Religion and Science!

[PRmerger]

Heh! We’re expected to believe those two just weeded that whole plot? Looks like the first time either of them ever set foot on a farm. City folk wouldn’t know a day’s work if it fell on them. City folk think fish grow on trees. City folk think stars are in movies, they ain’t never even seen the firmament. And other social commentary on the meaning of life.

Yeah, but that sweater on the female model is to die for.

 

[PRmerger]

Babies born blind or deaf or without arms and legs due to genetic defect or gestational problems will be legless and armless in heaven? I suppose God does have a sense of humor. This is odd from my merely human point of view, but perhaps funny in a way that my human limitations prevent me from seeing.

Oh, no. I don’t think babies will be blind or deaf in heaven. :nope:

My opinion is that those with Down syndrome are perfect. But that doesn’t translate to are perfect.

 

[PRmerger]

Then you have to explain why “anomalous genetic mutation” (whatever that term means) was around on earth for billions of years before “fallen human nature” was created.

Give me an example of an anomalous genetic mutation that was around on earth for billions of years.

I don’t believe that anomalous genetic mutations existed prior to the Fall. But if that’s your contention, please provide an example.

No - you said that, not me.

Well, then, good. We are agreed on this at least. Swyer syndrome is an anomaly. And whatever gender their soul is is still that which God intended for them from the beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

I can understand your belief that they are perfect because they are indeed morally and spiritually perfect! But it wasn’t God’s intention to create them like that

On this we’ll have to agree to disagree, tony. And as God has not revealed to us whether those with Down syndrome are how He intended from the beginning, or whether it’s something His permissive will allowed, we simply don’t know.

Those with Downs syndrome are afflicted due to a **physical **cause.

And, yes, they do have physical ailments. But their soul will need no perfecting or correction when they enter heaven.

 

[StAnastasia]

Give me an example of an anomalous genetic mutation that was around on earth for billions of years.

I don’t know what “anomalous genetic mutation” means. I’ve googled the term, but cannot find a reference to it. I suspect you just made it up.

Genetic mutation is the main driver of evolution on earth, along with the process of natural selection that operates upon mutations. Every organism on earth is the product of genetic mutation, which has been operating for at least three billion years. An example would be the chain of mutations that led from anaerobic respiration to aerobic respiration around 2.4 billion years ago.

I don’t believe that anomalous genetic mutations existed prior to the Fall. But if that’s your contention, please provide an example.

That depends on what you mean by “the Fall.” If that is a human event, there was genetic mutation going on for for billions of years before “Adam” existed.

Well, then, good. We are agreed on this at least. Swyer syndrome is an anomaly. And whatever gender their soul is is still that which God intended for them from the beginning.

Most people with Swyer syndrome live their lives as women. Chromosomally they are XY, they have breasts, vaginas, and little body hair. They are infertile (no gonads or uteri), but to all outward appearances they are female. Some get married and adopt children. I suppose you could argue that in the life of the world to come God will restore their maleness, but they will have lived their earthly lives as females. I leave it up to you to decide what gender their souls are, if any gender at all.

 

[StAnastasia]

I understand. Since you said: “Undoubtedly there was an original sin” – Would you please explain it? Thank you.

I don’t know what the first sins were. Perhaps it was eating fruit, perhaps not returning a stone axe, or stealing more than one’s fair share of woolly mammoth meat. Or perhaps murder, or arson, or rape.

 

[John21652]

Undoubtedly there was an original sin. For those who do not interpret the forbidden fruit story literally, the time and place and circumstances of that “original sin” are lost in the mists of prehistory. Anatomical modernity of Homo sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago; behavioral modernity some tens of thousands of years later, with the evolution of altruism and the dawn of moral and spiritual consciousness.

StAnastasia

Are you saying there’s an altruism gene?

Considering that the role of the state was a whole lot less during pre-history than it is today, shouldn’t the development of altruism have predated even what you refer to as ‘behavioural modernity’?

Gee, even the poor ol’ Neanderthals were around for 500,000 odd years. So far, we can’t even say we are as successful as them. Do you think they might have had a degree of ‘altruism’ in their natures?

 

[grannymh]

Give me an example of an anomalous genetic mutation that was around on earth for billions of years.

This is a valid request.

However, personally, I do not find evidence that Adam and Eve as created by God scientifically lived billions of years before the beginning of history. Their anatomies might have lived scientifically billions of years without ever having the intellective power of rational thought.

When it comes to the ancestors of behavioral modern humans, one needs to realize that science does not consider the spiritual soul as the line of demarcation.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know what the first sins were. Perhaps it was eating fruit, perhaps not returning a stone axe, or stealing more than one’s fair share of woolly mammoth meat. Or perhaps murder, or arson, or rape.

Rgarding “I don’t know what the first sins were.” posted by StAnastasia, post 578.

Catholicism does not talk about “Original Sin” as first sins in the plural.

As a teacher and lover of theology, surely you must be aware of basic Catholic theology.

However, I do understand if you have chosen secular or the “new” theology belonging to the movement to change doctrines of the Catholic Church. When one reads between the lines, one sees that creating confusion between Divine Revelation and its expression by rational beings is one of the popular means used to damage Catholic credibility.

 

[grannymh]

That depends on what you mean by “the Fall.” If that is a human event, there was genetic mutation going on for for billions of years before “Adam” existed.

StAnastasia,

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from so I cannot figure out why you would say –

“That depends on what you mean by “the Fall.” If that is a human event, there was genetic mutation going on for billions of years before “Adam” existed.” from post 577.

Are you aware that there is no “if” in the Catholic doctrines regarding “original sin”?

Please consider that If the Fall is a human event is part of the common language being used to discredit Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

Then you have to explain why “anomalous genetic mutation” (whatever that term means) was around on earth for billions of years before “fallen human nature” was created.

May I point out that --“fallen human nature” was created-- from post 562, is similar, but not quite the same, as some old Protestant teachings. In a sense, it is referring back to the teaching that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature. For example, a few years ago, a poster referred to humans as “sin machines”.

The Catholic Church teaches that one of the effects of Original Sin was that human nature was wounded. There is some good information on this in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 396 - 409.

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you saying there’s an altruism gene?

No. Altruism is a behavioural pattern that has both genetic and environmental roots. There is evidence that altruistic behaviour goes way back: “Chimpanzees have now shown they can help strangers at personal cost without apparent expectation of personal gain, a level of selfless behavior often claimed as unique to humans. These new findings could shed light on the evolution of such altruism, researchers said.” http://www.livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html

Considering that the role of the state was a whole lot less during pre-history than it is today, shouldn’t the development of altruism have predated even what you refer to as ‘behavioural modernity’?

I’m not sure what your reference to the state is about, but yes – altruism seem to have been very early. There is even evidence that some pre-modern Homo sapiens survived into adulthood with serious disabilities, suggesting that they were valued as individuals and cared for by the group, rather than abandoned.

Gee, even the poor ol’ Neanderthals were around for 500,000 odd years. So far, we can’t even say we are as successful as them.

Biologically we are at least as success as Homo neanderthalensis, although since they interbred with Homo sapiens they live on in us (at least those of us who are European or Asian).

Do you think they might have had a degree of ‘altruism’ in their natures?

Yes - probably a significant degree of altruism. See the general discussion at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

 

[StAnastasia]

However, personally, I do not find evidence that Adam and Eve as created by God scientifically lived billions of years before the beginning of history.

Granny, as Ronald Reagan would have said, “There you go again.” You’re making stuff up, falsifying my post, and ascribing your twisted version to me. Tut, tut!

Their anatomies might have lived scientifically billions of years without ever having the intellective power of rational thought.

Human anatomy did not live for billions of years - I don’t know where you got that thought. Rationality has its roots in evolving mammalian neural complexity; see Ian Tattersall, “The Origins of human cognition and the evolution of rationality,” in The Evolution of Rationality, ed. F. LeRon Shults. However, there is also strong evidence of cognition in birds. See “Intelligence and cognition in birds,” mapoflife.org/topics/topic_240_Intelligence-and-cognition-in-birds/

When it comes to the ancestors of behavioral modern humans, one needs to realize that science does not consider the spiritual soul as the line of demarcation.

What is the date of this line of demarcation?

 

[davidv]

Granny, as Ronald Reagan would have said, “There you go again.” You’re making stuff up, falsifying my post, and ascribing your twisted version to me. Tut, tut!

Human anatomy did not live for billions of years - I don’t know where you got that thought. Rationality has its roots in evolving mammalian neural complexity; see Ian Tattersall, “The Origins of human cognition and the evolution of rationality,” in The Evolution of Rationality, ed. F. LeRon Shults. However, there is also strong evidence of cognition in birds. See “Intelligence and cognition in birds,” mapoflife.org/topics/topic_240_Intelligence-and-cognition-in-birds/

What is the date of this line of demarcation?

No one knows the date. How does this lack of this knowledge affect the presence of the demarcation?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, as Ronald Reagan would have said, “There you go again.” You’re making stuff up, falsifying my post, and ascribing your twisted version to me. Tut, tut!

I give information in declarative sentences.
If my information is different from your information, this gives readers a choice.

Human anatomy did not live for billions of years - I don’t know where you got that thought.

I pay attention to the language when I read actual research papers.

Perhaps, it would be a good idea to repeat what I actually said in post 580.

“However, personally, I do not find evidence that Adam and Eve as created by God scientifically lived billions of years before the beginning of history. Their anatomies might have lived scientifically billions of years without ever having the intellective power of rational thought.”

“When it comes to the ancestors of behavioral modern humans, one needs to realize that science does not consider the spiritual soul as the line of demarcation.”

What is the date of this line of demarcation?

Please see post 586.

 

[StAnastasia]

No one knows the date. How does this lack of this knowledge affect the presence of the demarcation?

For starters, it would help nonbelievers whom we are trying to interest in Catholicism if what we are talking about has specifics attached to it. A lot of the secular world looks at Christianity (and other religions) as incoherent mumbo jumbo. For example, to a non-Buddhist or non-Hindu (such as myself), the Buddhist and Hindu accounts of eschatology are incoherent unless one can understand how reincarnation might even be credible. A non-Christian would say thte same about resurrection, or “the Fall.”

Theology is faith seeking understanding. Our faith can be as secure as anything, but that does not preclude our theological attempt to articulate it.

 

[tonyrey]

• You misunderstand me because “disadvantaged for the sake of those of us” gives the wrong impression! I mean quite simply that a physical handicap becomes a spiritual asset. A minority are sacrificed due to the laws of probability. Misfortunes are not willed by God but permitted because the victims will be compensated and rewarded for their involuntary sacrifice. Pascal said “Jesus Christ is in agony until the end of the world.” He is with everyone who suffers and is forsaken for any reason whatsoever…*

It is impossible to defend belief in a loving Father if He is directly responsible for the colossal amount of indiscriminate and futile suffering on this planet. The world is out of God’s control for two reasons: choice and chance…

 

[grannymh]

These days, theology has a variety of meanings. It is not my intention to analyze them at this moment.

The Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has a very simple definition which hits the nail directly on the head.

Theology: The study of God, based on divine revelation.

For further information, one can refer to paragraphs 236, 2033, and 2038 as a start.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is impossible to defend belief in a loving Father if He is directly responsible for the colossal amount of indiscriminate and futile suffering on this planet. The world is out of God’s control for two reasons: choice and chance…

Tony, I am uncomfortable saying in any absolute sense “the world is out of God’s control,” and I know you don’t mean it in that way. We Catholics believe that God the eternal Creator fashioned the universe for God’s own unfathomable purposes. It seems credible to believe that one of those purposes was that out of the apparent chaos of quarks of the Big Bang would come forth order and harmony.

13.7 billion years later – one one planet, at least – that order and harmony permitted and facilitated the evolutionary formation of an order of mammals possessed of increasing neural endowment, that carried survival value and led to the development of the primate brain and thence to the great apes. 5-7 million yeas ago the great apes began to diverge, and the line Homo began its own trajectory that led ultimately to Homo sapiens, perhaps the first being in the universe to become conscious of its creator, of its moral obligations to that creator, and of the possibility of spiritual life.

So, I would say that this universe (not ruling out others) is in God’s control, not dictatorial but suasive control. God is responsible for creating a universe pregnant with possibility, with asteroid collisions, gamma ray bursts, tsunamis and hurricanes, and with opportunities for living beings, non-sentient, sentient, and rational, to get hurt or killed. But I don’t fault God for creating volcanoes on which curious mountaineers (such as myself) sometimes get hurt or killed. God is only indirectly responsible for the preconditions of suffering in the universe.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

These days, theology has a variety of meanings. It is not my intention to analyze them at this moment. Theology: The study of God, based on divine revelation.

That’s a serviceable (if partial) definition.