Religion and Science!

[grannymh]

I believe God is entirely capable of drawing out the soul from emerging Homo sapiens through natural processes. After all, God created nature!

“Drawing out the soul from emerging Homo Sapiens through natural processes” represents the secular theory that the human anatomy produces something “soulishness” on its own over the course of time. This is not Catholic teaching.

 

[grannymh]

… why don’t you explain to me what you mean by “supernatural”?

Supernatural means “Of or pertaining to existence outside the natural world.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition)

Catholicism teaches that God is supernatural. Supernatural also refers to the spiritual world. Catholicism teaches that human nature unites *both *the spiritual world and the material world into the one single nature of the human person.

Science is counted on to explore the material world. The Catholic Church, because it is founded by Jesus Christ, is able to explain the whole person in terms of a material body and a spiritual, i.e., a supernatural, soul.

 

[grannymh]

I believe God is entirely capable of drawing out the soul from emerging Homo sapiens through natural processes. After all, God created nature!

“Drawing out the soul from emerging Homo Sapiens through natural processes” represents the secular theory that the human anatomy produces something “soulishness” on its own over the course of time. This is not Catholic teaching even though many people choose to believe this theory.

Note: being “entirely capable” is not the point. The direct supernatural action of God is the point. Please refer to previous post for definition of supernatural.

 

[buffalo]

1. 
   *]The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World
   
   1. 
      *]God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
      *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
      *] God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

 

[StAnastasia]

“Drawing out the soul from emerging Homo Sapiens through natural processes” represents the secular theory that the human anatomy produces something “soulishness” on its own over the course of time. This is not Catholic teaching even though many people choose to believe this theory.

It’s just as Catholic and no more a “secular theory” than is the model of transsubstantiation, which relies on 13th century Aristotelian physics. God is infinitely powerful, infinitely capable of drawing humanity to “Himself,” whether by gradual emergence or by instant clay modeling.

 

[StAnastasia]

1. 
   *]The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World
   *]God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
   *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   *] God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

1. 
   True.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then science cannot explain the spiritual aspect of persons on this planet?

I don’t see how science would explain it.

So miracles and answers to prayer do occur? And evidence that God not only cares but intervenes?

Lots of people have experienced it. But miracles are often subjective. My friend who was saved from alcoholism regards the event that saved her as miraculous. To an outsider it would be a naturalistic coincidence. Each interprets it differently.

Isn’t God everywhere, aware of everything and able to prevent needless suffering?

Presumably we exist within the divine reality, and God is everywhere. But I would be cautious about saying that “God is able to prevent needless suffering,” because in many instances it is not prevented (see my list above).

Perhaps God chose to create a universe endowed with freedom and autonomy so that free beings evolve who freely respond to God’s invitation to enter into a moral life and a life of grace. In such a universe endowed with autonomy, things happen that cause suffering – things like asteroids and volcanoes, earthquakes and tornadoes, diseases and accidents. Perhaps God cannot intervene to prevent suffering without destroying the freedom and autonomy built into the universe by God.

Then is the list of evils intended to highlight our inability to explain why they are permitted?

No – it is merely a list of evils.

I agree with you but are all those evils essential for moral and spiritual development?

I don’t know. There is lively disagreement within the Vatican group about how much suffering is “essential for moral and spiritual development” and how much is not. I don’t know that any is essential, although that is John Hick’s argument for “character building” which he says would not be possible in a world in which snakes would not be poisonous to humans, gravity would cease to operate when a window washer falls, and ships would continue to float after striking icebergs.

I entirely agree!

I guess I do too, but I forgot about what!

 

[tonyrey]

Superior to nature with regard to personality, autonomy, rationality, conscience and love - related to the attributes of God and not nature.

How are we made in God’s image if we are not supernatural in any respect? Are all spiritual gifts and powers scientifically explicable in principle?

 

[tonyrey]

Then science cannot explain the spiritual aspect of persons on this planet?

Do you think it may be possible for science to explain it?

So miracles and answers to prayer do occur? And evidence that God not only cares but intervenes?

Lots of people have experienced it. But miracles are often subjective. My friend who was saved from alcoholism regards the event that saved her as miraculous. To an outsider it would be a naturalistic coincidence. Each interprets it differently.

“often” is the key word!

Isn’t God everywhere, aware of everything and able to prevent needless suffering?

Presumably we exist within the divine reality, and God is everywhere. But I would be cautious about saying that “God is able to prevent needless suffering,” because in many instances it is not prevented (see my list above).

Perhaps God chose to create a universe endowed with freedom and autonomy so that free beings evolve who freely respond to God’s invitation to enter into a moral life and a life of grace. In such a universe endowed with autonomy, things happen that cause suffering – things like asteroids and volcanoes, earthquakes and tornadoes, diseases and accidents. Perhaps God cannot intervene to prevent suffering without destroying the freedom and autonomy built into the universe by God.

I agree. Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. The laws of nature would cease to be laws if they were constantly suspended.

I believe God intervenes more often than meets the eye… Wouldn’t you?

Then is the list of evils intended to highlight our inability to explain why they are permitted?

No – it is merely a list of evils.

An understandably impassioned list unless one lacks compassion…

I agree with you but are all those evils essential for moral and spiritual development?

I don’t know. There is lively disagreement within the Vatican group about how much suffering is “essential for moral and spiritual development” and how much is not. I don’t know that any is essential, although that is John Hick’s argument for “character building” which he says would not be possible in a world in which snakes would not be poisonous to humans, gravity would cease to operate when a window washer falls, and ships would continue to float after striking icebergs.

Much as I respect John Hick’s argument I believe it is absurd to regard **all **suffering as essential for moral and spiritual development. The plain fact is that a lot of suffering is pointless, meaningless and destructive - as he himself pointed out.

Hume too readily rejected the very factor that is at the root of many misfortunes:

“But allowing you what never will be believed, at least what you never possibly can prove, that animal, or at least human happiness, in this life, exceeds its misery, you have yet done nothing: For this is not, by any means, what we expect from infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite goodness. Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so short, so clear, so decisive; except we assert, that these subjects exceed all human capacity, and that our common measures of truth and falsehood are not applicable to them; a topic which I have all along insisted on, but which you have, from the beginning, rejected with scorn and indignation.”

In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable that there are dysteleological coincidences. Accidents and disasters are bound to occur. It is also absurd to believe there can be no conflict when there are an immense number of individuals pursuing different goals. Physical evil is the price of finitude, multiplicity, variety, sentience and development.

I entirely agree!

I guess I do too, but I forgot about what!

That it is not impossible to reconcile those evils with our Christian faith…

 

[grannymh]

It’s just as Catholic and no more a “secular theory” than is the model of transsubstantiation, which relies on 13th century Aristotelian physics. God is infinitely powerful, infinitely capable of drawing humanity to “Himself,” whether by gradual emergence or by instant clay modeling.

The Catholic Church
has the mandate to declare as doctrine that the spiritual soul is directly created by God. This doctrine directly opposes the theory that the soul somehow gradually emerged from some part of the physical human anatomy independently from God. This theory is also called an epiphenomenon.

The reference to “gradual emergence or by instant clay modeling” is one example of the subtle language of the Theological movement to change the Catholic Church. In other words by linking a non-spiritual soul with a slight reference to Scripture, the implication is that it doesn’t make any difference as to how the soul comes about. The underlying message is that it is o.k. for Catholics to pick and choose any theory regarding God’s personal relationship with us. This is not true. Catholicism is specific when it comes to God creating the spiritual soul which is what makes you and me in the image of God Who is pure spirit.

The persons who publically speak against Catholicism, that is, they promote changing the Catholic Deposit of Faith, often refer to the popularity of science as if empirical science is the one and only source of truth. In my humble opinion, science in this way, is being misused.

 

[grannymh]

the model of transsubstantiation, which relies on 13th century Aristotelian physics.

It is time to clarify the Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This doctrine relies on the direct teachings of Jesus Christ found in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six and also in other New Testament writings.

St. Thomas Aquinas, not Aristotle, used philosophical reasoning to describe the Divine Presence under the appearances of bread and wine. (Transubstantiation) Later, with the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the major Church Council of Trent put into writing what was taught by Jesus Christ, Himself. (Transubstantiation)

 

[StAnastasia]

It is time to clarify the Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This doctrine relies on the direct teachings of Jesus Christ found in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six and also in other New Testament writings.

Correct.

Later, with the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the major Church Council of Trent put into writing what was taught by Jesus Christ, Himself. (Transubstantiation)

Jesus did not teach transubstantiation. Those are philosophical categories imposed later.

 

[buffalo]

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion.

 

[StAnastasia]

Tonrey, I leave today for the American Academy of Religion meeting in San Francisco. I may be online only intermittently after midday, depending on connectivity.

Do you think it may be possible for science to explain it?

No more than it is possible for science to explain God.

I believe God intervenes more often than meets the eye… Wouldn’t you?

Perhaps, but that would be impossible to determine. When there is a plane crash in which someone missed the flight, the person sometimes says, “God was watching out for me.” I find this repugnant – as if God was not watching out for all those who were on time for the flight – and impossible to verify. I understand the human reaction, but not the theology.

Much as I respect John Hick’s argument I believe it is absurd to regard all suffering as essential for moral and spiritual development.

Hick’s argument founders on the shoal of the sheer enormity of suffering. As one critic said, did it really take the death of six million Jews in the “Holocaust” to teach humantiy compassion? Might two million victims have sufficed? Or 500,000?

The plain fact is that a lot of suffering is pointless, meaningless and destructive - as he himself pointed out.

True.

In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable that there are dysteleological coincidences. Accidents and disasters are bound to occur. It is also absurd to believe there can be no conflict when there are an immense number of individuals pursuing different goals. Physical evil is the price of finitude, multiplicity, variety, sentience and development.

I agree.

That it is not impossible to reconcile those evils with our Christian faith.

I favor the theodicy of mystery, as that seems to be the theodicy of the cross and resurrection, the central kerygma of the Christian faith…

 

[grannymh]

Jesus did not teach transubstantiation. Those are philosophical categories imposed later.

In the Catholic Church,

Transubstantiation is the description of the Divine Presence under the appearances of bread and wine. Please refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, beginning with verse 22 which heralds the “Bread of Life” Discourse. Readers understand that “life” is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ speaks.

Verse 27 refers to food, which is the location of transubstantiation. This verse also affirms the Divinity of Jesus which is the Person of transubstantiation.

Verse 33 relates the true bread from heaven with the manna in the desert (verse 31) in that their appearances are similar. (accidents in transubstantiation terminology). The rest of
verse 33 describes transubstantiation exactly with the play on words. Bread is not the temporary manna in the desert, Bread [Jesus Himself) is now that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

Verse 34. "So they said to Him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Verse 35. "**Jesus said to them “I am the bread of life;” – Transubstantiation.

 

[StAnastasia]

In the Catholic Church, Transubstantiation is the description of the Divine Presence under the appearances of bread and wine.

Correct. Jesus did not teach transubstantiation. It would be many centuries before that philosophical language would develop and be applied to describe the manner of Christ’s Eucharistic presence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia

At the risk of seeming sarcastic again , you really do seem to be a profoundly confused Catholic.

The term “transubstantiation” is not a philosophical concept that varies from the teaching of Christ. It is a term that was used by theologians to clarify what Christ taught at the Last Supper, since that teaching had come to be challenged by heretics of those days. It is certainly not a new doctrine at variance with what Christ taught. Only Protestants believe that … and maybe some agnostics or atheists who would like to believe it.

Had it been a new doctrine alleging something that Catholics had never believed, that what used to be considered merely a symbolic act, was now literally a miracle, all hell would have broken loose among the theologians.

As to the definition of “supernatural,” if you still don’t know what it means, do you have a dictionary? I’m afraid any definition I gave you would be rejected. If you’re not satisfied with the first dictionary you look into, try another, and another. After a while you will find that they all pretty much agree on what “supernatural” means. Then you will be stuck having to dispute all those dictionaries.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia, At the risk of seeming sarcastic again , you really do seem to be a profoundly confused Catholic.

Sarcasm again. My bishop and my theology graduate students don’t find me confused or confusing.

The term “transubstantiation” is not a philosophical concept that varies from the teaching of Christ. It is a term that was used by theologians to clarify what Christ taught at the Last Supper, since that teaching had come to be challenged by heretics of those days. It is certainly not a new doctrine at variance with what Christ taught. Only Protestants believe that … and maybe some agnostics or atheists who would like to believe it.

Correct.

Had it been a new doctrine alleging something that Catholics had never believed, that what used to be considered merely a symbolic act, was now literally a miracle, all hell would have broken loose among the theologians.

Correct.

 

[grannymh]

Correct. Jesus did not teach transubstantiation. It would be many centuries before that philosophical language would develop and be applied to describe the manner of Christ’s Eucharistic presence.

Does Jesus have the power to teach in His own way?

In the Catholic Church,
the message of Jesus is what is important. In John, Chapter six, Jesus explains His Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist. In Catholic terminology Jesus is teaching transubstantiation without using that precise word. So what?

For the beginning of Jesus’ teaching about the Catholic Eucharist (transubstantiation)
please refer to post 73, above.

Listen to all the words of Jesus from the beginning of Chapter 6, the Gospel of John.
Knowledge about philosophical language is not all that important.

 

[buffalo]

Sarcasm again. My bishop and my theology graduate students don’t find me confused or confusing.

Correct.

Correct.

Your bishop? Maybe you had better check again.

Theology students? - you are in a position of authority and they believe you are teaching truth. Thus you have the highest responsibility to get it right.

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”