Polygenism CAF Tract

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
do you think Dr. Feser is the first person to ever think of this theory?
 
Kei, I was talking about post #62 but you already knew that, right?
 
Last edited:
well, no. How can you tell what number a post is? ok I figured it out…lol
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Are you saying that Ed Fesers theory is an example of polygenism? Do you believe in polygenism?
Click to expand...
First, I’m not a scientist. If one wants an answer to a scientific question, ask a scientist.

Second, I don’t apply the word “believe” to matters of science. That’s a word to be used in a religious or theological context.

As I said a few posts back “I believe in God” That’s the proper use of the word believe.

I accept scientific facts. I accept that gravity exists. I accept the expertise of scientists to answer such questions.
 
When the Church refers to polygenism, the context is “true men”.
True humans are a unity of body and soul.

Evolution deals with material processes only. Polygenism is a confusion of the demarcation between faith and science and is therefore condemned.
 
Last edited:
Each soul at the moment of conception is created immediately by God. However, the body of the person comes from the material of the parent’s body. So, Adam’s body may have been taken from a previous living organism and adapted, and then infused with a spiritual soul directly created by God.

But, we are obligated to believe that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings, and the parents of all of us. This is called monogenism. The alternative is polygenism, and leads to one or more of the following errors (reference: Mystery of Creation by Paul Haffner, 2nd Ed., 2010, p. 102):
  • Not every person has original sin
  • Original sin exists in all people but is passed on by some other process than through biological procreation
  • Original sin is passed down to all people through biological procreation, but “Adam” was a collection of people, not a single person.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950):
…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.
Click to expand...
 
Hence, both Ed Feser and your former instructor are incorrect on this point.
 
Hope1960 said:
From what I’ve read of Fr. David over a period of time, his advice is sound, but I was thrown off by Edwest211.
Click to expand...
You are getting too caught-up in the word polygenism.

One needs to read the statement by the pope (that’s been often quoted here) and understand it. That’s what too many people just don’t bother to do.

The Encyclical basically says that if one accepts polygenism, then there are necessarily 2 outcomes.

What if there is a third option?

In theology, there is a principle we follow. When looking at Church teaching, we ask ourselves “what value does this teaching represent?” What are the essential elements of the teaching and what are the external or extraneous elements?

For example, if we say “Christ was born in Bethlehem” we say that we must believe it. But we have to separate the essential from the non-essential.

We must deny any claims that He was born in Egypt, or that he was found floating in a basket in a river etc.

If we were to somehow learn that the exact birthplace of Christ was actually 10 feet outside the town limits of Bethlehem, it would not affect our faith. Whether he was actually born within or without the town limits is meaningless.

But if that happened, there would be people who claim “that can’t be true. He was born in Bethlehem and it’s heresy to say otherwise.” Those people are incapable of separating the essential from the accidental. We see the same thing in this thread.

Back to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis

We look at the Pope’s statement and we must ask “what value was he defending?” What was he really saying?

What he was really saying is that there are 2 things we cannot believe.
  1. either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him
  2. or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
Fine. We do not believe either of those.

However, at the same time, it’s not the case to say that if polygenism is a scientific truth, then either or both of those statements is likewise true.

To paraphrase Pius XII, he is saying “we cannot accept polygenism because polygenism necessarily leads to such-and-such.”

Well, what if it does NOT necessarily lead to that such-and-such?

We simply cannot deny the reality of evolution. It is now 2017 and there’s simply too much evidence at this point in our collective knowledge. No credible scientist (and I use that word in a very broad sense to include biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc. ) doubts it. There are certainly disagreements and unknowns on many details; but no credible scientist doubts the overall fact of evolution.

We can believe in the spiritual truths of Salvation History without having to deny the undeniable facts of the physical sciences. Our Catholic faith is better than that. We know that all of Creation is part of God’s revelation to us. We need not assert that God lies to us in one place (ie the origin of species) in order to affirm the other truths of our faith.
 
But are you saying that Ed Feser’s theory is an example of Polygenism?
 
I re-read posts #74 and #78, I care what you think, but I still don’t know if you think Feser’s theory is an example of polygenism.
 
@FrDavid96 has told you @Hope1960 about 5 times now that Fesers theory does not constitute polygenism.

I’m not sure how many more times or how many more ways he can explain himself to make this any clearer to you.
 
I apologize… stupid question alert: but when you say that Feser’s theory “does not constitute polygenism”, does that mean that Fesers theory is not an example of polygenism?
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
@FrDavid96 has told you @Hope1960 about 5 times now that Fesers theory does not constitute polygenism.

I’m not sure how many more times or how many more ways he can explain himself to make this any clearer to you.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. And that’s by intent. I haven’t read Feser’s theory in his own words.

It is much too simple to say:
a We cannot believe in polygenism
b Fesser’s theory is polygenism
c Therefore Feser is wrong

That is an oversimplification, and I’m intentionally avoiding it. Indeed I’m avoiding it because it’s simpleton fundamentalism.

What I have actually said is that polygenism does not necessarily lead to one of two unacceptable conclusions. There is more to this than that.

Most of all I am saying that people need to FIRST understand the subject matter. Don’t get caught up in words that might or might not mean what they might seem to mean at first. Know the difference between essential and non-essential. Know the difference between physical science and theology–both of which are God’s revelation.

This is a bit like discussions about “modernism.” People are ready to prepare the stakes for heretic-burning without first understanding the definition of the word.

The subject is much more complex than can be explained in a few quick internet posts.

Fundamentalism likewise gets us nowhere—whether that’s a fundamentalism applied to Sacred Scripture or to the documents of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top