Science & Religion

[grannymh]

Your pet belief that humanity started from a single pair is certainly possible, but only in the same way it’s possible that somewhere there are stealthy fairies wearing top hats, riding dragons and speaking Klingon – possible but way unlikely.

Please consider that the Catholic Church does not have a doctrine on “stealthy fairies wearing top hats, riding dragons and speaking Klingon.” (from post 1102) So there is no comparison.

In addition, the Catholic Church considers that the Holy Spirit is the protector of Divine Revelation by guiding the visible Church on earth. Thus, a doctrine, such as monogenism, is very serious stuff.

When it comes to the possibility of two sole parents of humanity, it does help if one believes in God. Because what makes the human species peerless is that God calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love. This is possible because a person is both spiritual soul *and *material anatomy.

As Elizabeth502 said in post 1104

"The honest (true) scientist understands, and undoubtedly has experienced, the limits of his own genuine knowledge. The true scientist never declares that humanity’s current knowledge is the sum total of all possible knowledge. Otherwise, he is a scientist who operates on prejudice, and thus his “findings” cannot be relied upon. Rather than a scientist, he is a researcher or a student with an agenda, which will poison all his “investigations.”

The honest scientist admits that what is known is possibly less than what is knowable."

 

[StAnastasia]

Even StAnastasia is sometimes attacked in personal ways although she regards herself as Catholic and her faith has been questioned more than once./QUOTE

Indeed, StAnastasia has been attacked by both religious people and atheists. She has been attacked in print by the “new atheists,” and has been called the Antichrist and been denounced as a heretic to a bishop. It’s the cost of being a thinking Catholic!

 

[StAnastasia]

The honest (true) scientist understands, and undoubtedly has experienced, the limits of his own genuine knowledge.

True.

The true scientist never declares that humanity’s current knowledge is the sum total of all possible knowledge. Otherwise, he is a scientist who operates on prejudice, and thus his “findings” cannot be relied upon.

True – all scientific knowledge is provisional.

The honest scientist admits that what is known is possibly less than what is knowable.

True – my scientist colleagues wold agree with this implicitly…

 

[epiphany08]

This seems to imply that all ingenious and helpful ideas come from God, and that the individuals who invented irrigation and better fishing methods and so forth contributed nothing. Is that what you believe, or am I misreading you? Does God work through secondary causes or not? Doesn’t God promise to reward the good deeds we do in life? If those deeds are not our doing, then he cannot reward us without perverting justice. If they are our doing, then by the same justice, we deserve credit. How is that arrogant, to use the brains God allegedly gave us?

First of all, God works mysteriously. Your not going to understand what He is doing but you will arrive at a better result than what you hoped for if He decides to grant your wish. Secondly, you misunderstand what I am trying to say. B. Franklin developed many innovations for his time with the attitude that he knew very little and had much more to learn. He believed in God and had his view on how things work. Here is one of his quotes:

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.”

Compare this with your modern entrepreneur who accredits everything to himself with the attitude that no other idea is right and he, only he, knows everything there is to know. I’m in the industry and have met my share of cocky entrepreneurs. Then again, you probably don’t believe me because you see it as heresay. Let me ask you, if a scientist told you something in relevance to science, would you call it heresay as well? By what standard do you measure the information you receive, facts I’m assuming? If you asked for directions and a man pointed you west, would you doubt him?

I’m not going to bother explaining to you the other points you posted. It seems as if your mind is closed to the subject and rather than trying to understand a different point of view your intention is to win a debate which I could care less for. Its not my responsibility to “persuade” you to believe in God. Like I said earlier, there is a common misconception about people choosing to believe in God and God choosing his followers. Who knows, maybe one day you will be put in a situation with no reasonably realistic options to save you and you will resort to God. Bless that day because it will be the day you have met your Maker.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Indeed, StAnastasia has been attacked by both religious people and atheists. She has been attacked in print by the “new atheists,” and has been called the Antichrist and been denounced as a heretic to a bishop. It’s the cost of being a thinking Catholic!

Why do you assume that thinking Catholics and religious Catholics are mutually exclusive universes? You continue to make statements that state or imply that Catholics who understand and adhere to Catholic doctrine could not possibly be thinkers, and/or that their thinking processes could not possibly be as complex or elevated as yours.

It strikes me that your knowledge of Catholic intellectual history is rather thin.

 

[tonyrey]

Do all religions believe in the concept of sin that you need to confess?..I don’t think so.

You have stated that the existence of God is “a matter of speculation”

Even StAnastasia is sometimes attacked in personal ways although she regards herself as Catholic and her faith has been questioned more than once.

It is improper to discuss individual contributors but three points should be borne in mind:

1. Not everyone who claims to be a Catholic is a Catholic.
2. Even genuine Catholics are sometimes misguided. I have been accused of heresy more than once - in my opinion without justification but then I don’t claim to be infallible!
3. As the whole point of this forum is to discuss issues on which there is a divergence of opinion we are entitled to question the opinions of others - particularly when they seem to contradict the teaching of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

Even StAnastasia is sometimes attacked in personal ways although she regards herself as Catholic and her faith has been questioned more than once.

Indeed, StAnastasia has been attacked by both religious people and atheists. She has been attacked in print by the “new atheists,” and has been called the Antichrist and been denounced as a heretic to a bishop. It’s the cost of being a thinking Catholic!

I, too, have been attacked by all kinds of religious and non-religious people. I am sure you remember the attack named “granny’s magical mystery tour” in reference to my support of the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. And of course, since you have been on CAF slightly longer than me, you would remember the attacks that I would be flushing all science down the drain because I accepted the “magical mystery” of our two unique ancestors. It’s the cost of being a thinking person.

With the exception of some direct personal hits, most attacks were directed to my belief position. This made me rethink what I was saying. The first thing I had to do was research Catholicism followed by updating my meager knowledge of science.
I am still researching and learning.

My point is that I, as a thinking person, am now comfortable in both areas of science and Catholicism. Both seek truth. The key which most, not all, people ignore is that in seeking truth, science has to be conducted properly and Catholicism has to be properly understood. Science cannot deny all possibililties because science cannot not explore the spiritual realm.

I am truly sorry that you have been hurt off line (denounced as a heretic to a bishop) and on line. And if I have offended you in any way, you have my sincere apology. Like me, perhaps a deeper understanding of Catholicism is needed. Just because some Catholics have moved away from certain Catholic teachings, it does not mean that Catholicism is wrong.

My general suggestion is for people to step back and think through what is being said. Catholicism has some very strong points in favor of human nature. Catholicism can answer questions such as Who really is the human person? How did the unique human person come to be? Where is the human person headed? Is there eternal life?

Science, too, favors human nature. This can be seen in its many benefits for individuals and society. But science does not have the same answers about human life as Catholicism. This does not imply that science is bad, no way. It recognizes the limitation of science in that it remains in the material/physical realm of our envirnment and our universe. Thinking people need to understand both the role of Catholicism *and *the role of science.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, StAnastasia has been attacked by both religious people and atheists. She has been attacked in print by the “new atheists,” and has been called the Antichrist and been denounced as a heretic to a bishop. It’s the cost of being a thinking Catholic!

Then you’re in good company! Many people feel threatened when their comfort zone is disturbed…

 

[tonyrey]

I, too, have been attacked by all kinds of religious and non-religious people. I am sure you remember the attack named “granny’s magical mystery tour” in reference to my support of the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. And of course, since you have been on CAF slightly longer than me, you would remember the attacks that I would be flushing all science down the drain because I accepted the “magical mystery” of our two unique ancestors. It’s the cost of being a thinking person.

With the exception of some direct personal hits, most attacks were directed to my belief position. This made me rethink what I was saying. The first thing I had to do was research Catholicism followed by updating my meager knowledge of science.
I am still researching and learning.

My point is that I, as a thinking person, am now comfortable in both areas of science and Catholicism. Both seek truth. The key, which most, not all, people ignore is that in seeking truth science has to be conducted properly and Catholicism has to be properly understood.

I am truly sorry that you have been hurt off line (denounced as a heretic to a bishop) and on line. And if I have offended you in any way, you have my sincere apology.

On the other hand, my general suggestion is for people to step back and think through what is being said. Catholicism has some very strong points in favor of human nature. Catholicism can answer questions such as Who really is the human person? How did the unique human person come to be? Where is the human person headed? Is there eternal life?

Science, too, favors human nature. This can be seen in its many benefits for individuals and society. But science does not have the same answers about human life as Catholicism. This does not imply that science is bad, no way. It recognizes the limitation of science in that it remains in the material/physical realm of our envirnment and our universe. Thinking people need to understand both the role of Catholicism *and *the role of science.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

1. If you write nothing you’re invulnerable.
2. If you only ask questions you’re almost invulnerable.
3. If you only attack you’re more invulnerable than some one who only defends.
4. The more you write the more vulnerable you become.
5. The more vulnerable you become the more you resemble your Master who didn’t hesitate to risk mockery, ridicule and even execution…

 

[grannymh]

StAnastasia;8545587:

both

the role of Catholicism *and *the role of science.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

1. If you write nothing you’re invulnerable.
2. If you only ask questions you’re almost invulnerable.
3. If you only attack you’re more invulnerable than some one who only defends.
4. The more you write the more vulnerable you become.
5. The more vulnerable you become the more you resemble your Master who didn’t hesitate to risk mockery, ridicule and even execution…

Because I was still editing my post 1128, some additional thoughts did not appear in your post. They are:

Science cannot deny all possibilities because science cannot explore the spiritual realm.
…
Like me, perhaps a deeper understanding of Catholicism is needed. Just because some Catholics have moved away from certain Catholic teachings, it does not mean that Catholicism is wrong.

 

[StAnastasia]

Why do you assume that thinking Catholics and religious Catholics are mutually exclusive universes?

I don’t. In fact, I inhabit both universes!

You continue to make statements that state or imply that Catholics who understand and adhere to Catholic doctrine could not possibly be thinkers, and/or that their thinking processes could not possibly be as complex or elevated as yours.

Can you offer an example of such a statement?

It strikes me that your knowledge of Catholic intellectual history is rather thin.

Incorrect – Catholic intellectual history is the area in which I teach and publish.

 

[StAnastasia]

Science cannot deny all possibilities because science cannot explore the spiritual realm.

Correct.

Like me, perhaps a deeper understanding of Catholicism is needed. Just because some Catholics have moved away from certain Catholic teachings, it does not mean that Catholicism is wrong.

Correct.

 

[StAnastasia]

I, too, have been attacked by all kinds of religious and non-religious people. I am sure you remember the attack named “granny’s magical mystery tour” in reference to my support of the Catholic doctrine of monogenism.

Granny, if you will recall, the context was that you claimed essentially that scientists do not observe what scientists *in fact *observe. The fact is that the evidence from the human genome is that the number of human breeding pairs never dropped below 3,000. The possible interpretations for a Catholic include the following:

(1) The world’s geneticists are all wrong, and Granny is right.

(2) Monogenism is false, and is based on an outdated understanding of human genetics.

(3) Monogenism is true, but God has made it appear as though the number of human breeding pairs never dropped below 3,000.

As I recall, you defended option # 1.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then you’re in good company! Many people feel threatened when their comfort zone is disturbed…

I did not freel threatened. Being called “the Antichrist” or a “heretic” is merely amusing, and being attacked by the “new atheists” for believing in God is irrelevant to my professional work.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, if you will recall, the context was that you claimed essentially that scientists do not observe what scientists *in fact *observe.

For your information,

My context is that science does wonderful things in the material/physical world.

The fact is that the evidence from the human genome is that the number of human breeding pairs never dropped below 3,000.

When one reads actual science research…

The evidence consists of sequences or possibly the whole genome from individual, chosen samples of individual human genomes. Samples, because human genomes are as different as people. Not everyone has green eyes and red hair. When one actually reads the evidence presented, one finds that these individually chosen samples represents whatever the researcher wants to represent. In tracing the genealogy of individual genes or groups of genes, science research protocol often includes samples of animal primates for comparison of a material body with a material body. This is done according the goal of the researcher.

This evidence is then subjected to the researcher’s personal decisons as to what method will be used in examining the samples. It looks as if there is a newer computer model which may be replacing the computer model in the previous century.

What is changing as we speak is called materials and methods. However, the reality of the samples and computer assumptions is still the obvious fact that this particular research is limited. The knowledge gleaned from the samples is limited. The conclusion regarding the chosen genes, etc., is limited to the limited knowledge flowing from the evidence.

From the limited conclusion, some researchers will predict going backwards that two, sole founders of the our human nature is impossible.

However, if one uses common sense when considering science research, it becomes obvious that materials gathered from the material and physical world can only produce a material and or physical conclusion.

On the other hand, God is spiritual. God created human beings as spiritual creatures because human nature in itself unites both the material and the spiritual worlds. By definition, science can only examine the material world which in human’s case is the material anatomy.

People can use science to deny God Who is a transcendent, pure spirit, personal God. Does a human’s denial destroy God and His creative works? Is God limited by the limitations of the material/physical world, which, by the way, He created. Are possibilities impossible for God?

 

[grannymh]

The possible interpretations for a Catholic include the following:

(1) The world’s geneticists are all wrong, and Granny is right.

Sounds like this is an updated version regarding my flushing all, including all kinds of different science disciplines, down the toilet.

First off, there are some wonderful “geneticists” working in botany. My grandchildren and I explore an university greenhouse. In addition, we need to be grateful to geneticists working in the medical field. Some of their research has extended to a species of monkeys that carry one of the forms for a particular strand of AIDs but are themselves immune. All kinds of possibilities are in the minds of the men and women who have begun researching this area. I would never make the statement that these dedicated people are all wrong.

Granny is right that there is a distinct line of demarcation between the many non-human species and the singular, peerless human species. This distinction is the result of the God-created spiritual soul. Therefore, when looking for the possibility of God creating the human species, one has to look beyond the scientific material world.

 

[grannymh]

. The possible interpretations for a Catholic include the following:

(2) Monogenism is false, and is based on an outdated understanding of human genetics.

As far as I know, the understanding of human genetics as being the mechanism for human propagation is never outdated. Natural reproduction is still, and will continue to be, the mode for producing the anatomy of human descendants.

Catholic doctrines are about Adam and Eve, Original Sin, the presence and reason for a Redeemer, and the prospect of sharing in God’s life through the soul’s spiritual faculties of knowledge and love–also known as the soul’s intellective power and free will.

For those who trust in God…
It is understandable that in order to insure the unity of the human race and consequently Christ could hang bleeding on a cross to save all people, humanity, including its spiritual principle, would have to descend from the same two parents.

Granted that there are many people who let trust in God die in their hearts. However, it must be remembered, engraved on our foreheads, that the Creator is greater than the created.

 

[grannymh]

. The possible interpretations for a Catholic include the following:

(3) Monogenism is true, but God has made it appear as though the number of human breeding pairs never dropped below 3,000.

Obviously, this option is based on an erroneous human interpretation of a Divine Creator.

 

[inocente]

I cannot speak for all Catholics, especially those who deny Original Sin.

Catholicism teaches that Christ’s presence in the world is a direct result of the events revealed in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Anti-theism is stepping up its assault on Christ, True God and True Man. Thus, if anti-theism can hang on to the coattails of science, effectively it can remove the reason for Christ’s birth. No Christ, no God.

Methinks you somewhat overstate the case.

If Catholicism is in the game of denying Christ to anyone who doesn’t interpret the first few pages of the Bible in the officially approved fashion, Catholicism really has become a new age cult of adam-and-eve-ism and would deserve to die. Christ never spoke of such things - He came to set us free, not to have us endlessly debate ancient myths.

But I suspect Catholicism isn’t in that game, for if it were the Church would long ago have made a definitive statement on how those events must be interpreted – either YEC or big bang and so on. Is Genesis even mentioned in any creed?

And anyhow, I thought your project is to dispense with the events by rewriting Genesis, since you want the story altered to give Adam and Eve parents?