Theistic Evolution?

[emotel]

But as I said, I see such evidence for God everywhere.

I see awesome nature everywhere and I see science constructing magnificent models of how it works. Those models say that humans evolved and were not created to live in the Garden of Eden or drowned in Noah’s flood as I was taught as a child. Something is clearly wrong.

Besides, why doesn’t the “loop” problem bother you just as much now?

Simply because I now understand how such loops work. I looked at the many incompatible religions that humans have believed in and realised that at least all but one of them must be wrong. Truth cannot contradict truth. False religions are held in place by the loop. It’s a tendency that people exhibit. They believe because they believe they believe.

Do you really have any objective evidence that God does not exist, evidence that all reasonable people would accept?

As I said, I can prove that I cannot prove the non-existance of some kind of supernatural intelligent entity who chooses not to reveal himself to me. However, science shows that the intervention of such an entity is not necessary for life on Earth to evolve.

Either way you look at it, I think, the evidence is always fuzzy. It looks like one thing to me and another thing to you.

It is easy to speculate that the Universe might have been created by a creator. But what kind of creator? One of the many Gods? the Devil? An alien super race? or some entity we know nothing about? How do we distiguish between these possibilities and how do we avoid the perils of the loop. Why do you believe in the Catholic God and not any of the others?

Science solves such problems rather neatly. It looks for evidence and formulates theories that are tested constantly against feedback from reality and corrected when found to be in error.

Loop based religions have no such mechanisms and, as demonstrated by the vast array of incompatible religions, they loose contact with reality. If belief holds belief in place then what is believed is not tightly constrained to be true.

But science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

I don’t agree. Science says that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that people have a tendency to believe that they can know about it when science cannot. That speaks volumes to me about the nature of reality and about the human condition.

Asking for scientific (natural) evidence of God (supernatural) is like asking to hear the color red. You shouldn’t be surprised when you can’t hear the color red, and you shouldn’t take that as evidence that red doesn’t exist.

A neat metaphor. I don’t seek evidence that God doesn’t exist because I know that I cannot prove that even if it is true. I seek a reason to believe that he does exist and ways of finding out about him. I have broken the loop, I am unable to believe simply because I believe. I’m with doubting Thomas, I need a reason to believe.

If God is red and silent then how do you know that he is there? How do you know that he isn’t green? How do you know that you are not just stuck in the loop? You reject the many other Gods that millions of others believe in so you know how powerful the loop can be.

And finally, I’m sure many people who are in “your camp” hold views that are known to be wrong, but does that mean your views are necessarily wrong also?

Indeed not but science is about the progressive elimination of error and misunderstanding. It has powerful mechanisms for that which work very well indeed. Because of that there is only one mainstream science. There are many, many mutually incompatible loop based religions and at least all but one of them must be wrong. It seems likely to me that they are all wrong and that the true explanation of reality lies elsewhere.

But, of course, I could be wrong

Emotel.

 

[VociMike]

I see awesome nature everywhere and I see science constructing magnificent models of how it works. Those models say that humans evolved and were not created to live in the Garden of Eden or drowned in Noah’s flood as I was taught as a child. Something is clearly wrong.

Catholicism is not fundamentalism. It does not require one to take Genesis as a literal account of creation. Catholicism is perfectly at home with any true science, because truth revealed by science cannot be in conflict with truth revealed by divine revelation. Read Fides et Ratio if you haven’t already.

Simply because I now understand how such loops work. I looked at the many incompatible religions that humans have believed in and realised that at least all but one of them must be wrong. Truth cannot contradict truth. False religions are held in place by the loop. It’s a tendency that people exhibit. They believe because they believe they believe.

It’s a tendency that reveals a component of the human person that I don’t think evolution can explain. How can it be to our evolutionary advantage to believe things that aren’t true, and organize our lives around such beliefs? But if we are truly created by God (via whatever mechanism) then it makes perfect sense that people would seek God, and that, exempting the fullness of divine revelation given by Christ to his Church, they would not get the story quite right, and thus all the different religions we see.

As I said, I can prove that I cannot prove the non-existance of some kind of supernatural intelligent entity who chooses not to reveal himself to me. However, science shows that the intervention of such an entity is not necessary for life on Earth to evolve.

Not exactly. Science doesn’t show that God is not necessary to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Science doesn’t even attempt to answer that question. Everything else (cosmology, evolution, etc) is details.

It is easy to speculate that the Universe might have been created by a creator. But what kind of creator? One of the many Gods? the Devil? An alien super race? or some entity we know nothing about? How do we distiguish between these possibilities and how do we avoid the perils of the loop. Why do you believe in the Catholic God and not any of the others?

Personally, two reasons. Because the Catholic Church can historically trace itself and its teachings back to a real person, Jesus Christ. And because the God revealed by the Catholic Church is too extraordinary to have been invented by the mind of man.

I like what Chesterton wrote, “Paganism was the biggest thing in the world, and Christianity came along and it was bigger, and everything else has been relatively small.”

Science solves such problems rather neatly. It looks for evidence and formulates theories that are tested constantly against feedback from reality and corrected when found to be in error.

Correct. And when free of people with agendas it works very well. I myself am an engineer with a great interest in physics, especially “extreme” physics (cosmology, quantum mechanics, The Next Great Theory).

Loop based religions have no such mechanisms and, as demonstrated by the vast array of incompatible religions, they loose contact with reality. If belief holds belief in place then what is believed is not tightly constrained to be true.

But you are contrasting things which exist in different realms. Surely you do not rely on science to guide your moral life. If you did, then morally you would be allowed to do, at the very least, anything that any other creature does to survive. That would include, for example, impregnating as many females as possible, taking whatever you need from whomever has it, and killing the offspring of others to advance your own position in the gene pool.

You do not avoid these things because of science. You have another component of your being which tells you to avoid these things. And it is that component to which God speaks.

I don’t agree. Science says that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that people have a tendency to believe that they can know about it when science cannot. That speaks volumes to me about the nature of reality and about the human condition.

“No evidence” does not equal “doesn’t exist”. Besides, what about the 100,000 people who witnessed the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima? What about all the other miracles that have been reported. No, “no evidence” is too strong a claim.

A neat metaphor. I don’t seek evidence that God doesn’t exist because I know that I cannot prove that even if it is true. I seek a reason to believe that he does exist and ways of finding out about him. I have broken the loop, I am unable to believe simply because I believe. I’m with doubting Thomas, I need a reason to believe.

The only reason you should believe is because it seems to be true, however you would judge that. And if the God of any of the monotheistic religions exists, he will reveal himself to you at some point if you are open to that revelation. So be open to that revelation. What could it hurt?

If God is red and silent then how do you know that he is there? How do you know that he isn’t green? How do you know that you are not just stuck in the loop? You reject the many other Gods that millions of others believe in so you know how powerful the loop can be.

I said we couldn’t hear red. I didn’t say we couldn’t know red by any possible means. I know God is there because I am convinced (by evidence) that he has revealed himself to his Church, and to me personally.

I’ll put it this way. The faith given unto the Catholic Church explains everything (the universe, life, the human condition) better than any other explanation I know of. The Catholic faith fits the data better than any other explanation I know of. That’s my evidence.

Indeed not but science is about the progressive elimination of error and misunderstanding. It has powerful mechanisms for that which work very well indeed. Because of that there is only one mainstream science. There are many, many mutually incompatible loop based religions and at least all but one of them must be wrong. It seems likely to me that they are all wrong and that the true explanation of reality lies elsewhere.

I would just repeat that science and faith, even if both revealing truth, cannot possibly speak with complete authority about the each other’s realm.

Besides, science has taken thousands of years to gradually eliminate error. Why shouldn’t God’s revelation be allowed the same slack? The truth (the Catholic faith, and those parts of other Christian faiths that are not in conflict with the Catholic faith) has spread a lot farther today than 2000 years ago, so the trend is optimistic.

But, of course, I could be wrong

There you go being humble again.

BTW, this is about as long a single post as I can reply to, so if you have a reply please break it into smaller posts. Thanks.

 

[emotel]

Hi VociMike,

Thanks indeed for your carefully reasoned responses, You make many interesting points and I will consider them carefully.

Catholicism is not fundamentalism. It does not require one to take Genesis as a literal account of creation. Catholicism is perfectly at home with any true science, because truth revealed by science cannot be in conflict with truth revealed by divine revelation. Read Fides et Ratio if you haven’t already.

Fides et Ratio is available here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

and it contains this passage:
SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II:

. But because of the disobedience by which man and woman chose to set themselves in full and absolute autonomy in relation to the One who had created them, this ready access to God the Creator diminished.

This is the human condition vividly described by the Book of Genesis when it tells us that God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden, in the middle of which there stood “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (2:17). The symbol is clear: man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil, but was constrained to appeal to a higher source. The blindness of pride deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and autonomous, and into thinking that they could ignore the knowledge which comes from God. All men and women were caught up in this primal disobedience, which so wounded reason that from then on its path to full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the One who is the source and origin of truth.

That seems to take Genesis very literally and talks of actions by “Our first parents” described as a “primal disobedience” that subsequently affected all subsequent men and women.

That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me and in direct contradiction to the evolutionary model of human origins as established by science.

In the introduction we find:
SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II:

Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness.

So the principle of non-contradiction is identified as being of philosophical importance but then we find direct contradiction with science regarding the “first parent” issue?

There is also a clear self- contradiction in Lumen Gentium - the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church. This document proclaims itself to be infallible and then proceeds to contradict itself? How can that be. How can an infallible document contradict itself?

The Church seems not to practice what it preaches about truth and non-contradiction?

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

It’s a tendency that reveals a component of the human person that I don’t think evolution can explain. How can it be to our evolutionary advantage to believe things that aren’t true, and organize our lives around such beliefs?

Evolutionary theory and, in particular, Evolutionary Psychology can indeed explain these things. Humans evolved to depend on intellect, co-operation and communication for survival rather than strength or agility. Religion figured significantly in that context.

But if we are truly created by God (via whatever mechanism) then it makes perfect sense that people would seek God, and that, exempting the fullness of divine revelation given by Christ to his Church, they would not get the story quite right, and thus all the different religions we see.

I don’t share your sense of “perfect sense” there Why would a God engender a need to search and then allow it to arrive at wrong conclusions so frequently. If you colour in a map of the world according to religion you see a strong geographical correlation. You don’t see that with science. The strong implication is that religion is imposed by indoctrination of young minds. The loop again.

We now have mountains of evidence from DNA sequencing that human and chimps had a common ancestor who lived about 6,000,000 years ago. Christ lived only 2,000 years ago. So humans had to manage without him for millions of years.

The closer I look the more contradictions I see.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Not exactly. Science doesn’t show that God is not necessary to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Science doesn’t even attempt to answer that question. Everything else (cosmology, evolution, etc) is details.

I draw a clear distinction between "Cosmological Evolution (CE)"and “Biological Evolution (BE)”. My “not necessary” remark was in the context of BE. I agree that science doesn’t know why there is something rather than nothing but, as you know, it has made great progress winding back the equations of general relativity to the Big Bang.

Personally, two reasons. Because the Catholic Church can historically trace itself and its teachings back to a real person, Jesus Christ. And because the God revealed by the Catholic Church is too extraordinary to have been invented by the mind of man.

David Hume had a famous response to that kind of argument that I find quite compelling:

‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…’

The existance of a supernatural being who cares about us is, to my mind, “more miraculous” than the possibility that the history of religion is no more than an account of what generation after generation believed to be true but , in fact, is not so. It’s the loop again I’m afraid

Emotel

 

[VociMike]

Fides et Ratio is available here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

and it contains this passage:

That seems to take Genesis very literally and talks of actions by “Our first parents” described as a “primal disobedience” that subsequently affected all subsequent men and women.

That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me and in direct contradiction to the evolutionary model of human origins as established by science.

No, the Church does not take Genesis as a literal account of creation. There are certain things we must believe about the creation account, but we are under no obligation to believe the 6-day account. Check out Humani Generis, where it is specifically allowed to believe in evolution of the human body. But our first parents had more than human (natural) bodies. They also had human (supernatural) souls, and it is here, once again, that science has nothing to say in the matter.

So the principle of non-contradiction is identified as being of philosophical importance but then we find direct contradiction with science regarding the “first parent” issue?

What direct contradiction?

There is also a clear self- contradiction in Lumen Gentium - the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church. This document proclaims itself to be infallible and then proceeds to contradict itself? How can that be. How can an infallible document contradict itself?

I don’t know anything about this.

The Church seems not to practice what it preaches about truth and non-contradiction?

Or you are misunderstanding.

 

[VociMike]

Evolutionary theory and, in particular, Evolutionary Psychology can indeed explain these things. Humans evolved to depend on intellect, co-operation and communication for survival rather than strength or agility. Religion figured significantly in that context.

I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced that it is to our evolutionary advantage to believe things which aren’t true.

I don’t share your sense of “perfect sense” there Why would a God engender a need to search and then allow it to arrive at wrong conclusions so frequently. If you colour in a map of the world according to religion you see a strong geographical correlation. You don’t see that with science.

Take a snapshot every hundred years for the past 2500 and then make that claim about science. Maybe Catholicism is just slower. After all, Satan doesn’t care about the progress of science (it’s quite useful to him), but he does care about the progress of faith in God.

The strong implication is that religion is imposed by indoctrination of young minds. The loop again.

You’re getting into issues of free will now. The angels saw God face to face and still a third of them turned away.

Even though the Catholic faith is the fullness of God’s revelation, God is not limited to the Catholic Church when it comes to calling persons to himself. So what you may view as a wrong conclusion may still end up with a person united with God for eternity. The Catholic Church does not teach that one must be a visible member in good standing of the Church to be saved. It’s just the best, most rewarding and most assured way.

We now have mountains of evidence from DNA sequencing that human and chimps had a common ancestor who lived about 6,000,000 years ago. Christ lived only 2,000 years ago. So humans had to manage without him for millions of years.

Who says any human had to manage without God? You are claiming knowledge which you do not posess here. In fact, when Jesus descended into “hell” for three days, he was actually bringing the offer of salvation to all who had died before.

The closer I look the more contradictions I see.

Sure, you’re looking for contradictions so you see them.

 

[buffalo]

Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry

 

[VociMike]

I draw a clear distinction between "Cosmological Evolution (CE)"and “Biological Evolution (BE)”. My “not necessary” remark was in the context of BE. I agree that science doesn’t know why there is something rather than nothing but, as you know, it has made great progress winding back the equations of general relativity to the Big Bang.

And if people try to inject God into BE in a way that contradicts the true science of BE then they are wrong. Much of their action is really just a reaction against the improper claims of others that BE eliminates the need for God, and sometimes they react badly. It doesn’t help that Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity, who have separated themselves from the fullness of revelation and from the Magisterium, keep trying to pit the bible against science. That is a fool’s errand, and one that bible-only Christians are doomed to repeat, seemingly forever.

David Hume had a famous response to that kind of argument that I find quite compelling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hume
‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…’

The existance of a supernatural being who cares about us is, to my mind, “more miraculous” than the possibility that the history of religion is no more than an account of what generation after generation believed to be true but , in fact, is not so. It’s the loop again I’m afraid

Well that all hinges in what would in fact be “more miraculous”. And that all hinges on one’s worldview, which dictates what one thinks is “more miraculous” or “less miraculous”. So at the end of the day that argument doesn’t tell us much. In fact, that standard would cause most of the people throughout history to reject most of the science we know today. Good grief, what could be more miraculous than QM and GR?

(Yes, I know, QM and GR have been tested, and we believe them because they have been tested, and because they have proven fruitful - and also because they have that inner beauty which we have come to identify with scientific truth. And, wouldn’t you know it, I see the fact that scientific truth does appear so beautiful to us as yet more evidence for God, who is Beauty ).

OK, my brain is feeling mushy now…yawn…

 

[emotel]

No, the Church does not take Genesis as a literal account of creation.

How then do you explain the “Garden of Eden” passage I quoted from Fides et Ratio?

But our first parents had more than human (natural) bodies. They also had human (supernatural) souls, and it is here, once again, that science has nothing to say in the matter

JPII is obviously referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their act of disobedience. You also use the term “First Parents” .

What direct contradiction?

There was never a time when only two adult “Modern Humans” were alive on Earth. At least. So says evolutionary theory.

I don’t know anything about this.

At one point Lumen Gentium insists that the Catholic Church is “Necessary for Salvation” and it quotes Mark 16:16 and John 3:5 as the scriptural warrant for that claim. Then later on, in a more ecumenical vein, it states that the church is **NOT **necessary for salvation explaining that even “Mohamedans” ( Who deny that Christ is the saviour) also figure in the “plan of salvation”.

That also looks like a clear contradiction to me.

Or you are misunderstanding.

Always a possibility

Sure, you’re looking for contradictions so you see them.

Like you, I am an engineer. But currently less sleepy perhaps. Even one currently doing embedded programming for an Atmel microprocessor So looking for logical contradictions is something of an occupational hazard for me as I am sure it is for you. High integrity code requires extensive contradiction detection and elimination. I’m actually quite good at it but I’m too humble to boast about that over much

I see a need for “high integrity” philosophy as well as computer code because stuff doesn’t work reliably without it.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Check out Humani Generis, where it is specifically allowed to believe in evolution of the human body. .

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

That doesn’t permit the acceptance of the evolutionary model - it prohibits it and insists on the fundamentalist dogma of Adam and Eve as individuals who committed the original sin. Presumably in the Garden of Eden.

Emotel

 

[Nullasalus]

That doesn’t permit the acceptance ot the evolutionary model - it prohibits it and insists on the fundamentalist dogma of Adam and Eve as individuals who committed the original sin. Presumably in the Garden of Eden.

Emotel

The question centers specifically on whether men not related by descent to Adam are ‘true men’, and mentions that it’s in no way apparent how to reconcile such views. Not that it’s definitely impossible.

But it permits the evolutionary model entirely.

 

[VociMike]

That doesn’t permit the acceptance of the evolutionary model - it prohibits it and insists on the fundamentalist dogma of Adam and Eve as individuals who committed the original sin. Presumably in the Garden of Eden.

Emotel

It does permit the evolutionary model, as regards the human body. The human soul is a different matter, and evolution has nothing to say about it.

“True men” is more than just a biological description. “True men” have human souls as well.

 

[VociMike]

How then do you explain the “Garden of Eden” passage I quoted from Fides et Ratio?

JPII is obviously referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their act of disobedience. You also use the term “First Parents” .

There was never a time when only two adult “Modern Humans” were alive on Earth. At least. So says evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about when homo sapiens acquired immortal souls. That’s the rub.

At one point Lumen Gentium insists that the Catholic Church is “Necessary for Salvation” and it quotes Mark 16:16 and John 3:5 as the scriptural warrant for that claim. Then later on, in a more ecumenical vein, it states that the church is **NOT **necessary for salvation explaining that even “Mohamedans” ( Who deny that Christ is the saviour) also figure in the “plan of salvation”.

That also looks like a clear contradiction to me.

Well it’s not. There’s tons of stuff on the net about this.

Like you, I am an engineer. But currently less sleepy perhaps. Even one currently doing embedded programming for an Atmel microprocessor So looking for logical contradictions is something of an occupational hazard for me as I am sure it is for you. High integrity code requires extensive contradiction detection and elimination. I’m actually quite good at it but I’m too humble to boast about that over much

I see a need for “high integrity” philosophy as well as computer code because stuff doesn’t work reliably without it.

Interesting. I’ve been working with Atmel micros this past year as well. And while I don’t work with high integrity code, I am interested in the topic and I do think programming needs to grow out of the current dark ages. So let’s discuss Ada vs. C vs. C++

 

[KingAlfred]

I understand it abstractly, but I can’t help feeling the Darwinism does indeed “kill God”. I don’t like such an idea, but it seems like modern science continually erodes theism, God has less and less rome to act.

Any suggustions?

Science can only know the physical realm. The spiritual realm will forever lay beyond its reach. Science is good. It reveals more to us every day the genius of God.

 

[emotel]

The question centers specifically on whether men not related by descent to Adam are ‘true men’, and mentions that it’s in no way apparent how to reconcile such views. Not that it’s definitely impossible.

But it permits the evolutionary model entirely.

Hmmm… the plot thickens

What you seem to be saying is that “men” evolved from the common ancestor with the chimps about 6,000,000 years ago. They came down from the trees, evolved bipedal motion, developed language, discovered fire and tools and eventually evolved into homo-sapiens.

At some point along the way, God chose one of them, called him ADAM and gave him an immortal soul. He then became the one and only “true man” on Earth. But he did have parents and plenty of relatives and friends with bodies like his.

What happened then? Are there any men still around today without souls? Hey! maybe I’m one of them!

and mentions that it’s in no way apparent how to reconcile such views. Not that it’s definitely impossible

The prohibition seems very explicit to me:

the children of the Church ***by no means enjoy ***such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

VociMike:

“True men” is more than just a biological description. “True men” have human souls as well.

So waddya say? Am I a “true man” or not? Are all men “True” these days or not? How can you tell the difference?

VociMike:

Well it’s not. There’s tons of stuff on the net about this.

Do you have any links I’d like to see that.

VociMike:

I am interested in the topic and I do think programming needs to grow out of the current dark ages. So let’s discuss Ada vs. C vs. C++

What fun! The concept of “State machines” is the key technology for high integrity code rather than a particular programming language. But perhaps we shouldn’t get into that here

Emotel.

 

[Nullasalus]

What happened then? Are there any men still around today without souls? Hey! maybe I’m one of them!

Likely not, considering how closely all humans are related - moreso if you consider population bottlenecks in the past. (And I’m not talking about Adam and Eve here necessarily.)

Certainty of ‘true men’ wasn’t complete even before this. People speculated about nephilim, I think, or other such possibilities. While I think the question of Adam and Eve is obviously important to the Church, the specific issues you’re bringing up are minor at best. Just how I see it.

The prohibition seems very explicit to me:

It’s definitely a prohibition. But who’s to say the prohibition will remain in place? Science doesn’t really demand it yet, nor does the position the Church has outlined. Ergo, your view isn’t insurmountable - and the Church absolutely does accept that one can believe in evolution.

 

[VociMike]

So waddya say? Am I a “true man” or not? Are all men “True” these days or not? How can you tell the difference?

All humans have true souls. Note this “infused human-like creatures with human souls” is not Church teaching, at least as far as the exact mechanism. What it is is a particular belief that the Church allows which is one way of reconciling the science with the theology, of reconciling the natural evolution of the human body and the supernatural infusing of the human soul.

But hey, if it bothers you, and if you grant the existence of a supernatural, immortal human soul, offer another way that human-like creatures acquired them. Maybe your theory will become the accepted one in time.

Do you have any links I’d like to see that.

Well, the key phrase is “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. You can do a search but I’ll warn you that you’ll find a lot of fundamentalist stuff, both fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants.

Here’s one Vatican link I found:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

What fun! The concept of “State machines” is the key technology for high integrity code rather than a particular programming language. But perhaps we shouldn’t get into that here

You mean to say the entire program shouldn’t be a collection of implicit and undocumented state machines? Where’s the fun in that?

 

[edwest2]

Computers cannot program themselves, neither can a living cell. Textbook Evolution? I doubt it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[emotel]

All humans have true souls. Note this “infused human-like creatures with human souls” is not Church teaching, at least as far as the exact mechanism. What it is is a particular belief that the Church allows which is one way of reconciling the science with the theology, of reconciling the natural evolution of the human body and the supernatural infusing of the human soul.

Gosh! That surely implies that the Church doesn’t know what to teach and hides to avoid the horns of a dilemma that would have it denying previous teachings or denying science.

But hey, if it bothers you, and if you grant the existence of a supernatural, immortal human soul, offer another way that human-like creatures acquired them. Maybe your theory will become the accepted one in time.

Like you, I was a cradle Catholic who left the Church. I have yet to return. I see no reason to suppose that I have an immortal soul so I don’t have to account for them.

Well, the key phrase is “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

Thanks for the link. It re-affirms the necessity of the Church and belief in Christ for salvation. There is also the claim that I am to be “more severely judged” because I am an ex-Catholic who does not believe that Christ was a God.

I regard that as being distinctly unfriendly and unjust. I don’t control what I believe because I am honest. Why should I be damned for all eternity for being honest?

It also fails to resolve the self contradiction in Lumen Gentium which also says that the Church is NOT necessary for salvation and “The Mohamedans” who deny that Chist is the saviour will be saved:
Lumen Gentium:

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Interesting tactic Proclaim both of the two contradictory precepts and hope that nobody puts them side-by-side and compares them. I see a certain lack of integrity in that.

VociMike:

You mean to say the entire program shouldn’t be a collection of implicit and undocumented state machines? Where’s the fun in that?

I do that programming stuff for a living (in this life) , the fun dimension is in debugging the rules that supposedly determine my prospects in the afterlife should there turn out to be one. See above

Emotel.