblical scholarship. I abandoned the votes of the Jesus Seminar many years ago.
Going by my gut instinct, I would think that Divine Revelation as contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is depended on the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings,
granny
Genesis 1; 24-31
G
grannymh
Guest
F
fnr
Guest
Ed,
The ontological leap to humankind is central to faith, I totally agree. As I’ve written in posts to Granny, science cannot address faith. We can’t constrain God to sequential logic, as he is not constrained by our universe. Time and space are both features of our universe. Outside our universe, “time” and “space” may not even exist as we understand them, and it’s unlikely that our consciousness would even be able to perceive them as we do our own spacetime. Even within our universe, there are phenomena of quantum physics that are totally non-causal: particle entaglement, for example. Even Communion and Stewardship makes analogy of quantum indeterminism in talking about what it means to be human.
As such, we should not constrain God’s actions with the physics of our universe! As Communion and Stewardship discusses, God can act intentionally, through contingent methods, to create life. How can we hope to understand how God created us, when we are totally bound by the limits of our consciousness, based on our universe’s physics?
Humans were made in the image of God. That embeds in us the natural law which impels us toward unity, while our sins prevent us from reaching that unity. Christ is the only bridge across the gulf, and it is through the Church that we reach Christ.
To me, the ontological wonder of God’s creation of the universe is entirely agreement with everything I know about the disciplines of astronomy, physics (thermodynamics, classical physics, relativity, particle physics, biophysics, geophysics, nuclear physics, macromolecular physics), biology (genetics, zoology, physiology, anatomy, botany, cell and molecular biology), chemistry (physical chemistry, analytical chemistry, atmospheric chemistry, biochemistry, biogeochemistry), geology (vulcanology, glaciology, minerology, tectonics, paleoclimatology), environmental science (oceanography, meteorology, ecology), history (archaeology, paleontology, economic history), demography, geography, psychology (cognitive neuroscience, artificial intelligence), anthropology (comparative linguistics, comparative religion), complexity systems, chaos theory, and … Catholic theology!
E
edwest2
Guest
Intellectual honesty means knowing that God can perform miracles and is still performing miracles. This is not trivial. Catholics around the world are waiting for two miracles to be attributed to Pope John Paul II.Or more importantly, is it a bad thing to be derailed – esp, if the alternative is to be “railroaded.”
Perhaps I ought to have said where “Grannymh” choked on the (in)validity of your response… ?
In the post I was citing, the response to your comments were repetitively of the approximate form “I said xxxx, which agrees with church teaching.” etc.
The point where this was not true, was when he commented on Catholics having to believe that “Adam and Eve” came from a specific geographical/river area.
As I recall, the Genesis text says a “river flows out of Eden” not, “Eden is found between some rivers”. So, Genesis is rather cryptic about whether Eden is a place, or the source of water for a rivers used to water a special garden. etc.
So, even the idea of “a place” called Eden is difficult to support scripturally from Genesis, although someone else claims to have seen “Eden” in the later criptures, I am not sure that it is meant literally.
Still, besides the other scriptures which say we all descended from one couple – the Pope himself only speaks of the reason one may not hold any variant of polygenism (known in his day) is because it is – in no-way/wise apparent how polygenism can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin. The pope did not affirm that “polygenism” in any of its potential forms can NEVER be reconciled with original sin; and there is no way to know for certain if it ever will in any form. What is certain, is that for the present, the pope has made a disciplinary command regarding polygenism as presently known.
Blessings to you too.
“AFAIK” is short for “As far as I know.”; but that might be faked if I don’t know.
Hmmm…
I thought threads were supposed to end at 1000 posts, I wonder if my memory is playing tricks on me.
–Andrew.
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Uh, really? Do you love God or is it just a series of chemical reactions in your brain? Will you be judged by the actual physical Jesus Christ?
If you are just a bag of chemicals then where does God come from? According to a certain branch of psychology, our primitive neuropsychological development created gods/God/beliefs, not an actual interaction with say, Jesus Christ in actual history.
God bless,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Those two are not mutually exclusive any more than love of a wife for her husband is exclusive of the neurochemical states that accompany that love.
- Status