Religion and Science!

[StAnastasia]

I never said they were contradictory.
Please just answer the question.

Which of your numerous questions?

 

[StAnastasia]

You misunderstood my post. Panentheism is one of the choices of secular theology which is a different theology than Catholic theology.

False. Panentheism is a philosophical model compatible with Catholic theology of God, perhaps even more so that the model you yourself use to conceive of the God-universe relationship,

I have stated reading a critique of panentheism and human nature scientifically speaking, as presented in a book by Elizabeth Johnson. I noticed that the critique had a small reference to “new theology.” Perhaps that is a better term than secular theology since panentheism comes from a broad movement to change some of the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church into a new theology based on contemporary science and culture.

False – panenthism is a philosophical model, not your imaginary “movement to change some of the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church.”

Part of this broad theological movement to change Catholic doctrines centers on human self-consciousness without positing divine intervention (human evolution). “While an adherent of a materialist philosophy would readily agree that material factors account for all reality, this accords neither with Catholic teaching, nor with sound philosophical argumentation.” From – Response to Observations by Sr. Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., Regarding the Committee on Doctrine’s Statement about the Book Quest for the Living God.

A groundless and libelous attack on the work of Dr. Johnson.

 

[tonyrey]

The presentation shows that very simple chemical processes – some involving a set of only five chemicals – can self-assemble into a “proto-cell” which has a body, a metabolism and replicable information, all basic constituents of “life”. These proto-cells seem to bridge part of the the gap between complicated life and non-life, as do viruses, apparently.

 

[grannymh]

Granny claimed: “When one uses the terms panentheist or pantheism, one is very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.”

This claim is patently false, as it conflates two very distinct terms. Panentheism is not “very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.”

The metaphors offered in explanation of panentheism such as the mutual abiding represented by the pregnant female body are based on material relationships and are insufficient to express the transcendence of God according to the Committee on Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Furthermore “…the full extent of the divergence between the description of panentheism advocated therein Quest for the Living God] and the Catholic theological tradition is obscured for the reader.” Emphasis mine.

 

[grannymh]

False. Panentheism is a philosophical model compatible with Catholic theology of God, perhaps even more so that the model you yourself use to conceive of the God-universe relationship,

Panentheism is a dangerous philosophical model. Of course, those wishing to undermine Catholic teaching contained in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, may possibly think differently.

False – panentheism is a philosophical model, not your imaginary “movement to change some of the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church.”

Some of the Catholic doctrines which certain people wish to change, delete or avoid ------ center on human origin, original sin, the spiritual soul, and the redemption of humanity by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[John21652]

Granny claimed: “When one uses the terms panentheist or pantheism, one is very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.”

This claim is patently false, as it conflates two very distinct terms. Panentheism is not “very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.”

Scuse me again, but I really think you are having trouble following what is posted.

Granny ariginally wrote this in post #398-

Never mind. When one uses the terms panentheist or pantheism, one is very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.

Granny was correct. That statement is true.

However, you responded in post #401 with this -

False, Granny. Saint Paul was employing a panentheist metaphysical model when he spoke in Acts 17:28 of the God in whom “we live and move and have our being.” Are you accusing Saint Paul of omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created?

In her response, Granny never made a comment about St. Paul. Her statement merely commented on panentheism and her statement was true. However, you swung back to St. Paul in an attempt at proving granny’s statement as being false. You never directed your response at granny’s statement and so, your refutation of granny’s statement fails. Your response is therefore false.

Now let’s look at how and why you dragged St. Paul into a refutation of granny’s statement.
In post #387 you wrote the following -

In general I prefer to describe things rather than “defining” them…
I myself favor a panentheist model, in which the whole universe exists within the divine reality, the reality within which – as Saint Paul says – “we live and move and have our being.”

You stated what ‘definition’ you prefer, despite stating you prefer to describe things rather than defining them and then you introduced a one line quote from St. Paul to support your own conceptualisation of your definition. That one line quote does not in any way ‘prove’ your defintion and as a method of supporting your defintion it is tenuous at best and disengenuous at worst.

Granny did not comment on your introduction of St. Paul when she wrote that with panentheism “…one is very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created…”, yet you have used your one line quote, chosen from a possible multitude of St. Paul quotes, to attempt to now prove that St. Paul was a panentheist and that granny was wrong.

post #401 you stated that St. Paul was using a panentheist model. That’s patently false. It was you who described a panentheist model and you attempted to support that description with a one line St. Paul quote. A one line St. Paul quote is not “using a panentheist model”. It is you attempting to prove the rightness of your own admitted preference for a model by using St. Paul out of context and then attempting to prove granny wrong by enlarging on your own subtle introduction of St. Paul by asking granny the following question in post 401 -

Are you accusing Saint Paul of omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created?

Granny didn’t accuse St. Paul of anything! She only made a statement about a metaphysical model.

You have swung from a very subtly introduced one line quote from St. Paul to support your prefered model, to now asking granny a question which even infers that St. Paul might belong in the panentheist box!

The logic you have employed is perhaps the most convoluted I have ever come across and borders on being dangerously disengenuous, to put it mildly.

 

[StAnastasia]

The metaphors offered in explanation of panentheism such as the mutual abiding represented by the pregnant female body are based on material relationships and are insufficient to express the transcendence of God according to the Committee on Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Furthermore “…the full extent of the divergence between the description of panentheism advocated therein Quest for the Living God] and the Catholic theological tradition is obscured for the reader.” Emphasis mine.

It’s too bad the committee that drafted the response to Sr. Johnson had not bothered to read her book themselves. Whoever they hired to do the job on her conveniently – and disingenuously – omitted her reference to St. Augustine’s own use of the panentheist model.

 

[StAnastasia]

Panentheism is a dangerous philosophical model. Of course, those wishing to undermine Catholic teaching contained in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, may possibly think differently.

False – it’s not dangerous at all.

Some of the Catholic doctrines which certain people wish to change, delete or avoid ------ center on human origin, original sin, the spiritual soul, and the redemption of humanity by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Give some proof for your accusations.

 

[John21652]

Which of your numerous questions?

If you are not capable of answering multiple questions, or of following conversations on the thread, just let me know and I’ll simplify it for you. Otherwise, don’t be lazy about following the links back to posters’ questions.

 

[StAnastasia]

When one uses the terms panentheist or pantheism, one is very close to omitting the distinction between the Creator and the created.

The above statement is false.

 

[tonyrey]

Viruses presuppose the existence of living organisms…

“Because all viruses are heavily dependent on their host for the production of viral progeny, viruses must have arisen after cells were established in the course of evolution.”

web.virginia.edu/Heidi/chapter1/chp1.htm

 

[grannymh]

It’s too bad the committee that drafted the response to Sr. Johnson had not bothered to read her book themselves. Whoever they hired to do the job on her conveniently – and disingenuously – omitted her reference to St. Augustine’s own use of the panentheist model.

May I gently point out that the metaphor of the sponge, taken from Augustine’s Confessions, is specifically addressed by the Committee on Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the section “The Transcendence of God.” In this particular section, pages 188, 198, 192 and 193 are cited from the book Quest for the Living God.

 

[tonyrey]

StAnastasia

Tonyrey, not scientific evidence. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That’s barking up the wrong tree!

But if science is in the universe, and the universe is in God, why can’t science sense the existence of God?

It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor!

 

[rossum]

It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor!

Value and beauty are subjective, not objective measures, and so can only reveal subjective information about the Artefactor.

Complexity can be objectively measured, and there are many possible processes that can produce complexity. It may not be possible to decide which process of the possible options produced the complexity. Was a pack of cards shuffled by a man, a woman or a machine? Can you tell just from the complexity of the ordering of the cards?

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor!

Tony, the word is “artificer.” You are right about human artifacts and artificers. But when speaking about God and the creation we are using these terms analogously. The artificer/artifact :: God/universe comparison is not unambiguous, and needs to be teased out very carefully.

 

[grannymh]

False – it’s not dangerous at all.

Give some proof for your accusations.

Some of the Catholic doctrines which certain people wish to change, delete or avoid ------ center on human origin, original sin, the spiritual soul, and the redemption of humanity by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Examples can be found in CAF posts by a Catholic who opposes the Catholic doctrine of two sole founders of humanity by referring to the world’s scientists. These posts speak about the 10,000 breeding pairs from which humanity slowly and collectively developed consciousness over time. These groups of people eventually became aware of evil and so on.

 

[StAnastasia]

Some of the Catholic doctrines which certain people wish to change, delete or avoid ------ center on human origin, original sin, the spiritual soul, and the redemption of humanity by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Perhaps. I have not met people who wish to change, delete or avoid the doctrines in question.

Examples can be found in CAF posts by a Catholic who opposes the Catholic doctrine of two sole founders of humanity by referring to the world’s scientists. These posts speak about the 10,000 breeding pairs from which humanity slowly and collectively developed consciousness over time. These groups of people eventually became aware of evil and so on.

Homo sapiens does indeed descend from 3,000-10,000 breeding couples. Behaviorally modern humans did grown in what we may term moral and spiritual awareness.

 

[tonyrey]

Homo sapiens does indeed descend from 3,000-10,000 breeding couples. Behaviorally modern humans did grow in what we may term moral and spiritual awareness.

Perhaps I can bridge the gap by pointing out that human development was indeed **gradual **but moral awareness must have been similar to a scientific discovery in its **sudden **realisation of the reality of evil. Nor would it have happened simultaneously to many individuals. It is reasonable to believe one couple were inspired by God to feel guilt after having committed a serious crime, probably murder…

There are no half-way stages in the distinction between innocence and guilt. You either **know **you have done something wrong or you don’t! Original sin is not a myth but a historical fact for anyone who believes morality is not a mere human convention…

 

[tonyrey]

It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor!

I prefer my neologism which is based on the Latin - used in the Creed “Factorem coeli et terrae”! It brings out the direct relationship between God and the universe.

You are right about human artifacts and artificers. But when speaking about God and the creation we are using these terms analogously. The artificer/artifact :: God/universe comparison is not unambiguous, and needs to be teased out very carefully.

There is no need to tease out the distinction between God and the universe!

" 1The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth."

 

[tonyrey]

It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor!

I agree. The Artefactor is the Subject!

There are also objective criteria of both value and beauty.

Complexity can be objectively measured, and there are many possible processes that can produce complexity. It may not be possible to decide which process of the possible options produced the complexity. Was a pack of cards shuffled by a man, a woman or a machine? Can you tell just from the complexity of the ordering of the cards?

**Purposeful **complexity is quite another matter from a random assortment!