On Order and Chaos

[Image_of_God]

The belief that the woes of nature were due to man’s choice of evil is inconsistent with evolution. There is abundant evidence that death existed in the world long before human beings appeared on the scene. The defects of nature are the inevitable result of “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” - Hamlet

The Catechism makes it clear that only the human race was affected by moral evil:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (CCC 402-409)

The Catechism also says this:

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

Death effected humans through original sin. It can be reconciled to evolution by applying death only to humans who are said to have been created with immortal souls.

 

[tonyrey]

The belief that the woes of nature were due to man’s choice of evil is inconsistent with evolution. There is abundant evidence that death existed in the world long before human beings appeared on the scene. The defects of nature are the inevitable result of “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” - Hamlet

The statement that human nature is “weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death” means suffering and death **dominate **the world as the result of moral evil. We are not born in a state of guilt but a society in which the ignorance and selfishness of individuals have led to the hatred, violence and bloodshed which have dominated the history of mankind.

It does not mean human beings were originally created to live forever in this world while animals suffer and die. Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that “animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren”.

 

[Image_of_God]

The statement that human nature is “weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death” means suffering and death **dominate **the world as the result of moral evil. We are not born in a state of guilt but a society in which the ignorance and selfishness of individuals have led to the hatred, violence and bloodshed which have dominated the history of mankind.

It does not mean human beings were originally created to live forever in this world while animals suffer and die. Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that “animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren”.

This is what the Catechism says also:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. **Death makes its entrance into human history.**286

The point is that God did not intend death at all. The Book of Wisdom is correct, God did not make death (for humans at least). Death, like many other physical evils is connected with the one moral evil that the first humans committed. I think you are forgetting that immortality for humans was lost after the Fall.

 

[LogicBound]

I still haven’t got as far as deciding what ‘good’ means.

My main problem is you can never predict the outcomes of anything you do, and many actions have positives and negatives eg animal experiments are horrible but they save lives.

You end up trying to calculate the maximum benefits or each of your actions by adding up the effects on every living creature and that is pretty difficult.

The fact that a butterfly wing flapping (chaos theory’s favourite example) changes the entire calculation makes deciding if an action is ‘good’ theoretically as well as practically impossible.

 

[Image_of_God]

I still haven’t got as far as deciding what ‘good’ means.

My main problem is you can never predict the outcomes of anything you do, and many actions have positives and negatives eg animal experiments are horrible but they save lives.

You end up trying to calculate the maximum benefits or each of your actions by adding up the effects on every living creature and that is pretty difficult.

The fact that a butterfly wing flapping (chaos theory’s favourite example) changes the entire calculation makes deciding if an action is ‘good’ theoretically as well as practically impossible.

An actions goodness is based on itself, the motive, etc, not only on its effects.

 

[LogicBound]

An actions goodness is based on itself, the motive, etc, not only on its effects.

But surely a motive is some sort of intended consequence even if its something simple like ‘to cheer him up’. So if you just think about the motive you first feel, rather than thinking through the consequences then you are being reckless? What sort of motives are there that don’t involve some kind of intended consequence?

 

[Image_of_God]

But surely a motive is some sort of intended consequence even if its something simple like ‘to cheer him up’. So if you just think about the motive you first feel, rather than thinking through the consequences then you are being reckless? What sort of motives are there that don’t involve some kind of intended consequence?

I said that an action’s goodness is based on motives too, not just consequences. Yes, you want to cheer him up. But why? Not just: what will happen?

 

[LogicBound]

But why?

Too make him happier (consequence)

Give me an example of another sort of ‘why?’

 

[Image_of_God]

Too make him happier (consequence)

Give me an example of another sort of ‘why?’

To make him happier is the motive. It’s only a desired outcome or consequence. It may not be the actual consequence. He may become confused and wonder why you are smiling at him.

You can also smile at that person to make him jealous, if both you know that he is unfortunate and he knows that you know.

Smiling is only good if you do it with a good motive because for the most part that’s all you have control over: your motives. Yes, sometimes we have control over consequences, and in those cases they should be considered, but most of the time we don’t. We almost always have control of our motives.

If we smile with a good intent (wanting a good consequence to come about), then regardless of whether the consequence is good or bad (because we don’t know whether it will be), the action is good.

 

[LogicBound]

To make him happier is the motive. It’s only a desired outcome or consequence. It may not be the actual consequence. He may become confused and wonder why you are smiling at him.

You can also smile at that person to make him jealous, if both you know that he is unfortunate and he knows that you know.

OK, that’s some progress.

You are saying if after I have weighed up the consequences and judged the best option and it pans out differently that is not my fault.

But that still lives the near impossibility of weighing up all the possible consequences and the problem where there are positive and negative consequences and how to balance them against each other eg sacking someone who is in the wrong job

 

[Image_of_God]

OK, that’s some progress.

You are saying if after I have weighed up the consequences and judged the best option and it pans out differently that is not my fault.

But that still lives the near impossibility of weighing up all the possible consequences and the problem where there are positive and negative consequences and how to balance them against each other eg sacking someone who is in the wrong job

We are not God, we are human. There are infinitely many consequences to a single action. He could do this which would cause her to this and cause the other guy to do that… It could go on forever. That’s why I say that the goodness of an action rests primarily in the goodness of the motive behind it (the intended consequence) and the act itself, not so much on the actual consequences. Some actions are always good in themselves, but can have evil consequences because of things outside of our knowledge or power. For example, I help a person get a job who really needs one. Such an action is good in itself in so far as the job is not bad. There are many consequences: 1. He could get the job. 2. He may not get the job. 3. He may get the job and start stealing at his workplace. 4. He may get the job and work honestly. 5. He may not get the job and start stealing…on and on and on…

The bad consequences that come as a result of the good action does not make the action I preformed any less good provided there was no sure reason to believe they would come about. My intention was good and my ways prudent.

 

[tonyrey]

This is what the Catechism says also:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. **Death makes its entrance into human history.**286

Statements in the Old Testament have to be interpreted in the light of the teaching of the Church and the facts of evolution. Not every statement in the Catechism is to be regarded as infallible:

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. " (Cardinal Ratzinger)

In fact the Catechism welcomes the evolutionary account of life on earth:

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

It is undeniable that suffering and death predated man’s choice of evil.

The point is that God did not intend death at all. The Book of Wisdom is correct, God did not make death (for humans at least).

How could human beings be immune from death when they had developed from lower forms of life?

I think you are forgetting that immortality for humans was lost after the Fall

Immortality is not the same as mortality…

 

[Image_of_God]

Statements in the Old Testament have to be interpreted in the light of the teaching of the Church and the facts of evolution. Not every statement in the Catechism is to be regarded as infallible:

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. " (Cardinal Ratzinger)

In fact the Catechism welcomes the evolutionary account of life on earth:

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

It is undeniable that suffering and death predated man’s choice of evil.How could human beings be immune from death when they had developed from lower forms of life?

Immortality is not the same as mortality…

Perhaps you are right in most of what you have said here. But that still does not change the fact, which I think is central to the Bible and the Church, that death is a defect in nature. It was not God’s original intent that things should die. Death might be a morally neutral happening, but it is most clearly a physical evil. That is the teaching of the Early Church and the Church of today and the Bible. The evilness of death is not an Old-Testament only concept otherwise the Resurrection would be meaningless. Jesus “defeated” death through the Resurrection. St. Paul in his letter to Romans spends a great amount of time on sins connection with death.

Just because death brings about some good such as limiting the population does not mean that its good in itself. We should unite science with faith, but we should not let science overcome our faith. I am fine with evolution, but I also believe that we are more than just atoms and DNA. The Bible and the Catechism are clear that God did not make death.

 

[Image_of_God]

Since I fear that our conversation is moving towards evolution as a topic, I wish to cease talking about death and original sin for right now.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps you are right in most of what you have said here. But that still does not change the fact, which I think is central to the Bible and the Church, that death is a defect in nature. It was not God’s original intent that things should die. Death might be a morally neutral happening, but it is most clearly a physical evil. That is the teaching of the Early Church and the Church of today and the Bible. The evilness of death is not an Old-Testament only concept otherwise the Resurrection would be meaningless. Jesus “defeated” death through the Resurrection. St. Paul in his letter to Romans spends a great amount of time on sin’s connection with death.

I entirely agree with you. Sin has negative consequences and so does death. Jesus sweated blood at the prospect of being scourged and crucified but His love for us gave Him the power to overcome His fear and dread. He showed us how to triumph over evil by trusting in the Father when we have to face suffering and death. In other words to be positive like Him…

Just because death brings about some good such as limiting the population does not mean that its good in itself. We should unite science with faith, but we should not let science overcome our faith. I am fine with evolution, but I also believe that we are more than just atoms and DNA. The Bible and the Catechism are clear that God did not make death.

The urge to survive in the simplest forms of life cannot be explained scientifically. I pointed out in another thread that although death has some positive consequences - like being a transition to an afterlife - it is essentially negative because no good will come in this world from the deaths of the last living beings on earth.

Having just noticed your last post I would like to add that life is a magnificent example of order whereas death replaces organization with relative chaos!

 

[Image_of_God]

Having just noticed your last post I would like to add that life is a magnificent example of order whereas death replaces organization with relative chaos!

I can definitely agree with that!

 

[sidbrown]

Catholic doctrine is based on the New rather than the Old Testament…

Really? I thought that the ten commandments were an important part of Catholic teaching.

 

[tonyrey]

Really? I thought that the ten commandments were an important part of Catholic teaching.

How about “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?

 

[sidbrown]

How about “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?

I did not know that was one of the ten commandments. What are the other nine?

 

[antunesaa]

Is order necessarily good and chaos necessarily bad?

While order and chaos in a physical sense are certainly neither good or bad, in the theological/philosophical/social realm I think chaos tends to be bad and order tends to be good. I’m not even talking about common situations where people instinctively are disgusted by chaos. A room left unclean by your kid. (And I know what this means for I have 4.) A rugged newspaper as opposed to an unfolded one. An old electronic gadget as opposed to an new, out-of-the-box one. Your kid’s uncombed hair (or if his/her hair is curly, his/her hair with lumps). A favela as opposed to an American suburb. A cancer as opposed to healthy tissue. The examples just pop in. You can argue that the fractal nature of the physical world in the end means that thinks are chaotic at the micro level, and that there are many instances (for instance, in art) where chaos is nice. To that I counter that I’m talking about our intuition, our impression as we look at things. In art, for instance, chaos can be of value because it challenges and questions you, but rarely by its inherent nature.

But the main reason why I think chaos tends to be evil in the non-physical, subjective and analogue world of human beings is another one. Being a professional economist, I can tell you that one of the few basic assumptions that virtually all economists agree with is that people are risk averse. Risk is the way economists model chaos, or at least simple manifestations of chaos. Virtually the entire academic economic literature assumes that people are risk averse. (The only exception I can think of is the (relatively small) literature on the employment matching model, and strictly for analytical tractability.)

People share risk in order to have a predictable path of consumption or leisure, or both. If given the means, they always prefer to exchange risk for predictable outcomes. If markets are complete, that is, if people can diversify away all risk, they will do it; if markets are incomplete, they will take measures to minimize risk. There is an immense literature on how this can be done: saving a lot; setting up insurance schemes; buying and selling state-contingent bonds; etc.

Risk-loving behavior is generally viewed in economics as either transitory or, if permanent, as pathological. The empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the risk aversion of human behavior.

The above does not mean that people do not take risks; rather, it means that, for the same expected benefit, people will take the alternative they deem less risky.

There you are. This is my little contribution to this interesting question on chaos and order, which I had never thought about.