Science & Religion

[StAnastasia]

I’m not a supporter of ID and I’m not sure why you think I am. I merely reject the position a theory is intrisically a fact in of itself, althought it may be very well supported by factual observations.

Soldier Of God, I’m with you. I don’t regard evolution as a fact, because that would be to confuse facts with theories. Facts sit on an epistemologically lower plane than theories, which are articulated to explain facts. Gravity is not a fact: a fork falling to the floor when it’s knocked off the table is the fact; the theory that explains this fact is gravity. Similarly, shared morphology and genetics are facts of biodiversity; evolution by natural selection is the theory that most cogently and elegantly explains these facts.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Just as Jesus Christ did not evolve from one of the various populations that existed over centuries, the people He died for are not miscellaneous evolving beings from anytime, anywhere, whose free will may have already emerged from their anatomies or may not have since their population group may not have developed an awareness of God.

Granny, since we know that humans have evolved, you seem to be saying that Jesus was not human. But we Catholics believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

God specifically created our first, primary, individual, human ancestor to share eternally in His divine life. We know that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” There is no doubt that God loves us, since He loved our specific first ancestor.

Apart from your magical presupposition, I agree with this: “There is no doubt that God loves us, since He carefully called our human ancestors to himself through aeons of evolution.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

But Inocente, “explain these phenomena” does not mean explaining them away. It is perfectly possible to study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality without claiming that you are explaining away spirituality. If you can identify neurochemical correlates to your subjective experience of love for your spouse, does that explain away your love?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Some comments on the science side of the topic.

Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience,[1] is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology say there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.[2] The subject has formed the basis of several popular science books. From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

By clicking neural in the link, the explanation is as follows.

“The nervous system is an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons that coordinate the actions of an animal and transmit signals between different parts of its body. In most animals the nervous system consists of two parts, central and peripheral. The central nervous system of vertebrates (such as humans) contains the brain, spinal cord, and retina.”

The links are based on actions found in some animals–more specifically the central system of vertebrates

Here is footnote 1 in the first link.
Biello, David (2007-10-03). “Searching for God in the Brain”. Scientific American. sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain. Retrieved 2009-03-22.

Here is footnote 2 in the first link.
Gajilan, A. Chris (2007-04-05). “Are humans hard-wired for faith?”. Cable News Network. cnn.health.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Are+humans+hard-wired+for+faith%3F±+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=21822630&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2007%2FHEALTH%2F04%2F04%2Fneurotheology%2Findex.html&partnerID=2012. Retrieved 2007-04-09.

I did not read the two footnotes; however, it is obvious that they are written about the human anatomy’s neural system which is why they are footnotes to the *Wikipedia *article.

All this is very interesting especially the opinions referring to subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.

I cannot speak for other religions or the various scientific disciplines, but it seems to me that the reference to “evolutionary basis” refers only to anatomies and not to a human being who is both material and non-material. Since anatomy consists of matter, Catholicism includes that in the material/physical world. However, Catholicism does not describe humans as only a rotting anatomy which may or may not turn into a fossil. Catholicism describes humans as having a spiritual soul that did not evolve alongside other species. This spiritual soul is directly created by God.

One of the unique things about all humans is that their spiritual soul is the reason they can know and love Jesus Christ. This spiritual soul can process information about God, about eternal life, about Jesus Christ, and about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Not only that, this spiritual soul gives each human the power to direct her or his will toward the goal of following Jesus into heaven. In addition, the spiritual soul has the power to make choices and it has the power to initiate actions through the anatomy’s brain and muscles.

 

[buffalo]

On the other hand it is tricky when Buffalo uses the term creationist because he is a YEC, When he implies that all Christians are creationists it almost sounds like he is trying to imply that that all Christians are YECs which is a bit difficult to distinguish in which way he uses it.

Nope - it is simply a starting point that needs recognition.

 

[buffalo]

Absolutely – that’s a point I make at the beginning of all my public presentations. The ancient Christian doctrine of creation was been hijacked by Young Earthers at the turn of the 20th century, and I am attempting to help reclaim it. A lucid treatment is Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (1991).

This is the Doctrine of Creation:

http://www.kolbecenter.org/images/kolbe/pdfs/what_church_teaches.pdf

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[StAnastasia]

In addition, the spiritual soul has the power to make choices and it has the power to initiate actions through the anatomy’s brain and muscles.

Granny, how does a spiritual entity initiate physical actions? Descartes thought the nexus was located in the pineal gland. Do you hold to the Cartesian theory, or another theory?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, since we know that humans have evolved, you seem to be saying that Jesus was not human. But we Catholics believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

May I gently remind you that the human beings redeemed by Jesus Christ had spiritual souls which did not evolve, no way. Jesus Christ knows the difference between evolving animals and human beings and He deliberately chose to become a true human. He did this in order to make amends for the disobedience of our first human ancestor known biblically as Adam.

 

[Lui]

It is simply wrong for Young Earthers to claim that they have a monopoly on the term “:creationist.”

Young earth Creationists obviously do that on purpose. In that way it sounds like Creationism = YEC and all Christians are Creationists. In other words all Christians are YECS.
They want to give the impression that YEC is the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Lui]

Yes, I believe that miracles happen and some have been recorded.

Ah, the magical word miracle that you can always whip out when an occasion goes against any sane logic like a human living in a giant tuna(or shark).
Me believing in evolution is considered as ignorant though, even though the evidence is overwhelming and even the Pope believes in it.

I didn’t believe man and dino’s lived together until soft tissue was found, more than once. So now I have to consider it.

Well, if you believe that the earth is only 12000 years old, you MUST believe that dinos and humans once lived together even without the "soft tissue"being found by a scientist who still believes in evolution.

I might be ignorant for believing in evolution but at least I share my beliefs with the majority of all educated people including the Pope.

Nope - it is simply a starting point that needs recognition.

Science will never recognize that the earth is young. Time will not show that Young Earth Creationists are right. I believe in time science will prove more and more things that disprove claims made by the Bible.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, how does a spiritual entity initiate physical actions? Descartes thought the nexus was located in the pineal gland. Do you hold to the Cartesian theory, or another theory?

While some, not all, scientists use Cartesian [extreme] dualism as a starting point for examining the anatomy, Catholicism does not. For citation of an actual research paper, please refer to post 1329 above. The paper’s footnote 1. references R. Descartes, Meditations Metaphysiques (1641) (Flammarion, Paris, 1992)

As a Catholic, I hold to the “Body and Soul But Truly One” position presented in paragraphs 362-366 in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm One can enter the Catechism by putting "paragraph 362 in the search bar. Enjoy!

 

[grannymh]

Apart from your magical presupposition, I agree with this: “There is no doubt that God loves us, since He carefully called our human ancestors to himself through aeons of evolution.”

You are certainly free to call Catholic doctrines anything you wish. However, referring to a Catholic doctrine as a “magical presupposition” is, in my humble opinion, outside the guidelines for a civil discussion about the Catholic Church.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Soldier Of God, I’m with you. I don’t regard evolution as a fact, because that would be to confuse facts with theories. Facts sit on an epistemologically lower plane than theories, which are articulated to explain facts. Gravity is not a fact: a fork falling to the floor when it’s knocked off the table is the fact; the theory that explains this fact is gravity. Similarly, shared morphology and genetics are facts of biodiversity; evolution by natural selection is the theory that most cogently and elegantly explains these facts.

StAnastasia

I appreciate that you understand the discernment I was trying to make.

 

[Lui]

I appreciate that you understand the discernment I was trying to make.

At the end of the day we’re splitting hairs. The reason it is called a fact is because it is pretty much proven by overwhelming evidence. People like to emphasize it is only a theory when they are young earth creationists who have no evidence whatsoever to prove their absurd claims. Even if you insist that it is only a theory, it is understood in the science community that evolution is fact. No one in real science denies that this is the way life on earth developed.

 

[tonyrey]

Suffering is a **physical **

…"…"…"…"…"…"

 

[tonyrey]

And when neither is naive? I apologise for pressing home the point but it does make a difference to one’s outlook on life. Occupational hazards are ever-present…

Both the scientist and the theologian can be tempted to believe their explanation has priority even though neither is infallible…

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve not seen any reasons

Indeed. It is a well-known fact that some individuals accuse others of their own shortcomings!

 

[tonyrey]

ID is just creationism dressed up in scientific disguise.

ID entails evolution!

The only confusion in the matter is among those who are fooled by the ID pretense of being a science. It is a religion, and any scientific basis they claim is a deliberate deception.

In that case SETI is religious and totally unscientific! :manvspc:

 

[StAnastasia]

You are certainly free to call Catholic doctrines anything you wish. However, referring to a Catholic doctrine as a “magical presupposition” is, in my humble opinion, outside the guidelines for a civil discussion about the Catholic Church.

Granny, I only meant that (1) since science demonstrates that humans have a long evolutionary history, and (2) since this seems to be in conflict with your view that humans magically started with a literal Adam and Eve, we have a problem. Either Granny and the Catechism are right and the worlds hundreds of thousands of scientists are wrong, or the reverse is true.

Or perhaps there is middle ground. Perhaps we could say that science is telling the truth for non-Catholics and for Catholics who accept evolutionary science, but that you and the Catechism are likewise telling the truth for your own constituency. In other words, I’m arguing for a both/and solution, a win/win situation, that respects the integrity of both science and religion!

StAnastasia

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

At the end of the day we’re splitting hairs. The reason it is called a fact is because it is pretty much proven by overwhelming evidence.

You’re simply perpetuating the false notion that theories and facts are one and the same. You may consider it hair splitting but they are real differences. The terms are used to distinguish between observations and explanations. To conflate the two is to allow for abuse by those with alterior motives or agendas.

People like to emphasize it is only a theory when they are young earth creationists who have no evidence whatsoever to prove their absurd claims. Even if you insist that it is only a theory, it is understood in the science community that evolution is fact. No one in real science denies that this is the way life on earth developed.

Do you really think an argumentum ad populum appeal (without any substantiation) that your assertion the scientific community deems evolution is fact has merit? I would hazard to guess most if not all scientists are able to discern what is fact (observations) from what is theory (a body of thought.)