Religion and Science!

[StAnastasia]

This is the aim of your link (post 622) to the ISSR: “Our central aim is the facilitation of dialogue between the two academic disciplines of science and religion, one of the most important current areas of debate in terms of understanding the nature of humanity.”

True.

Since you are writing “my chapter on evolution and Catholic theology (for an edited book)” what is Catholic theology’s position on the nature of humanity?

I treat briefly a variety of approaches:

(1) the magical-mythical approach of interpreting Genesis literally (e.g., literal Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, talking serpent, Cain, Abel, Noah’s Flood). The magical-mythical literalist approach runs smack into scientific reality. This approach insists on a 6,000-10,000 year old universe, and coexistence of humans with dinosaurs, who were on board Noah’s Ark.

(2) A modified mythical approach, that preserves some elements (e.g. Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit) but abandons other elements (e.g., talking snake, global flood). This approach is compatible with and old earth model, (i.e., and earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and universe 13.7 billion years old).

(3) A partial evolutionary approach, which permits the scientific study of the universe and human origins, but which puts a protective belt around human soulishness (e.g,. Humani generis). This approach retains elements of the mythical approach (e.g., Adam and Eve, the “Fall,” expulsion from the garden, etc.). This approach must dispose of inconvenient evidence, such as genetic evidence that the emerging human population never dipped below 3,000 breeding couples, to a single pair named “Adam and Eve.”

(4) An evolutionary theistic approach (or theistic evolution): interpreting Catholic theological doctrines of creation, revelation, Christology, redemption, theodicy and eschatology in light of a world view informed by science. This perspective starts from the assumption that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, and evolving cosmos, and examines human evolution including the collective evolution of morality and spiritual responsiveness. This approach characterizes the work of most of the attendees of the conference in Rome that I attended in March, 2009 (“Science, theology and the ontological quest”).

StAnastasia

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Why do you want me, a Christian, to align myself with such buffoonery?**

In the first place, Jefferson, earlier in life a Deist, later in life acquired deep respect for Christ and anticipation of immortal life in his presence with all his loved ones. You wouldn’t acknowledge this as a conversion process? Then read the religious poem he wrote for his daughter several weeks before his death in which he expressed belief that all his family would meet again on the other side. [Buffoonery?]

How do you know that Flew’s repudiation of atheism, like Jefferson’s repudiation of atheism, was not a moment of his own journey toward the Christian God? If you read the last few pages of Flew’s book, where he engages in an earnest dialogue with Bishop N.T. Wright on the evidence for Christianity, you would see that he is sympathetic to and reaching out for conversion to Christ. As he says:

“There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. [Is this buffoonery?] Virtually all of the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind … If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat.” [More buffoonery?]

In There Is a God Flew was definitely searching for reasons to believe in the Christian God. That is not buffoonery. Moreover, *There Is a God *was published in 2007, three years after the AP article you reference. So as death approached Flew had made some progress in his thinking that certainly went beyond your alleged “buffoonery.”

 

[grannymh]

I treat briefly a variety of approaches:

(1) the magical-mythical approach of interpreting Genesis literally (e.g., literal Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, talking serpent, Cain, Abel, Noah’s Flood). The magical-mythical literalist approach runs smack into scientific reality. This approach insists on a 6,000-10,000 year old universe, and coexistence of humans with dinosaurs, who were on board Noah’s Ark.

(2) A modified mythical approach, that preserves some elements (e.g. Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit) but abandons other elements (e.g., talking snake, global flood). This approach is compatible with and old earth model, (i.e., and earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and universe 13.7 billion years old).

(3) A partial evolutionary approach, which permits the scientific study of the universe and human origins, but which puts a protective belt around human soulishness (e.g,. Humani generis). This approach retains elements of the mythical approach (e.g., Adam and Eve, the “Fall,” expulsion from the garden, etc.). This approach must dispose of inconvenient evidence, such as genetic evidence that the emerging human population never dipped below 3,000 breeding couples, to a single pair named “Adam and Eve.”

(4) An evolutionary theistic approach (or theistic evolution): interpreting Catholic theological doctrines of creation, revelation, Christology, redemption, theodicy and eschatology in light of a world view informed by science. This perspective starts from the assumption that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, and evolving cosmos, and examines human evolution including the collective evolution of morality and spiritual responsiveness. This approach characterizes the work of most of the attendees of the conference in Rome that I attended in March, 2009 (“Science, theology and the ontological quest”).

StAnastasia

Thank you for this summary of various approaches that are not based on Catholicism.

However, that sidesteps my direct question in response to your direct statement of what you were currently writing.

May I refresh your memory so that you can respond to my question. With all these threads and posts, a bit of amnesia is understandable. That happens to me at times. That’s when I yell – stop the world, I need some dark chocolate.

From your post 622: " I must move on. I have to finish writing my chapter on** evolution and Catholic theology **(for an edited book) and I need to take my son to rowing practice." emphasis mine

From my post 657: “Since you are writing “my chapter on evolution and Catholic theology (for an edited book)” what is Catholic theology’s position on the nature of humanity?”

I took the “nature of humanity” from your link because it fits in perfectly with your topic of "evolution and Catholic theology’ and you do approach Adam and Eve in your post 670.

To get back on track regarding the chapter you are writing (in post 622) which specifically refers to Catholic theology – so you must know it in order to write about it-- What is Catholic theology’s position on the nature of humanity?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Antony Flew, by the way, like so many before him, became an atheist at the age of 15. It seems to be the age that confirms atheists in the knowledge that, after thinking about it for a year or two, they have solved the age old question that many spend their whole lives grappling with.

Now that I think of it, it seems to me that at the age of about fifteen I had begun to assure myself that I was a mountain of wisdom like no other.

And as I recall, Christopher Hitchens and Bertrand Russell likewise were fifteen when they first noticed there is no God. Ah yes, a dangerous age to be so full of yourself!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I guess saying I’d report you at least gave you pause to finally post about my views rather than about me, but too late.

I don’t know if there’s a conspiracy flu bug doing the rounds, but as with Charlemagne II I’m putting you on ignore. The pair of you dreamed up the most bizarrely irrational conspiracy theory in history – that it would be worth my while to learn all there is to know about being a Baptist, to link the songs Baptists sing, to understand the gospel and quote scripture, and to post as a Baptist for twenty months when all the time I’m really something else. Stunningly ridiculous.

Alternatively it might just be that you are profoundly ignorant of other faiths and can’t conceive of a different path to yours. Whatever, I can’t prove to you that I’m a Baptist, just as you can’t prove to me that you’re a Catholic, but free speech is out the window when you sink so low as to repeatedly call me a liar about everything I believe. Incidentally, I’ve been PM’d to assure me this is all about you and nothing to do with Catholicism.

Anyway, you’re reported, copy below.Member tonyrey is repeatedly saying that I have not disclosed my true beliefs, see his post (at the end), my reply, and his response (I’ll also reply to that post on the thread, including a draft of this message for him to see).

I’ve pointed out the sticky “It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs” and asked him to apologize but he won’t. We’ve posted to each other for many months without trouble and I don’t know why he’s suddenly got so aggressive, but it’s impossible to have a free discussion when he is calling me a liar to my core.

I wondered if you could either have a word with him, or ban me if you agree with him.

Thanks, sorry to bother you.

The following statements made by you are a selection from those that throw doubt on your allegiance to Christianity:

"I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread."

“But surely you would need to show that a godless universe is necessarily unintelligible, and that a universe with many gods is also necessarily unintelligible, and so on, i.e. that only a universe created by the Christian God can be intelligible.”

tonyrey It is certainly important to specify whether natural selection excludes rational direction by God. Fortuitous combinations of molecules and **random **mutations of genes are an inadequate explanation of the development of highly advanced forms of life.

On the other hand if God designed the physical law properly in the first place He wouldn’t need to tinker around to produce His favored outcome…

 

[tonyrey]

The following statements made by you are a selection from those that throw doubt on your allegiance to Christianity:

"I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread."

“But surely you would need to show that a godless universe is necessarily unintelligible, and that a universe with many gods is also necessarily unintelligible, and so on, i.e. that only a universe created by the Christian God can be intelligible.”

On the other hand if God designed the physical law properly in the first place He wouldn’t need to tinker around to produce His favored outcome…

The only alternative seems to be that you reject the need for a rational basis for belief - like some Protestants - and say “Credo quia absurdum”…

But then it is difficult to understand why you are a regular member of a Catholic Philosophy forum.

Your attribution of Antony Flew’s conversion to belief in God to senility doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that your own belief is rational…

 

[grannymh]

But then it is difficult to understand why you are a regular member of a Catholic Philosophy forum.

There are some people, of any faith or no faith, who come to a Catholic philosophy forum because they are interested in knowing what Catholicism offers.

 

[John21652]

Your attribution of Antony Flew’s conversion to belief in God to senility doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that your own belief is rational…

According to this video, which shows Flew speaking of why he changed his mind, he wasn’t too senile!!

youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU

 

[cornbread_r2]

Perhaps more than you ever wanted to know about Flew’s purported conversion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Well, of course, Richard Carrier being an atheist, he just can’t help himself concocting all kinds of weird scenarios as to how Flew never wrote his own book, or wrote only a small part of it. The whole thing was a put-up job by some Christian handlers, we are told with a flick of the factoid wrist.

Kind of reminds one of the desperate antics the 19th Century revisionist historians, produced to prove Jesus never lived, or that he survived the crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene, or that Moses was a complete fabrication to provide the Jews with a heroic past.

Or the more recent denials of irreligious men that other irreligious men (Nazis) intended to destroy the entire Jewish race/religion; or the absurd assertion (outright lie, in fact) that official atheism had nothing to do with forcibly shutting down the churches in the Soviet Union, East Germany, and other countries for several generations.

All in the name, surely, of advancing science against religion.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps more than you ever wanted to know about Flew’s purported conversion.

The key words:

“To be fair (and correcting Craig on this point) I never claimed to have reconverted Flew to atheism.”

 

[tonyrey]

But then it is difficult to understand why you are a regular member of a Catholic Philosophy forum.

Some come to attack Catholicism…

 

[tonyrey]

The key words:

“To be fair (and correcting Craig on this point) I never claimed to have reconverted Flew to atheism.”/quote]I should have emphasized “**reconverted” **to remove any lingering doubts that Flew may have renounced his atheism!

 

[PRmerger]

Some come to attack Catholicism…

But I daresay inocente is not included in this group.

Yes, there are many who come to the CAFs with the intention of attacking our faith. And if you see this the best recourse is to report them to the mods.

 

[grannymh]

I treat briefly a variety of approaches:

In my humble opinion, since this website is titled “Catholic Answers Forums”, it is therefore important to defend the Catholic position regarding human origin, human nature, original sin and the mission of Jesus Christ against a variety of attacks,

To begin with the first “approach.”
(1) the magical-mythical approach of interpreting Genesis literally (e.g., literal Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, talking serpent, Cain, Abel, Noah’s Flood).

The “magical-mythical” approach is one of the better known attacks against Catholic doctrines. It is successful because many, not all, Catholics do not know how the visible Catholic Church on earth operates when it comes to the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

“(4) An evolutionary theistic approach (or theistic evolution): interpreting Catholic theological doctrines of creation, revelation, Christology, redemption, theodicy and eschatology in light of a world view informed by science.”

 

[grannymh]

But I daresay inocente is not included in this group.

Yes, there are many who come to the CAFs with the intention of attacking our faith. And if you see this the best recourse is to report them to the mods.

May I quietly add that there are a few, not all “catholics” who may be unintentionally attacking our faith due to their partial ignorance of Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

I treat briefly a variety of approaches:

Please refer back to post 670 for the “Four Approaches.”

In my humble opinion, since this website is titled “Catholic Answers Forums”, it is important to defend the Catholic position regarding human origin, human nature, original sin and the mission of Jesus Christ against a variety of attacks.

A good defense understands the opposition.

To begin with the first “approach.”

“(1) the magical-mythical approach of interpreting Genesis literally (e.g., literal Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, talking serpent, Cain, Abel, Noah’s Flood).”

The “magical-mythical” approach is one of the better known attacks against Catholic doctrines. It is successful because many, not all, Catholics do not know how the visible Catholic Church on earth operates when it comes to the Catholic Deposit of Faith. In this age of scientific dominance, no one wants to admit that they accept a “talking snake” as being significant of something real. Something which does concern real human life and real human death.

The fourth “approach” mixes apples and oranges as if they belonged in the same category of fruit.

“(4) An evolutionary theistic approach (or theistic evolution): interpreting Catholic theological doctrines of creation, revelation, Christology, redemption, theodicy and eschatology in light of a world view informed by science.”

This approach is so complicated, it almost never fails in getting some, not all, Catholics to give up their faith.

 

[inocente]

How do you know that Flew’s repudiation of atheism, like Jefferson’s repudiation of atheism, was not a moment of his own journey toward the Christian God? If you read the last few pages of Flew’s book, where he engages in an earnest dialogue with Bishop N.T. Wright on the evidence for Christianity, you would see that he is sympathetic to and reaching out for conversion to Christ.

Methinks this is getting a bit contrived. How do you know that driving a Ford pickup isn’t a moment on a journey toward the Christian God?

For me the main problem with the book was the very poor quality of the arguments compared to his earlier work, no more than wishful thinking. Then there was the sub-plot that he had either never learned or else forgotten a whole bunch of science, probability theory and reasoning to come to his wishful thoughts. Then there is the question of whether he even wrote most of it, and whatever we believe about that, the book is tainted in others’ eyes.

We can all mine quotes from google (the passage you quoted can even be found in a PowerPoint presentation ), but I think all anyone is really doing is trying to acquire Flew as a mascot because of his prior infamy, based on a superficial reading (or no reading) of his position, and without much reference to his arguments, which were run of the mill. We need to decide whether we preach Christ crucified or comforting bedtime stories, and I can’t think of much else to say about him, except let the dude rest in peace.

Now that I think of it, it seems to me that at the age of about fifteen I had begun to assure myself that I was a mountain of wisdom like no other.

That was the age when I invented girls.

 

[inocente]

The following statements made by you are a selection from those that throw doubt on your allegiance to Christianity:

"I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread."

“But surely you would need to show that a godless universe is necessarily unintelligible, and that a universe with many gods is also necessarily unintelligible, and so on, i.e. that only a universe created by the Christian God can be intelligible.”

On the other hand if God designed the physical law properly in the first place He wouldn’t need to tinker around to produce His favored outcome…

The search function found the first quote on another thread twelve months back and it wasn’t even to you. Don’t you think it obsessive to read through twelve months of my posts just to make a point?

Ugh! I feel like I’m being stalked, I need to go take a shower…

…You seem to be trying for the Guinness world record on how many stickies you can ignore, the latest being “Don’t jump threads” and “Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in”.

Also, a general rule about quoting, whether it’s scripture, posts or whatever, is to maintain the context, which you failed to do. The context is that I like robust arguments. So sue me.

If you hate me so much then put me on ignore - the only trouble is you have to log in for it to work, and I keep forgetting. But please don’t stalk me, you’re freaking me out. And for heaven’s sake lighten up, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition (if you know Monty Python).

 

[inocente]

As I am a closet procrastinator, tomorrow is a great time to talk.

Ok, my brain is back in gear. You said:

Curiosity about the world, life, and death is basic in human nature. Curiosity is part of the instinct for survival in both humans and animals. What is it about our human feelings, which do include curiosity, that would lead us to think deep thoughts about ourselves and about God? Is it natural curiosity? Or is it a result of something we sense? Or is it both? For me it would be curiosity. What about you?

I’m not sure about it being curiosity, since as you say other animals also have curiosity. I think there’s a combination of traits. See what you think:

First, a sense of wonder. For instance, the cosmology of Genesis 1 is understandable dead wrong, so that tells us to ignore the detail, and reading it that way, if we can overcome our familiarity, we see wonder - And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The story might seem a bit naive and provincial to us, we now know so much more. We know that the visible universe is around 93 billion light years diameter, and it contains of the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, well beyond anyone’s imagination. So we can identify with the writer and original audience of Gen 1, we now have even more to wonder at, and this is the opposite of a god-of-the-gaps - the more we know, the more we realize how much we don’t know, and the more wondrous it is.

Second, empathy. Christ died on the cross for me. A bit like standing at the tomb of an unknown soldier, but unimaginably more. One night in Holy Week in one of the local churches last year: youtube.com/watch?v=tagNAm2HLIg

And brotherhood. Spanish ham commercial: youtube.com/watch?v=ZkUVq9dsV0o (I like where the English guy says “What?” and the Spanish commander thinks it’s a greeting).

And an expression of joy, although there ain’t much to be had in some parts. But to illustrate the yawning chasm with the Catholicism I see in real life, listen to one of the Holy Week processions in my local town: youtube.com/watch?v=siExZ7VBcno

I’m rambling now, but think maybe it’s a combination, a synthesis.