Science & Religion

[StAnastasia]

It is up to you to choose between human reasoning and God the Creator.

This is not a forced choice at all. It’s a false dichotomy!

 

[StAnastasia]

Given the huge blind spot in the scientific view (the spiritualt), your claim of falsehood does not follow from the premises.

Yes, it is scientifically false to claim that all humans descended from one breeding couple.

Most, if not all, scientific claims about the origin of man are hypotheses or theories, so it is no position to claim anything theological is false.

Correct: science is not in a position to declare false any theological claim - whether in Jewish or Maori or African or Native American creation stories. Any of those traditions are free to make their theological claims unmolested.

But when religious traditions claim something about scientific reality based on their origins myths, that is a different matter. The Maori (New Zealand) belief that Father Sky and Mother Earth are eternally pining for each other says some profoundly important theological things, but a literal interpretation of the story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Jewish claim that all humans are descended from one pair says some profoundly important theological things, but a literal interpretation of the story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Your claim of unnecessity also guts the doctrine original sin of most of it meaning.

Not at all. Soteriological models are still valid even if we don’t accept a literal talking snake and a literal first couple.

 

[grannymh]

This is not a forced choice at all. It’s a false dichotomy!

The choice between created human reasoning and the actions of a Divine Creator is a real choice for Catholics…

The scientific theory of so many thousands of breeding pairs reproducing and developing over centuries, does not allow Catholics to ignore this choice. Of course, people are free to ignore this choice. However, ignoring the power of a Divine Creator does not turn God into a mud puddle or whatever materialistic symbol suits one’s fancy.

God is spiritual which is another word for supernatural which is another word describing the fact that God is not a product of the material and physical universe .Nor can God be tweaked to fit a human’s preferences.

It is import to understand the God-given role of science and its place in the material/physical domain. It is also important to realize that Divine Revelation trumps because Divine Revelation comes from the Divine Creator and not from created humans.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The choice between created human reasoning and the actions of a Divine Creator is a real choice for Catholics.

(Agreeing with this)…

…as is the choice between affirming the inerrant truth of each human soul as not something derived from evolutionary ancestors , and assuming that Church theology of the soul is modified by scientific theories about humanity’s origin and development. Souls do not evolve. To suggest that is something that our Church has defined as heretical.

It is import[ant] to understand the God-given role of science and its place in the material/physical domain. It is also important to realize that Divine Revelation trumps because Divine Revelation comes from the Divine Creator and not from created humans.

Science is contained within God, not vice-versa.

 

[davidv]

Yes, it is scientifically false to claim that all humans descended from one breeding couple.

This is not a statement of fact. It is a claim based on the false assumption that the Church is wrong about God’s unique creation, humans.

Correct: science is not in a position to declare false any theological claim - whether in Jewish or Maori or African or Native American creation stories. Any of those traditions are free to make their theological claims unmolested.

But when religious traditions

Original sin and the first couple who committed it is not tradition, it is doctrine.

claim something about scientific reality based on their origins myths, that is a different matter. The Maori (New Zealand) belief that Father Sky and Mother Earth are eternally pining for each other says some profoundly important theological things, but a literal interpretation of the story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Jewish claim that all humans are descended from one pair says some profoundly important theological things, but a literal interpretation of the story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Since the scientific scrutiny in this instance is akin to looking for the milky way by using a mircoscope,.I’m going to dismiss this as wishful thinking.

Not at all. Soteriological models are still valid even if we don’t accept a literal talking snake and a literal first couple.

All understanding of the Bible texts requires an understanding of its literal meaning. I’ll accept the Church’s understanding of its literal meaning over yours.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, it is scientifically false to claim that all humans descended from one breeding couple.

I certainly don’t what to misunderstand what you are saying. So please clarify. Who or what is the Creator?

In an effort to water down Catholic doctrine, sometimes people do get confused about science – somehow thinking that science is responsible for explaining the spiritual principle in the human person. Thus, science is used to claim that human origin is not spiritual because science can then turn around and say science, by definition, cannot explore the spiritual realm. I think that is called circular reasoning.

Back to my original question – Who or what is the Creator? However, as I now think about the circular reasoning expressed by some, not all, advocates for the material/physical approach to creation — I should ask – and what are the powers of the Creator?

 

[Ahimsa]

(Agreeing with this)…

…as is the choice between affirming the inerrant truth of each human soul as not something derived from evolutionary ancestors , and assuming that Church theology of the soul is modified by scientific theories about humanity’s origin and development. Souls do not evolve.

That may be true for the human soul, but I don’t think the Church has rejected the idea that the souls of animals can evolve.

 

[grannymh]

For now, here is a summation of my reasoning as a Catholic.

Personally, I prefer the reasoning that God, as almighty Creator, is not limited by the limitations of the material/physical world He created.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That may be true for the human soul, but I don’t think the Church has rejected the idea that the souls of animals can evolve.

We are not talking about the souls of animals, and since animals as individual creatures do not directly participate in salvation as is understood in Catholic theology (because animals lack free will and responsibility for their behavior), the Church has not developed a theology of animal soul-ness. And just as a reminder, Ahimsa, Catholicism, unlike Buddhism, does not affirm any doctrine of reincarnation – including the possibility that a human soul is reincarnated as another life form after bodily death.

 

[StAnastasia]

So please clarify. Who or what is the Creator?

God.

Thus, science is used to claim that human origin is not spiritual because science can then turn around and say science, by definition, cannot explore the spiritual realm. I think that is called circular reasoning.

Correct.

Back to my original question – Who or what is the Creator?

God.

I should ask – and what are the powers of the Creator?

Creation, naturally.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m sure the Germanic tribes all turned to Christianity by free will because they realized their own pagan religions were nonsense as soon as they picked up the Bible.

What about Hinduism? Are one billion Hindus forced to believe by force too?

There are a lot of Muslims in Europe. I’m sure they could convert to Catholicism without fearing for their life. I live in a German Catholic city with a huge Catholic Cathedral. They are just building a huge mosque for the Muslims because many people from Turkey live in Germany. Oddly you never hear that any of the Turkish people want to convert to Catholicism.

The Turks would convert to Catholicism if they felt any social pressure to do so. But as for the Germans barbarians, they did in fact "freely"choose Christianity, although not at once and over a long period of time. The exceptions would be the Saxons who were engaged by Charlemagne. But those who immigrated to England became Christian. So did the Northmen who became a new wave of invaders. You may have heard of Patrick, who almost magically converted the Irish. Irish monks then became the great missionaries of Europe. The Normans were the Vikings who settled in Normandy and adopted Christianity.Not only did they conquer England but they conquered Sicily and repaced the Arabs as the masters of the Med. They also were the rivals of the Greeks. Though they took part of the First Crusade, they also made it impossible for the Greeks and Franks to co-operate fully.

 

[RobbyS]

That may be true for the human soul, but I don’t think the Church has rejected the idea that the souls of animals can evolve.

Depends on what you mean by soul.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Original sin and the first couple who committed it is not [only Sacred] tradition, it is [De Fide] doctrine.

(Additions mine)

 

[StAnastasia]

This is not a statement of fact. It is a claim based on the false assumption that the Church is wrong about God’s unique creation, humans.

No, it is a claim based on the evidence.

Original sin and the first couple who committed it is not tradition, it is doctrine.

It is both.

Since the scientific scrutiny in this instance is akin to looking for the milky way by using a mircoscope,.I’m going to dismiss this as wishful thinking.

False – it is not based on wishful thinking. It is based on the ever-provisional character of scientific knowledge.

All understanding of the Bible texts requires an understanding of its literal meaning. I’ll accept the Church’s understanding of its literal meaning over yours.

Sure thing. And I’ll accept the Church’s non-literal interpretation of the creation story over yours. I was one of the participants in the evolution conference in Rome in 2009. I met not a single participant among the hundreds of theologians and scientists present who pushed for a literal interpretation of the “Adam” and “Eve” story.

 

[buffalo]

Sure thing. And I’ll accept the Church’s non-literal interpretation of the creation story over yours. I was one of the participants in the evolution conference in Rome in 2009. I met not a single participant among the hundreds of theologians and scientists present who pushed for a literal interpretation of the “Adam” and “Eve” story.

Wow - an argument from popularity.

The musings of theologians carry no teaching authority in the Church.

 

[Lui]

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

I don’t think those were my exact words. I said that I don’t know if God exists. How should I? But no need to discuss this. Maybe I said it in one way or the other.

It is improper to discuss individual contributors

I actually really regretted that I did that. I regret and apologize that I dragged a different person into the argument.

but three points should be borne in mind:

1. Not everyone who claims to be a Catholic is a Catholic.

Unbelievable true. There are many hypocrites among people who claim to be Catholic.

1. 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!

Ok

1. 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.

Also true.

I mainly participate in sports forums. There are many conflicting opinions and arguments in all forums. Battling over the right way to train or the right nutrition comes close to religious views. Low Carb advocates can be really extreme.

Still, I think that personal insults should be avoided, no matter what faith a person has or doesn’t have.

 

[grannymh]

Question from granny.
I should ask – and what are the powers of the Creator?

This is exactly the point where good people start denying Catholic doctrines regarding God and human origin. At the least, this answer carefully sidesteps the issue of what are the powers of the Creator which automatically includes what the powers of the Creator enable Him to do.

People who choose a limited scientific theory of evolution over God have to avoid any true, complete answer about the powers of the Creator.

 

[inocente]

Huh?

Ever heard of the first Adam and the 2nd Adam?

Genesis is ripe with references to Christ.

Jesus quoted several times from Genesis.

And we can only understand those references by accepting your pet theory. Or is it granny’s pet theory? Or the next lay Catholic’s pet theory? On the other hand we could junk the lot, live in the real world and trust in Christ, but I guess that would be cheating.

 

[Lui]

I was one of the participants in the evolution conference in Rome in 2009. I met not a single participant among the hundreds of theologians and scientists present who pushed for** a literal interpretation of the “Adam” and “Eve” story**.

It would surprise me if it wasn’t the case.

 

[inocente]

Most, if not all, scientific claims about the origin of man are hypotheses or theories, so it is no position to claim anything theological is false. Your claim of unnecessity also guts the doctrine original sin of most of it meaning.

While competing claims must definitely be true by virtue of … being unexamined? … being in the Bible when you read it with special glasses? … being believed by really nice looking people?