Religion and Science!

[grannymh]

But the Catholic Church does not teach that the first three chapters of Genesis are literal. Pope Pius XII made this very clear in Humani Generis.

Your premise, therefore, it utterly inaccurate, and you are working from your own private interpretation of Catholicism.

Please --What premise are you talking about?

The quote you used from post 626 is as follows:

“While StAnastasia’s answer is correct in that anyone can deny Catholic teachings; however, the question above does not address those Catholics who prefer science as their reference point for spiritual truths. It addresses those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church. (The word abide is used in its definition “to accept without objection”)”

As far as I can tell, I am describing two different groups of people. Is the dictionary definition for abide what you mean by premise? Again, this is a description of a group or subgroup if you wish.

Is my premise that there are two different groups of Catholics? There are plenty of CAF posts which demonstrate the accuracy of that premise.

As far as fundamentalism is concerned, when I correspond with scientists doing actual research, I usually say upfront that I am not a creationist nor an ID proponent because that usually clears the air regarding my position on science. Personally, I used to consider fundamentalism as referring to a particular religion.

I do have a variety of premises; however, I do not see any of them stated in the simple quotation you chose.

Would you mind stating the premise which flows from my statement? Thank you.

P.S. Since I have not read all of Humani Generis, would you please give me the section number of the section you are referring to. I am familiar with the sections on monogenism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Contarini

But the Catholic Church does not teach that the first three chapters of Genesis are literal. Pope Pius XII made this very clear in Humani Generis.

I’m with granny in trying to figure out what passage you are referring to. Does Pius XII say there was no original sin? That the whole story was just a metaphor for something else going on in the human race? How do we account for original sin (which is dogma, not a teaching up for debate) if Adam and Eve did not literally exist??

 

[LayingHands]

I havwn’t heard about a “science of God.” Can you please explain this some more?

I am glad you have asked because with this question towards Knowledge, begins GOD’s fulfillment on the promise towards His path of Humanity’s Eternal Life. I also have belief that the Message of the Good News from Our Lord Jesus Christ are One and the Same as the ancient teachings of GOD’s Transendental Science of Humanity.

I am not promoting any change of so called Religions as I proclaim that my Spiritual Master is GOD, and He brought me to this Knowledge through 40 years of prayers and my desire to know His Absolute Truth…

The Science of GOD is also known as The Song of GOD (the Science of Self-Realization).

Many a turn in confusion occured as I received His guidance because the Ancient Scripture was not only LOST to basic Humanity, but some of the translated texts were from the Greek, the Latin and Indian Holy Men whereby, the english language translation became too confusing to follow…

Finally, I was directed to the titled “Bhagavad-gita AS IT IS”. This book is translated from the ancient language of sanskrit (the oldest known written language) and directly into plain english. There were some confusing issues but as I read, these too were clarified to my understanding…an example would be that the name of GOD, as Krsna means " All-Attracting", but in reality the author means GOD Krsna as “Attracts ALL”…

I will give some examples of GOD’s Science and in studying this Knowledge (GOODNESS) you will find He has disciples (devotees), the Liberation of the Spiritsoul, during this Life, Redemption for the Laws of returning on the Path to return to HIM, GODHEAD. This is the Transcendental Mystery of GOD’s Science…

GOD says;“This Supreme Science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in the cours of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as my friend: therefore, you can understand the transcendental mystery of this science.”

“Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego–altogether these eight comprise My separated material energies. Besides this inferior nature, there is a superior energy of Mine which is ALL living entities who are struggling with material nature and sustaining the Universe”

“That abode of Mine is not illumined by sun or moon, nor by electricity. And anyone who reaches it, never comes back to this material world”

“There is another, eternal nature, which is transcendental to this manisfested and non-manisfested matter, It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. That supreme status is called unmanifested and infallible, and is the highest destination. Going there, one never returns from that, My supreme abode”

“In My transcendental form I pervade all this creation. All things are resting in Me, but I am not in them. Again, everything that is created does not rest on me. Behold My mystic opulence; Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation”

“At the end of the millenium every material manifestation enters unto My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency I again create. The whole cosmic order is under Me, By MY will is it manifested again and again, and by My will it is annihilated at the end”

“From the highest planet in the material world, down to the lowest, all are places of misery, where repeated birth and death take place, But one who attains to My abode, never takes birth again”

 

[grannymh]

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.

I like you sense of wonder.

First, I have spent the greater majority of my life not reading Genesis. I learned about cosmology face to face. Mentioned to my Dad that I am not afraid of lightening like other people I know. He informed me that when I was a very young child, he would hold me up to the window and together we would watch simply marvelous lightning storms or maybe you call them electrical storms. With regret, I now have to pay attention to warnings about lightning.

However, the only things in nature which have made me think of a Creator God are the Alaskan mountains and eagles circling above me. From my experience, it seems that curiosity and wonder go together and, if we are lucky, there is also a thirst for knowledge.

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.

I agree.

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

Was that an angel on top or the back of the tomb? I think it was a tomb? At first, I thought it might be a statue of Jesus as in ultimately conquering death. I am not familiar with that kind of procession.

By the way, Christ died on the cross of me, too. I just had a wierd thought. There are a lot of wierd people that Christ died for. Can you connect 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars with God saying “let there be light,”? And then finish the sentence – Let there be light for Inocente and granny and the rest of humanity.

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).

I liked the expressions on their faces. I’m not doing too good with your points of empathy and brotherhood, am I?

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 can’t quite fit an expression of joy into Holy Week, unless it is anticipation of Easter. I did watch the link and now I have sound on my lap top. But I am very unfamilar with what is going on. Could you elaborate on what is happening? You have my curiosity flowing.

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

I believe most of life is a combination, a synthesis. I should paste that sentence on my forehead so I will be ready when the next mind/body thread shows up. Come to think of it. That sentence would be good for this thread.

 

[LayingHands]

Can you explain how “science of God” is like “science of chemistry”? Does it emply the testing of hypotheses against evidence? Or are you using “science” analogously?

Science of Chemistry? Maybe…

GOD says;

“Deluded by the three modes (goodness, passion, and ignorance), the whole world does not know Me who am above them and inexhaustible”

There is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread"

“Envious, mischievous, the lowest of mankind, these do I ever put back into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac (ignorant) species of life”

Being bound by hundreds and thousands of desires, by lust and anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification"

“To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me”

“According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. And, although I am the Creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable”

“One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down, in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature, and thus comes to the level of Spirituality”

“Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend”

I would remind everyone reading this remember now the answer which was given by Our Lord Jesus Christ when asked what the Most Important Commandment was…“Love the Lord your GOD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commanment.”

 

[PRmerger]

Those which satisfy the criteria of infallibility.

Ok. As far as I know it has never been infallibly proclaimed that Jesus has 2 natures–human and divine.

Are you saying that you can be Catholic and deny that Jesus was divine? Or that Jesus was human?

 

[grannymh]

Ok. As far as I know it has never been infallibly proclaimed that Jesus has 2 natures–human and divine.

It is an infallible doctrine that Jesus Christ has two natures – True God and True Man. (CCC 464)

This means that Jesus is one person with two natures. Please refer to Hypostatic Union in the CCC Glossary and to Hypostasis in the CCC Index. CCC paragraphs 456 - 483 will be helpful. Footnotes will give the history of this doctrine. There are also other paragraphs which explain the Person of Jesus Christ.

With the advent of Christmas, the Incarnation is perfect for meditation. “The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one Person of the Word.” (CCC 483)

 

[tonyrey]

When the Church has permitted multiple viewpoints, then I use faith and reason to discern what’s correct.

When the Church has taught something, I conform my viewpoint to God’s.

How do you know when the Church has permitted multiple viewpoints?

Do you accept every statement by the Church, e.g. every statement in the Catechism and every statement by a Pope?

 

[grannymh]

Those which satisfy the criteria of infallibility.

Here is one example:

353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order.** He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race.** Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.

That statement is anthropocentric. There may well be persons on other planets for whom God created the universe. Even on this planet there have been many creatures which became extinct before human beings appeared and which had their own intrinsic value. If we destroy the human race other creatures will not become valueless!

CCC 353 is a summary paragraph which should not be cited out of context as an
“either-or” type conclusion of anthropocentric. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is not just a compilation of sound bites. It is an unified whole which means that one needs to employ the “both-and” way of reading and thinking. This means that it is important to read and understand context.

CCC 353 is one of many examples which requires reading of the context. It is a summary sentence among others at the end of a section entitled "Heaven and Earth which begins with paragraph 325. As a summary sentence, CCC 353 proclaims God as the Creator. It is not a “mutually exclusive or” type of information.

 

[tonyrey]

Those which satisfy the criteria of infallibility.

I did not state "only those which satisfy the criteria of infallibility".

Are you saying that you can be Catholic and deny that Jesus was divine? Or that Jesus was human? .

Have I stated or implied anything to that effect?

If not why are you asking the question?

 

[grannymh]

How do you know when the Church has permitted multiple viewpoints?

Do you accept every statement by the Church, e.g. every statement in the Catechism and every statement by a Pope?

Tony,

Did you check the references I gave you about reading the Catechism correctly?

If you did, you would understand that not every statement in the Catechism has equal value.

In addition, when dealing with statements by Popes, please recall all the posts on faith/science threads which explained the difference between the material domain and spiritual domain in regard to individuals such as high-ranking clergy.

 

[tonyrey]

CCC 353 is a summary paragraph which should not be cited out of context as an
“either-or” type conclusion of anthropocentric. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is not just a compilation of sound bites. It is an unified whole which means that one needs to employ the “both-and” way of reading and thinking. This means that it is important to read and understand context.

CCC 353 is one of many examples which requires reading of the context. It is a summary sentence among others at the end of a section entitled "Heaven and Earth which begins with paragraph 325. As a summary sentence, CCC 353 proclaims God as the Creator. It is not a “mutually exclusive or” type of information.

Please cite another statement in the Catechism which proves that I have misinterpreted "He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race."

 

[tonyrey]

There are many because as a child I was sent to a state school and I drifted away from the Church. At university I returned to the fold and revised my views accordingly…

I’m delighted we are in fundamental agreement.

 

[tonyrey]

*How do you know when the Church has permitted multiple viewpoints?

Do you accept every statement by the Church, e.g. every statement in the Catechism and every statement by a Pope?*

I had already done so before asking whether every statement in the Catechism is infallible.

If you did, you would understand that not every statement in the Catechism has equal value.

Do you mean not every statement in the Catechism is de fide?

In addition, when dealing with statements by Popes, please recall all the posts on faith/science threads which explained the difference between the material domain and spiritual domain in regard to individuals such as high-ranking clergy.

Do you mean that on spiritual issues every statement by a Pope is infallible? And that on scientific issues it is not so?

 

[grannymh]

Please cite another statement in the Catechism which proves that I have misinterpreted "He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race."

Post 776 was not debating interpretations. It was explaining how to read a summary paragraph found in the Catechism’s sections titled “In Brief”. Here is the post.

"CCC 353 is a summary paragraph which should not be cited out of context as an
“either-or” type conclusion of anthropocentric. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is not just a compilation of sound bites. It is an unified whole which means that one needs to employ the “both-and” way of reading and thinking. This means that it is important to read and understand context.

"CCC 353 is one of many examples which requires reading of the context. It is a summary sentence among others at the end of a section titled "Heaven and Earth which begins with paragraph 325. As a summary sentence, CCC 353 proclaims God as the Creator. It is not a “mutually exclusive or” type of information. "

Post 776 serves as a guide to a better understanding of the Catechism. That is my contribution to the discussion. At this point, I see no need for me to discuss individual interpretations of CCC 353.

 

[grannymh]

Do you mean that on spiritual issues every statement by a Pope is infallible? And that on scientific issues it is not so?

What I mean is what I said. “In addition, when dealing with statements by Popes, please recall all the posts on faith/science threads which explained the difference between the material domain and spiritual domain in regard to individuals such as high-ranking clergy.”

If you wish, you and others can add more information without me.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you mean that on spiritual issues every statement by a Pope is infallible? And that on scientific issues it is not so?

I’m still in the dark as to whether you believe every statement by a Pope is infallible…

 

[tonyrey]

Post 776 was not debating interpretations. It was explaining how to read a summary paragraph found in the Catechism’s sections titled “In Brief”. Here is the post.

"CCC 353 is a summary paragraph which should not be cited out of context as an
“either-or” type conclusion of anthropocentric. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is not just a compilation of sound bites. It is an unified whole which means that one needs to employ the “both-and” way of reading and thinking. This means that it is important to read and understand context.

"CCC 353 is one of many examples which requires reading of the context. It is a summary sentence among others at the end of a section titled "Heaven and Earth which begins with paragraph 325. As a summary sentence, CCC 353 proclaims God as the Creator. It is not a “mutually exclusive or” type of information. "

Post 776 serves as a guide to a better understanding of the Catechism. That is my contribution to the discussion. At this point, I see no need for me to discuss individual interpretations of CCC 353.

In that case you are not justified in criticising me for my interpretation…

 

[PRmerger]

I’m delighted we are in fundamental agreement.

:clapping:

But i just want to offer this seed to be planted: asking “is this infallibly taught?” as a measure of whether Catholics are bound to believe a particular statement is the absolute wrong question for any thinking person to be asking. It’s the “Minimum Daily Adult Requirement” question.

Again, it’s analogous to a lover asking his beloved, “What’s the minimum amount of contact I have to have with you in order to still be considered your lover?”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This discussion has left me wondering somewhat about why we are talking so much about papal infallibility and hardly at all about the infallibility of Christ’s teachings.

Christ was infallible with every word he spoke. We don’t get to pick and choose which of the words he spoke were infallible and which were up for grabs.

Original sin is not up for grabs. It is the whole purpose for the Incarnation, to redeem us from that terrible stain on our soul that we inherit from Adam and Eve. Therefore we are not free to repudiate the existence of Adam and Eve, or to treat them as mere metaphor for some point in collective human evolution. But what pope spoke infallibly on that subject? Christ spoke of sodomy as a sin comparable to, but not quite so bad as refusing to believe what he had come to preach. But what pope has spoken infallibly on the subject of sodomy?

Do we have to have papal pronouncements on every subject when Christ, the always infallible speaker, covered so many of them in his own preaching?