Unfortunately, there are some claims and doctrines of the Church that, in my opinion, do not stand up to historical analysis or to science. In these cases, I find the opinions of the majority of professional historians and scientists and the evidence they present to be more persuasive.
Such a statement is too sweeping to answer in this thread. If you wish to discuss what, to your mind, does not “stand up to historical analysis or to science” you need to start threads to address them. And just which “professional historians and scientists” have proven Church teachings wrong/unreliable? We’d like solid examples not simply “I don’t find the Church right so there’s an end to it.”
I think it is certainly true that most of what God has revealed about Himself is beyond the limited purview of the sciences to “analyze”. I was recently on a thread where this was very obvious. Efforts to “prove” beliefs or doctrine using the limited tools of human intellect in both science and philosphy fail to the task.
Hi Della,Such a statement is too sweeping to answer in this thread. If you wish to discuss what, to your mind, does not “stand up to historical analysis or to science” you need to start threads to address them. And just which “professional historians and scientists” have proven Church teachings wrong/unreliable? We’d like solid examples not simply “I don’t find the Church right so there’s an end to it.”
Not my intention, so no problem.
There is no Catholic teaching that goes against physical reality. Science cannot “prove” the origins of humankind to the degree of absolute certainty–that’s not the business of science. Science can only observe the natural world and attempt to determine how it functions. Nothing more. The Church has never stood on any particular scientific research on any topic, therefore no one can say that the Church has done so and therefore has been proven wrong. Indeed, the Church has been the biggest supporter of science, not its rival. Those who believe otherwise simply don’t know what they are talking about.
The Church has never defied real scientific discoveries. So, your basic premise is seriously flawed.
Again, your premise is wrong. The needs of humankind: mind, heart, soul, and body are very much the concern of the Church and her faithful. You are the one reducing Catholic teaching to simplicities she doesn’t claim for herself.
Yet another false premise. No wonder you are confused and a lapsed Catholic. Wherever do you get these ideas? Not from reading Church documents, such as the Catechism. Infallibility has nothing to do with how we learn. It simply means the Church cannot be wrong in matter of faith and morals because they are Christ’s teachings not hers alone.
There’s no such thing as truths for some but not for others. That’s indifferentism at it’s best. No, my friend. The truth is the truth whether or not you and I believe it. What is true is this–that not everyone will believe the truth or will want to believe the truth when presented with it. That’s as old as Adam and Eve, and why Christ established his Church–so that we can know the truth and live by it.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I don’t believe that all humans now living are descended from a single human couple of the same kind as ourselves (Homo sapiens sapiens). I just don’t see how it’s possible to fit the origins of human beings into the story in Genesis, especially considering all the evidence we now have for interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals (I even have some Neanderthal DNA myself according to DNA testing), and the increasing knowledge we have about Neanderthals such as the fact that they seem to have buried their dead, probably had language and rudimentary art, etc. It’s all much more complicated.
It’s true that science cannot “prove” things such as the origins of humankind with “absolute certainty” since we can’t go back in time and observe what really happened. But that doesn’t mean that science cannot demonstrate the very high likelihood of some theories or that some theories are vastly more likely and have much more evidence to support them than other theories or claims.
As far as we currently believe from what we know. There are very few absolutes in science, I agree.
I think this is a good example. When I read that article, I see that all members of the Genus “homo” are included as “humans” including Neanderthals and other hominids living at the time of Eve. For me this does not mean there cannot be a single Adam and Eve from which all homo sapiens are descended.
How is this “not Catholic”?
How is this “not Catholic”?
I don’t understand how epistemology is “incompatible” with being Catholic. Just because we espouse the possiblity of ways of knowing that are not based in human endeaver (science or philosophy) does not mean human ways of knowing are excluded. God gave us minds so that we could think, conduct science, and philosphize. How are these incompatible?
I agree that it is difficult to live in a state of humble trust like this. It means that we choose not to rely on our human senses, or limited human knowledge, and place our faith in the person of Christ. It is a way of living that is contrary to human nature, that likes certainty and proofs.
But our branch of “humans” diverges from that of the Neanderthals about 1 million years ago, so even though we are related, it is not a recent relationship and there were still significant genetic and morphological differences between us. That also would mean that the part of Genesis which presents Adam and Eve as living only a few generations before the beginning of civilization is not correct.
I don’t know if we can say with any certainty that Neanderthals are not “human”, especially given what we have learned about their culture.
Genesis 4:17-22:
So according to Genesis 4, Adam’s grandson Enoch built the first city. It’s then only five more generations until the first bronze and iron tools.
In Humani Generis, the Pope lays out the idea that the first few books of Genesis are correct, but that they do not conform to “the historical method”. So, I think the statements about the number of generations are allowed to be false, but the important truths conveyed are not. One of those truths in monogenism. So there must be an original Adam (although, reading it careful now, I don’t see any mention of an original Eve).
Here’s something kind of interesting in Commonweal from a few years ago:
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve
Ok, I see your point. I read those offspring as tribes/cultures so I never thought of it that way. Like modern Islam emanates from Ishmael (they are Ishmaelites).
Let’s talk about non-evolution science and professional historians. I’d love to hear what professional historians say about Church claims and doctrines which they have proven conclusively untrue. Unfortunately, in my experience, most professionals when publishing their reports tend to use these magic words: "In my professional opinion, based upon available data made available to us blah, blah , blah ". That does not make it true. If you believe historians, perhaps you would agree with them that there is no evidence of the Exodus and therefore in their professional opinion, believe Exodus never happened at all due to absence of corroborating data.
Agreed. This is why I didn’t get into my own reasons for leaving the church. It inevitably turns into a slug fest. Lets get back on to the topic of Intellectually Honest Cafeteria Catholics…Yeah guys, if the tread is going to devolve (pardon the pun) into disputing Church teachings instead of discussing the original topic, I will bow out. Not because I cannot and would not discuss objections to the faith, but because these particular ones been discussed to death already. Please do a forum search if you want to read what has already been stated. Or search CA articles. I simply don’t have the time to resurrect them from the dead :stretcher:
Not sure where you are going with that.