Religion and Science!

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia
**
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.**

The word “panentheism” cannot be found in my huge personal dictionary published by Random House.

The word “panetheism” is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nor is it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The word also is not in my five volume set of* Dictionary of the History of Ideas*.

The word also cannot be found in my six volume set of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

You have sent me on a merry chase but no more.

A word that cannot be found in any of the above sources cannot be a word that has acquired any kind of respectability in the world of ideas.

So whom do you think you are kidding?

I know there is only one person you are kidding. YOU!

 

[StAnastasia]

One cannot arbitrarily take a quote from St. Augustine and call it panentheism. But if you are going to do that, you need to supply the specific quote.

I didn’t do so arbitrarily; I did so with good reason. Check out the Confessions, Book I, Chapter 3:

"Since, then, thou dost fill the heaven and earth, do they contain thee? Or, dost thou fill and overflow them, because they cannot contain thee? And where dost thou pour out what remains of thee after heaven and earth are full? Or, indeed, is there no need that thou, who dost contain all things, shouldst be contained by any, since those things which thou dost fill thou fillest by containing them? … But when thou dost fill all things, dost thou fill them with thy whole being? Or, since not even all things together could contain thee altogether, does any one thing contain a single part, and do all things contain that same part at the same time? Do singulars contain thee singly? Do greater things contain more of thee, and smaller things less? Or, is it not rather that thou art wholly present everywhere, yet in such a way that nothing contains thee wholly? "

The word “panetheism” is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nor is it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Understandably - you misspelled the word, so you’re not going to find it!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia

Augustine is just throwing out a lot of questions there, in the Socratic manner. He is not teaching Christian doctrine. You aren’t either, I’m afraid. Elizabeth Johnson has been thoroughly discredited both as scholar and theologian. You do yourself no favor hitching your wagon to her falling star.

**Understandably - you misspelled the word, so you’re not going to find it! **

Typos are common. But of course you’ve never done one.

The committee missed the point of her book, which was to defend and articulate Catholic doctrine. It didn’t help that Dr. Johnson’s text was misinterpreted and even falsified – it’s easy to claim someone as unorothodox if you have misrepresented her work to means something she didn’t say,.

Please ignore all my future posts and I will do you the same favor.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia, Augustine is just throwing out a lot of questions there, in the Socratic manner. He is not teaching Christian doctrine. You aren’t either, I’m afraid. Elizabeth Johnson has been thoroughly discredited both as scholar and theologian. You do yourself no favor hitching your wagon to her falling star.

You’re discrediting one of our greatest theologians, St. Augustine?

Elizabeth Johnson has not been discredited at all. In fact, almost unanimously the theologians who are members of the Catholic Theological Society of America (including me) and the Catholic Biblical Association supported Dr. Johnson against the shameless attack on the integrity of her scholarship. Her work is mainstream Catholic scholarship (even conservative by some standards), which is why we continue to assign her books in our theology seminars.

Please ignore all my future posts and I will do you the same favor.

If you wish. I’ve enjoyed our conversation!

StAnastasia

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For anybody interested, here are the first two paragraphs of a lengthy review by a respected Catholic scholar in the Catholic journal New Oxford Review May 2010

“Quest to Topple the Patriarchal Idol”
By Anne Barbeau Gardiner

Excerpt from a review of Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God. By Elizabeth A. Johnson.

**By the term “Living God,” Sister Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J., means a deity she won’t have to call “Father.” In her new book, Johnson, author of She Who Is (1993) and Truly Our Sister (2004), compares herself to a prophet warning Israel to turn away from idols and to seek “the female face of God” — i.e., the “living God.” She’s eager to pull the “idol off its pedestal, breaking the stranglehold of patriarchal discourse and its deleterious effects.” After all, she urges, “God is not literally a father or a king or a lord, but something ever so much greater.” She invites us to join her, open the “patriarchal cage,” and release the “divine mystery.” But what she releases from that cage is unspeakable.

At the start, Johnson asks us to reflect that an “invisible, greatly powerful, grand old man in the sky” might not be God at all. Strange, then, that in Scripture the prophet Daniel has just such a vision of God as the “Ancient of Days” enthroned in Heaven (Dan. 7). Evidently, this is a permissible way to envision God. Then she claims that the idea of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Being comes from “modern theism” only three centuries ago. In reaction to the Enlightenment, she alleges, “rational arguments,” rather than Scripture and Tradition, were used to defend the existence of God, and the divine attributes were deduced by contrasting the infinite to the finite — God as “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, in contrast to creatures who are limited in power, knowledge, and presence.” Johnson is a Distinguished Professor of Theology at Fordham University. She should know that the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) declared God to be “all-powerful and omniscient,” present “everywhere,” and “ruling all things,” and that St. Thomas Aquinas used “rational arguments” back in the thirteenth century to prove the existence of God and deduce His attributes. Far from being a “construct” of eighteenth-century “modern theism,” all this is as old as the Church herself.
**
The second paragraph especially proves that feminist propagandist Elizabeth Johnson skipped quite a few of her undergraduate Theology 101classes.

The full review is here:

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0510-gardiner

 

[grannymh]

I didn’t do so arbitrarily; I did so with good reason. Check out the Confessions, Book I, Chapter 3:

"Since, then, thou dost fill the heaven and earth, do they contain thee? Or, dost thou fill and overflow them, because they cannot contain thee? And where dost thou pour out what remains of thee after heaven and earth are full? Or, indeed, is there no need that thou, who dost contain all things, shouldst be contained by any, since those things which thou dost fill thou fillest by containing them? … But when thou dost fill all things, dost thou fill them with thy whole being? Or, since not even all things together could contain thee altogether, does any one thing contain a single part, and do all things contain that same part at the same time? Do singulars contain thee singly? Do greater things contain more of thee, and smaller things less? Or, is it not rather that thou art wholly present everywhere, yet in such a way that nothing contains thee wholly? "

In the quote above, Augustine asks nine questions. Without answers.

This is common in the history of the Catholic Church. Asking questions is the name of the game. The above out-of-context quotes from Augustine are a good example of the long process of seeking the truth of Revelation. This process which, at times, covered centuries would be summarized pro and con and presented to a major Church Council.

Please read about the first major Church Council in Chapter 15 in Acts. Notice the debate. In Acts 15; 7-12, notice how Peter goes straight to God’s word which is already known and then to the truth regarding the grace of the Lord Jesus. In verses 13-21, James sums up the discussion and offers a decision. Verses 22-35 wraps up the council with a public declaration, letter and word, which will be given to all the communities.

This outline of the first council continues, but not always as part of a major Church Council. It continues in the duties of the Bishops, one of which is to preserve doctrines.

**To tie this in with the thread title Religion and Science **

The Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, through their intense study of current issues where science and religion intersect, are following in the footsteps of the apostles.
Their research of the Catholic Deposit of Faith is obvious without being mentioned.
It is their duty to present Catholic doctrine correctly. Their concerns about a “theology” book written for a broad audience ( Quest for the Living God, page 2) is commendable.

Elizabeth Johnson maintains that the book “has listened carefully to the scientific account of the evolution of the human species. This account sees human emergence as being of a piece with the whole story of the evolution of life on this planet, scientifically speaking” (Observations, 31) as quoted in the Bishops’ Statement.
Science, based in the material realm, and a materialist philosophy could agree that material factors account for all reality. This worldview is not in agreement with Catholic doctrines. Note: the word emergence is a key word in the materialistic view of human anatomy. Emergence is to code word for no spiritual soul directly created by God.

A critical point in the intersection of science and Catholicism is emerging
self-consciousness versus a spiritual soul directly created by God. As Augustine raised questions in the above quote, so does contemporary society raise questions about a human soul being the result of material forces, such as the bodies of the parents.

The Bishops’ Statement claims "Neither in the book nor in the Observations is there any recognition of these philosophical and theological issues. (Last statement in the section “The Evolution of Human Beings”)

As I personally ask why that omission is important, it comes to mind that religion and science will always be on the table for discussion. In my humble opinion, the issues regarding Quest for the Living God are also issues found in the intersection of science and religion. It is my personal opinion, that unfortunately some, not all, Catholics cannot cope with scientific issues such as human origin. This does not imply that lack of understanding can destroy faith. It does imply that some, not all, Catholics are hurting. Sound Catholic apologetics is needed.

 

[tonyrey]

Artistic licence justifies and symmetry demands: “It is reasonable to believe that the nature of an immensely complex, valuable and beautiful artefact reveals some information about the Artefactor.”

Arte and factor are both Latin words. The Artificer sounds to me more like the Devil because it suggests artifice rather than artefact… And we use benefactor and malefactor - rather than beneficer and maleficer…

Have you never devised neologisms or enjoyed symmetry in sentences?

I think the root of the problem is that scientists are loth to recognise the significance of beauty in their interpretation of reality - which explains your silence regarding my point about Keats. I still believe that:

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands…”

 

[tonyrey]

The so-called proto-cells in the video are physical models representing a possible transitional step somewhere toward the non-life end of a non-life – to – life continuum in that they seem to display some of the characteristics of living cells (architecture, metabolism and inheritable information ) while still being constituted of nothing more than a relative handful of non-living materials or “sacks of chemicals”, as he calls them. The presenter, Martin Hanczyc, doesn’t claim that they are alive or that they exhibit all of the complexity of living cells, just that they exhibit some very basic life-like characteristics.

“a **possible **transitional step” and “life-like” are a far cry from demonstrating how some purely chemical processes %between%seem to blur the line between life and non-life. You obviously favour a mechanistic explanation which is supposed to put “quite a few more nails in the coffin of biological Intelligent Design” (to quote some one who shares your opinion) without even bothering to consider the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life, as if they are insignificant…

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you never devised neologisms or enjoyed symmetry in sentences?

Sure!

I think the root of the problem is that scientists are loth to recognise the significance of beauty in their interpretation of reality - which explains your silence regarding my point about Keats. I still believe that:

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands…”

Tony, that’s not true of the scientists I know, many of whom are entranced with the beauty of creation. I don’t know what you said about Keats, but I love Psalm 19 which you quoted.

 

[StAnastasia]

Scientific details are not expected, required or even possible in the metaphysical act of Creation or God's relationship with His creatures. Love is far more significant and valuable.

Tony, perhaps Scientific details about creation are not expected for you, but the quest of science is to delve ever deeper into nature. While metaphysics comes after physics (in Aristotle’s works that was the literal order of the books), there is no reason to expect scientists to halt their quest short of the realm of metaphysics.

As Keats pointed out before his untimely death: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know…”

True!

 

[cornbread_r2]

“a **possible **transitional step” and “life-like” are a far cry from demonstrating how some purely chemical processes seem to blur the line between life and non-life. You obviously favour a mechanistic explanation which is supposed to put “quite a few more nails in the coffin of biological Intelligent Design” (to quote some one who shares your opinion) without even bothering to consider the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life, as if they are insignificant…

When I see a physical demonstration of a non-living system self-assembling, motoring about and detecting and using resources – in effect exhibiting some of the same characteristics as living systems – I think it’s entirely reasonable to term that system as transitional somewhere on the non-life to life continuum.

Why should I have to consider characteristics of very sophisticated organic systems when discussing very basic characteristics exhibited by very simple inorganic systems? That’s like criticizing me for ignoring the capabilities of the human brain while I’m discussing my sliderule.

I was reluctant to give you a synopsis of the presentation for fear that I might not adequately or accurately represent the information. While I think I’ve avoided that, I see that was still a mistake in that I’m still reading your interpretation of my synopsis – and now also your assumptions about my opinions based upon someone else’s comments – rather than reading your interpretation of the actual data in the video. In the interest of efficiency, I’ll not comment again until you’ve viewed the video and made some substantive comment on the research, if you care to.

 

[grannymh]

I myself favor a panentheist model, in which the whole universe exists within the divine reality,

The panentheist model is starting to really interest me. Would you kindly expand on this model which you favor? Is there a way that science fits into this model?

What points about panentheism should I know?

 

[StAnastasia]

The panentheist model is starting to really interest me. Would you kindly expand on this model which you favor? Is there a way that science fits into this model? What points about panentheism should I know?

The central question about theism in this case is how we conceive of the God / world relationship. Is God outside the universe? Does God sit above or below or alongside the universe? Does God have make a foray into the universe to reveal Godself, to become incarnate, or to effect redemption? Does God retreat from the universe when these deeds are accomplished? Or is this model too static, too reflective of a remote, occasionally intervening God?

“Panentheism” is a philosophical way of viewing the God / world relationship in which the world lives and moves and has its being within the divine reality (Acts 17:28), which is of course infinitely greater than the universe. Rather than an alternative in which God is limited and the universe exists"alongside God," or in a “space” from which God has withdrawn, a panentheist model allows us to conceive of a God who is infinitely transcendent to the universe, and at the same time intimately involved in it. This God is at once the infinite, eternal creator, and the God who became incarnate as a tiny newborn baby in Bethlehem. God is “over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6).

“The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27). In a panentheist model, God is not the Newtonian first mover who gave the world a push at the beginning and then let’s it roll endlessly on, but a God who is intimately involved in the unfolding of that universe, from the creation of quarks in the Big Bang, to the gravitational formation of galaxies, to the stellar nucleosynthesis of heavy elements blown out into the galaxy by supernovae, to the formation from accretion discs of more stars with rocky and (some) life-bearing planets.

This God was here all the way through the evolutionary history of the Earth to the dawn of Homo sapiens. This God was born in Bethlehem, suffered on Calvary, and was raised by God the Father on Easter. “Nothing in all creation, will be able to separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)"

I find one of the more beautiful scriptural expressions of panentheism to be Psalm 139:

"Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

The central question about theism in this case is how we conceive of the God / world relationship. Is God outside the universe? Does God sit above or below or alongside the universe? Does God have make a foray into the universe to reveal Godself, to become incarnate, or to effect redemption? Does God retreat from the universe when these deeds are accomplished? Or is this model too static, too reflective of a remote, occasionally intervening God?

“Panentheism” is a philosophical way of viewing the God / world relationship in which the world lives and moves and has its being within the divine reality (Acts 17:28), which is of course infinitely greater than the universe. Rather than an alternative in which God is limited and the universe exists"alongside God," or in a “space” from which God has withdrawn, a panentheist model allows us to conceive of a God who is infinitely transcendent to the universe, and at the same time intimately involved in it. This God is at once the infinite, eternal creator, and the God who became incarnate as a tiny newborn baby in Bethlehem. God is “over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6).

“The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27). In a panentheist model, God is not the Newtonian first mover who gave the world a push at the beginning and then let’s it roll endlessly on, but a God who is intimately involved in the unfolding of that universe, from the creation of quarks in the Big Bang, to the gravitational formation of galaxies, to the stellar nucleosynthesis of heavy elements blown out into the galaxy by supernovae, to the formation from accretion discs of more stars with rocky and (some) life-bearing planets.

This God was here all the way through the evolutionary history of the Earth to the dawn of Homo sapiens. This God was born in Bethlehem, suffered on Calvary, and was raised by God the Father on Easter. “Nothing in all creation, will be able to separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)"

I find one of the more beautiful scriptural expressions of panentheism to be Psalm 139:

"Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

StAnastasia

There is quite a bit to discuss here. Thank you.

Psalm 139 is a favorite of mine because of verses 1 & 2 and of course verse 10 “Even there, Your hand shall guide me.” Isaiah 55, also my favorite, was given to me as a penance during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, especially verses 8 & 9. I often consider these two Scripture readings complimentary. Do you see that, too?

As you pointed out, panentheism is a philosophical way of viewing God. Since you teach theology what would be the theological statements involved in the panentheist model you favor? I have the idea that there are different models?

I also noted that you included in your post 465 the scientific history of "the Earth to the dawn of Homo sapiens. In a sense this surprises me as being part of panentheism. What would be the theology here?

Would it be easier to treat one discussion question at a time?

 

[StAnastasia]

There is quite a bit to discuss here. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Psalm 139 is a favorite of mine because of verses 1 & 2 and of course verse 10 “Even there, Your hand shall guide me.” Isaiah 55, also my favorite, was given to me as a penance during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, especially verses 8 & 9. I often consider these two Scripture readings complimentary. Do you see that, too?

Yes!

As you pointed out, panentheism is a philosophical way of viewing God. Since you teach theology what would be the theological statements involved in the panentheist model you favor? I have the idea that there are different models?

It is a philosophical framework. Any theology sits within its philosophical framework, even the “atheology” of the so-called “new atheism.” Modern theism tends to assume a distant, utterly transcendent God, the “sky fairy” ridiculed by Dawkins, who perhaps occasionally intervenes.

Panentheism is a framework that supports a God who is both utterly transcendent, and at the same time utterly immanent in the Incarnation. The biblical passages I cited are some of the ones reflective of the philosophical view that the world lives and moves and has its being within the divine reality.

I also noted that you included in your post 465 the scientific history of "the Earth to the dawn of Homo sapiens. In a sense this surprises me as being part of panentheism. What would be the theology here?

Science – like every other facet of human experience – exists within the divine reality. I suppose you could elaborate a theology of science, but I would have to look into that. I imagine Fr. George Coyne and other Jesuit astronomers and biologists have a theology of science; George Coyne himself says that his belief in God gives him more to pray about.

Would it be easier to treat one discussion question at a time?

It probably would be!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Modern theism tends to assume a distant, utterly transcendent God, the “sky fairy” ridiculed by Dawkins, who perhaps occasionally intervenes.

Certainly not the body of belief/deposit of faith and rich spirituality available in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps some other “modern theism” is being referred to, but none that I would follow or respect, nor would the vast number of educated and well-catechized Catholics conceive of and pray to such a Disney deity. The entire Roman Catholic tradition, in its modern and ancient manifestation, witnesses to and worships the God who is at once transcendant and immanent. Anyone who does not understand this is either extremely poorly catechized, or has an agenda to reconstruct falsely a caricature of a Church.

But yeah, ya know, straw men are such fun to build and light a match to.

 

[grannymh]

It is a philosophical framework. Any theology sits within its philosophical framework, even the “atheology” of the so-called “new atheism.”

This makes sense even though I am sure there are other ways to explain the relationship between philosophy and theology. Can the philosophic framework be expanded to include Aristotle et al and St. Thomas Aquinas?

I am thinking about the relatively young Catholic Church which drew philosophical and theological (name removed by moderator)ut from these and other masters, including early Church Fathers, east and west. It seems to me that someone was always tinkering with previous concepts. According to history, the tinkering stopped when a specific doctrine was properly defined and declared at a major Church Council.

Modern theism tends to assume a distant, utterly transcendent God, the “sky fairy” ridiculed by Dawkins, who perhaps occasionally intervenes.

I am just catching up with “modern theism”. The :“sky fairy” ridiculed by Dawkins.— If I ever meet that man, I am going to wash his mouth out with soap. — sounds like the god of the gap argument. Is it?

Panentheism is a framework that supports a God who is both utterly transcendent, and at the same time utterly immanent in the Incarnation. The biblical passages I cited are some of the ones reflective of the philosophical view that the world lives and moves and has its being within the divine reality.

I would like to know more about the theological concepts about God being both transcendent and immanent. It sounds to me that this would imply a pure spirit with no restrictions. ???

I sense we are at some kind of a basic foundation for Catholic theology. May we chew on this for a bit before we go on to the rest of your post?

 

[tonyrey]

Have you never devised neologisms or enjoyed symmetry in sentences?

Good for you! Don’t you think the Artificer sounds more like the Devil? God is certainly far more akin to an artist and a benefactor!

I think the root of the problem is that scientists are loth to recognise the significance of beauty in their interpretation of reality - which explains your silence regarding my point about Keats. I still believe that:

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands

…"
Tony, that’s not true of the scientists I know, many of whom are entranced with the beauty of creation. I don’t know what you said about Keats, but I love Psalm 19 which you quoted. Sure!

But you don’t think beauty is evidence for Design…

 

[grannymh]

But you don’t think beauty is evidence for Design…

It is not my intention to get into a “Design” discussion. However, appreciating beauty is a part of human nature and as such can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

 

[tonyrey]

• Scientific details are not expected, required or even possible in the  metaphysical act of Creation or God's relationship with His creatures.  Love is far more significant and valuable.*

Since physics presupposes metaphysical principles scientists have to halt their quest at some point. The problem is that the limits of science are nebulous because “nature” has never been clearly defined.

Do you believe God’s relationship with His creatures - and love - could eventually be explained by science? .