Thank God for Evolution!

[Neil_Anthony]

If we can’t trust the physical evidence, we have no way of ascertaining the actual age of the universe. God could just as easily have created a world five minutes ago with martyrs who had never suffered and evangelists who had never written, as God could have created fossilized dinosaur excrement from meals never eaten by a dinosaur.

This would truly be wrong, because the martyrs in heaven who had never lived would have a false memory of their history, while the condemned in hell would have a false memory of rejecting God and being sent to hell.

That would be an evil trickster God for sure.

Now if God just let us make a false assumption about what science can tell us, and believe that the world is much older than it is… with no consequence for our eternal souls, … it’s just not the same thing. You can argue that it would be deceptive of God, but someone can counter that argument by showing that it’s our own fault for making bad assumptions.

 

[Orogeny]

You might say this proposal is ridiculous, but we have as much evidence for this view as we do for believing that God created everything as it is 6,00 years ago, or at any other time.

I agree.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

Now if God just let us make a false assumption about what science can tell us, and believe that the world is much older than it is… with no consequence for our eternal souls, … it’s just not the same thing. You can argue that it would be deceptive of God, but someone can counter that argument by showing that it’s our own fault for making bad assumptions.

Historiography becomes impossible on your model.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Historiography becomes impossible on your model.

Histor(iograph)y only applies to time since mankind started writing records. If the time period in question is previous to the start of mankind, then it had no witnesses, and there is no distinction to be made between it being real or false. For the purposes of science we can define reality to assume pre-history was as it appears to have been. So it doesn’t make it impossible for science to understand what the past appears to be. Really, thats all we could hope for anyway.

 

[drpmjhess]

Histor(iograph)y only applies to time since mankind started writing records. If the time period in question is previous to the start of mankind, then it had no witnesses, and there is no distinction to be made between it being real or false. For the purposes of science we can define reality to assume pre-history was as it appears to have been. So it doesn’t make it impossible for science to understand what the past appears to be. Really, thats all we could hope for anyway.

Okay, archeology and paleontology become impossible. We would never know with certainty whether an artifact was genuine or the product of a trickster God’s devious imagination!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Okay, archeology and paleontology become impossible. We would never know with certainty whether an artifact was genuine or the product of a trickster God’s devious imagination!

What difference does it make? Just assume it’s all real. We’re trying to figure out how things work in this universe we find outselves in. Leave the metaphysics to some other discipline.

You can say the same thing about the present too. This could all be just a bad dream.

 

[drpmjhess]

What difference does it make? Just assume it’s all real. We’re trying to figure out how things work in this universe we find ourselves in. Leave the metaphysics to some other discipline.

I do assume it’s all real, all 13.7 billion years of it! Not to assume so seems insane. But to each her or his own…imaginary worlds can be a lot of fun.
Petrus

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I do assume it’s all real, all 13.7 billion years of it! Not to assume so seems insane. But to each her or his own…imaginary worlds can be a lot of fun.
Petrus

LOL, I came to question the reality of this existence for philosophical reasons, it had nothing to do with the book of Genesis I’m glad to say. I hope it isn’t a symptom of insanity. I still use the word “real” to apply to the things around us though, and even to dinosaurs.

But what do you make of bible verses that suggest that this world is temporary? Do you think this universe will have some place in our eternal life? I just assumed that it would disappear at the last judgement, which makes its “reality” seem less important.

 

[buffalo]

Okay, archeology and paleontology become impossible. We would never know with certainty whether an artifact was genuine or the product of a trickster God’s devious imagination!

I think you are going to far with this.

The object of our investigation is to uncover the truth. Again, the onus is on us to reason the observations properly.

 

[drpmjhess]

I think you are going to far with this.

Not if discovering the truth is at stake.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

nice discussion guys…I just been reading along …:0

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Not if discovering the truth is at stake.

What do you make of bible verses that suggest that this world is temporary? Do you think this universe will have some place in our eternal life? I just assumed that it would disappear at the last judgement, which makes its “reality” seem less important.

So is the truth about this physical world really so important?

 

[drpmjhess]

But what do you make of bible verses that suggest that this world is temporary? Do you think this universe will have some place in our eternal life? I just assumed that it would disappear at the last judgement, which makes its “reality” seem less important.

Neil Anthony, that’s a question I have long pondered. Will the world end at the last judgment? From an astronomical perspective, the earth has about five billion years left, until the conversion of hydrogen to helium causes the sun to swell to the point that it will engulf the orbit of the earth. The universe itself may outlive our particular star by another 100 billion years.

I am tempted to make the theological argument that the eschaton occurs outside of time, at the moment of each person’s death. In that case, it wouldn’t matter whether the earth continued to exist beyond the death of the last human.

Two provocative books are:

Michael Welker, et al., eds. Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Jphn Pokinghorne, ed. The end of the world and the ends of God : science and theology on eschatology. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, c2000

Best,
Petrus

 

[Ahimsa]

I am tempted to make the theological argument that the eschaton occurs outside of time, at the moment of each person’s death.

Che Guevara taught us that the eschaton will not be televised, nor YouTubed.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Right. Now, go find me some physical evidence today that that happened.

So what if a miracle like this did happen today-- that’s what I’m trying to get you to imagine.

In other words, if a mircale like this did happen today, and you were there to witness the wine immediately “after” it was miraculously created-- and you immediately scientically tested its age, would you have been deceived if you thought the wine was weeks old instead of seconds old?

Ignatius understood that God is an active God, ever at work in people’s lives. We are called to be attentive to this active God and promptly respond. Actually, let’s apply some Ignatian Spirituality to this equation-- and let us imagine that we are just arriving at the wedding feast of Cana.

We are Hellenistic Jews travelling to Jerusalem come to worship God and we have been invited to our relative’s wedding. When we arrive, we see the master of the banquet tasting the wine.

As we draw near to the wine to partake in the celebration we over hear the master of the banquet calling the bridegroom aside, saying, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

Hearing this, we draw closer to the wine and overhear the servants who have drawn the wine talking lowly amongst themselves, “How did this happen? This is truly a mystery.”

We, being Hellenistic Jews, are well trained in Greek philosophy and are curious as to exactly what they are talking about. Upon further inquiry, we hear each of them claim how the wine was formerly water-- but that at that Rabbi’s command, as they point toward Jesus – it became wine right before their very eyes. And, as the master of the banquet has already noted, the wine is very good, considered the best of this wedding feast.

We, being trained in classical senses as far as Greek philosophy will allow, are skeptical of the claims, We therefore attempt to test the wine by looking at it, smelling it, sipping it, and drinking some that is offered to us.

We both conclude that this wine must have been fermented for at least five days. We are aware of the basics of fermentation in our studies of the physical sciences back in Alexandria.

Then we look toward each other and draw our conclusions, finding this event to have been simply impossible unless something extraordinary happened.

Do we now conclude that someone is simply out to deceive us, or do we conclude that we have observed the after effects of something miraculous?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Do you see what I am getting at? In your creation scenario, God created everything instantaneously but left evidence behind that He knew would be misinterpreted by His creation, using the intelligence He was giving them.

Would the two Hellenistic Jews in our Ignatian Spirituality study noted above not also be able to conclude that Jesus created the wine instantaneously but left evidence behind that he knew would be misinterpreted by these men, using the intelligence he has given them?

The miracle of creation is still a miracle and God did nothing to deceive in that act. HOWEVER, by creating evidence that indicates that He didn’t do it that way, He is being deceptive.

Would our two Hellenistic Jews noted above not consider themselves to have ample evidence that this wine was somehow created by normal means, since they are merely going on the testimony of others around them?

Yes, but once the wine was gone, there would be no evidence to contradict the miracle.

And yet we still have the two Hellenstic Jews scratching their heads looking at the wine according to this Ignatian Spirituality practice.

In other words, place yourself within this scene at Cana as noted within the Scriptures and imagine what it would be like if one uses the assumptions you’ve made when encoutering the wine after it was miraculously made and with us not beng able to tell exactly what the truth is.

This scenario would effectively be a microcosm of the problem we now face in our modern day when presented with macrocosmic evidence of the universe with a long age.

There is plenty of evidence that the universe is old. It tells us about His creation and therefore about Him.

Be careful Orogeny. Some here might consider you guilty of pantheism for making that statement. Both drpmjhess and myself have had this label branded on us for saying similar things.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, but once the wine was gone, there would be no evidence to contradict the miracle.

By the way, I consider the testimony of the apostles and their successors to be ample evidence that the miracle did happen.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Anyone who validates their faith on what I post in an internet forum had very little if any actual faith to begin with.

I disagree. I think people are coming here looking for answers to their questions pertaining to faith, particularly Catholic Answers-- something that we are indeed engaged in right here an now

What about you? Are you blocking my belief in God creating the universe 13 billion years ago?

No-- and considering that I believe the universe “really” is tangeably as old as science says it is (and have said so many times too), I think that one would be hard pressed to prove that I was blocking someone from belieing that God created the universe 13 billion years ago.

I would also note that I’m arguing in favor of theistic evolution too-- not against it, remember?

My only point in this whole discussion (lately) is to divorce the application of philosophical materialism from methodical materialism when one presents their theodicy of God. Gould would agree with me by the way (may he rest in peace).

This has stemmed from my concern that the Church has “permitted” – with permitted meaning being “given permission” – to believe in either special creation or evolution as their conscience dictates. Pope Benedict XVI himself has gone on record saying that he thinks its both. I agree with him too.

A belief that is based on the evidence He created and the intelligence He gave us?

So then why resort to the Trickster God argument when there are so many better arguments that can be put forward?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

When do we decide that we have applied the proper reasoning to the point that we can say anything about science? Can we not also say the same thing about ANY science?

Most of the other sciences do not directly impact our origins and blend into God’s creative act as much as the theory of evolution does. Certainly you know this by now.

That our reasoning is proper even with limited revealation from God?

The proper answer right now is…

We don’t know.

This is exactly why the Church in her wisdom has permitted either view, because we can’t know this for sure without much more expounding on the current existing body of revelation from God himself.

Consequently, since we don’t know for sure how exactly this all happened, this is exactly why the Church has, in her wisdom, permitted us to explore our evolutionary origins more closely-- so long as we proceed very cautiously in this direction while simultaniously allowing people to believe in a specific creation too if they so choose, again, with the condition of caution being urged.

Here’s my position. God reveals His creation to us through our study of nature. He gave us the gift of intellect to understand it as we discover it. Can we ever be 100% certain that we understand properly? Heck no! Should we refrain from trying to understand it until we are 100% certain? Absolutely not! Especially since no one can tell me when we will be 100% certain in this lifetime.

This is why I always come back so forcefully to Romans 1:20…

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Clearly, if since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse, this alone implies that what we see is real around us.

Indeed, if God is real, and if his creation indeed reflects his reality as it was made by God to do, then his creation must be real enough to reflect his splendor without making appeals to illusions and ghosts of the past too.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

We, being trained in classical senses as far as Greek philosophy will allow, are skeptical of the claims, We therefore attempt to test the wine by looking at it, smelling it, sipping it, and drinking some that is offered to us.

We both conclude that this wine must have been fermented for at least five days. We are aware of the basics of fermentation in our studies of the physical sciences back in Alexandria.

Oh wow, I didn’t realize Jesus tricked them like that. Is that maybe why they ended up crucifying him?