Theistic Evolution?

[emotel]

If I add information to a program, I am not reprogramming it. I am giving it another capability.

Maybe you should say what you mean by “re-programming”?

Altering the genetic information in DNA ( The Program code ) to meet a new operational requirement is surely “re-programming” . Isn’t it?

Emotel

 

[edwest2]

Memory B Cells are activated by the vaccine. This is their function. If I take a cell and add something to it, I am adding a component or capability, the basic program remains the same. To put it another way and to simplify, if my program has 18 functions and I add one more, those 18 other functions still exist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nullasalus]

I second Buffalow’s call for “Catholic Sources for that” and your reply didn’t seem to provide any such sources.

I provided the sources - I’m not sure what kind of source you’re asking for if HG’s claim that there’s freedom to discuss precursors to Adam and Eve with pre-existing living material doesn’t suffice.

Once you’re arguing that ‘pre-existing, living material’ cannot be ‘pre-existing being’, you’re grasping at straws.

I humbly admit to an extensive knowledge of evolutionary biology but I don’t recognise that sentiment as being part of the theory. By its very nature, evolution is a “continuum” consisting, in the main of very small inter-generational changes. There are some well known “Major evolutionary transitions” but they don’t seem to be what you mean by "“breaks” in a biological lineage? So I don’t understand what you mean?

Breaks as in ‘a point where this given species is no longer considered part of the species that came before it in direct biological lineage’. Yes, evolutionary theory is a gradual theory - but there are questions about just how gradual ‘gradual’ really is (the cambrian explosion can be called ‘gradual’ in one sense, ‘not gradual at all’ in another.)

As I said, biologists do make the distinction between species - they do see that at given points in time, organisms that came from a similar population are no longer the same species. I’m not suggesting anything all that wild here.

Hmm… I present you with a simple and well documented contradiction and you respond with that?

I am unable to see any connection with my point or discern what you mean. I suppose that means that, from my perspective, you seem to be “waffling”. Or perhaps even “rambling”.

Considering you’ve been offering some very sliced up quotes of LG to make it seem as if it says what it clearly does not, I’d hesitate before throwing out insults like that.

You made certain arguments about LG - basically making it sound as if LG affirms that only Catholics can be saved, because it references the importance of baptism and faith. I respond with long-established views of baptism - baptism of desire, and baptism of blood - and point to the same LG document talking clearly about the prospects of those of other religions, and lacking religion, to be saved. That this doesn’t fit what what you’d like to accuse does not make it ‘rambling’. It just shows your claims have some fatal flaws.

I fully accept that words mean different things to different people. I normally use the word “KNOW” to denote the possession of information. The extent and completeness of that information usually requires further qualification and “certainty” is only ever approached. It is never achieved.

Then you’re only illustrating my point. If the position meant that one is merely aware of the Church’s claim, but believing it is not necessary to incur penalty for rejection - well, you’re going up against quite a lot of Church teaching here, spanning back incredibly far - before the protestant reformation, likely before the great schism.

Yes I know and that is a feature of documents that present multiple and contradictory statements relating to the same issue. Selective quoting can be used in support of any of the incompatible conclusions. I call this the "Rent-A-Proof" scenario and you seem to be invoking it here.

So I agree that LG says what you say it says. My point is that is also states the converse elsewhere and thereby contradicts itself.

And my reply is that your argument at this point has boiled down to ‘I say that it’s a contradiction, therefore it’s a contradiction until you get me to change my mind’. Your response to my reference of baptism of desire and blood, and the history of the Church entertaining differing viewpoints on a wide variety of arguments - some scientific, some more purely theological or moral - was ‘you’re rambling!’

Sorry, I don’t consider that much of a rebuttal.

Well… um… even though I have to say so myself… I am so well versed in those areas.

I’m awaiting evidence of that. So far you’re slipping into insults - so I’ll simply say that a whole lot of your argument here seems very ad hoc.

Aw gees! What can “Infallible” possibly mean if it doesn’t mean “Not open to discussion”. I have seen that stated explicitly somewhere. I’ll try to find it.

An infallible teaching itself settled. Not everything linked to an infallible teaching is necessarily settled. That hell exists may well be an infallible teaching - that limbo exists, despite being part of hell, is not

Some say that all of religion is the work of theologians and I have some sympathy with that view.

Some say atheism is primarily sophistry writ large. I have sympathy with that view in turn.

LG14 is quite specific about who is to be damned and who is to be saved. It presents a highly specific formula that amounts to “Believe - or else be damned!”

No, it does not. Demonstrably it does not - there is no formula. It affirms the necessity of faith and baptism, and that those who are saved are saved through the Church. What kind of faith, what kind of baptism, are explored implicitly later in LG, and through church history. Are you honestly suggesting that baptisms of desire and blood are things I’m simply making up here? If so, again, you have some history to read up on.

Am I to presume that you guys don’t agree with LG? If so then tell me why you consider a document that claims it is infallible to be wrong?

I won’t speak for others, but I don’t agree with your claims about LG. This before asking - on what basis did you determine LG is an infallible document anyway?

Plese explain why that is not a direct ***Rent-A-Proof ***contradiction of para 14 of Lumen Gentium - a well known infallible document.

Because what you’ve been saying about how to read LG 14 all this time has been utterly incorrect, demonstrably so based on clear reading of LG itself, apostolic tradition on questions of faith, morals, and baptism, and the actions of the popes at the time of and follow LG’s proclamation?

P.S. I have a supply of humble pills if you need them.

I’m sure you go through the supply too quick to share.

 

[emotel]

Memory B Cells are activated by the vaccine. This is their function. If I take a cell and add something to it, I am adding a component or capability, the basic program remains the same. To put it another way and to simplify, if my program has 18 functions and I add one more, those 18 other functions still exist.

Peace,
Ed

You still don’t say what you mean by “Re-Programming”?

The “Program” in question here is the DNA sequence that is used to direct the assembly of antibody proteins. Vaccines trigger the immune response and this results in changes to the DNA sequence which are such that antibodies that bind with high affinity are produced.

Individual B-Lymphocytes that are “matured” in this way retain that specific sequence and that alone. So a new genetic program appears and it replaces the previous arrangement. It is not added to or selected from a “library” of pre-existing programs. The DNA involved does not have the information capacity to support a library of all possible sequences. What happens is that the DNA is re-programmed to code for new antibody shapes that bind with high affinity to the antigen.

Do you disagree with that description of the process?

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Considering you’ve been offering some very sliced up quotes of LG to make it seem as if it says what it clearly does not, I’d hesitate before throwing out insults like that.

I apologise if my perhaps clumsy attempt at gentle light-hearted banter came across as an “insult”. I simply wanted to say that you appeared to be going to some length to avoid rather than address a very straightforward issue.

Since the complete text of LG is available here:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

It is neither necessary nor sensible to include over-long extracts here. I have no wish to rig the argument by selective or out-of-context quoting. The complete text is avaliable for anyone who wants to access it.

You made certain arguments about LG - basically making it sound as if LG affirms that only Catholics can be saved,

My case is that LG14 does just that. I didn’t make it sound the way it sounds. Pope Paul VI and the second Vatican Council did that.

because it references the importance of baptism and faith. I respond with long-established views of baptism - baptism of desire, and baptism of blood - and point to the same LG document talking clearly about the prospects of those of other religions, and lacking religion, to be saved. That this doesn’t fit what what you’d like to accuse does not make it ‘rambling’. It just shows your claims have some fatal flaws.

Again I apologise if I haven’t made my point sufficiently clear. Please allow me to try again:

I know that other sections of LG and other documents take a different view. That’s the issue, they are different to the point of being a direct contradiction.

No, it does not. Demonstrably it does not - there is no formula. It affirms the necessity of faith and baptism, and that those who are saved are saved through the Church. What kind of faith, what kind of baptism, are explored implicitly later in LG, and through church history.

LG 14 explains quite EXPLICITLY what kind of faith and baptism is is talking about. It does this by referencing Mark 16:16 and John 3,5 as I explained earlier.

I know that a different view is expressed later on and that is the point about contradiction. It involves different statements that oppose each other.

Are you honestly suggesting that baptisms of desire and blood are things I’m simply making up here? If so, again, you have some history to read up on.

No I am not suggesting that. My point is that LG contains statements that are CONTRADICTORY. They cannot all be correct.

I won’t speak for others, but I don’t agree with your claims about LG. This before asking - on what basis did you determine LG is an infallible document anyway?

I can’t speak for others either however, JPII clearly sees the problem with LG 14 ( see later).

Because what you’ve been saying about how to read LG 14 all this time has been utterly incorrect, demonstrably so based on clear reading of LG itself, apostolic tradition on questions of faith, morals, and baptism, and the actions of the popes at the time of and follow LG’s proclamation?

You are now claiming that JPII is “Utterly incorrect”.

Let’s try this approach. I see a document that says quite specifically (in LG 14) that a proposition, let’s call it “P” is true. Elsewhere in LG and in other documents we are told that P is false.

There is therefore a contradiction. This cannot be resolved by the form of argument you are using in which you point at the P=False statements and claim that because of them LG 14 cannot say that P=True. The trouble is that LG 14 does indeed say that P=True and this is echoed by JPII in

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Here’s a short extract in which JPII refers to LG 14 specifically:

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14).

I’m sure you go through the supply too quick to share.

LOL I’ll take that as a suggestion that I should re-plenish my supply rather than as an insult

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

on what basis did you determine LG is an infallible document anyway?

Here’s the appropriate extract from LG

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Lumen Gentium:

18 … And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

25 … Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Emotel.

 

[Nullasalus]

I apologise if my perhaps clumsy attempt at gentle light-hearted banter came across as an “insult”. I simply wanted to say that you appeared to be going to some length to avoid rather than address a very straightforward issue.

Avoid? I’m explaining the details of the issue directly. I’ve quoted LG, I’ve referred to Catholic teaching on the subject, I’ve made no attempt to change the subject.

My case is that LG14 does just that. I didn’t make it sound the way it sounds. Pope Paul VI and the second Vatican Council did that.

You did when you tried to make it sound as if you you as an ex-Catholic were being referred to in the portion which was explicitly referring to those who are Catholics but who are insincere and lacking charity.

I know that other sections of LG and other documents take a different view. That’s the issue, they are different to the point of being a direct contradiction.

And as I’ve explained, there is no contradiction. Your two quoted portions are a reference to faith and baptism being necessary for salvation (which only comes through Christ and the Church), and the fact that people of other faiths - both protestant and muslim and non-religious and elsewise - can be saved. But when you understand that baptism covers more than the formal baptismal act, that faith is in reference to sincere efforts to find the truth and lead a good life, and that salvation through Christ means that Christ is what saves, not other faiths - there is no contradiction.

LG 14 explains quite EXPLICITLY what kind of faith and baptism is is talking about. It does this by referencing Mark 16:16 and John 3,5 as I explained earlier.

No, it does not. It is explaining why faith and baptism is viewed as necessary for salvation. It is not talking about ‘what kind of faith and baptism’. Again, are you accusing me of making up the distinctions of baptism of blood and baptism of desire? Do I really have to pull the details out of the Catholic Encyclopedia? Do I have to trace the theological history?

You’re dealing with the one church where ‘Sola Scriptura’ certainly does not apply - when LG 14 refers to the bible, the explanation is not “whatever explanation you literally interpret”. It’s read in light of apostolic tradition and Church teaching.

No I am not suggesting that. My point is that LG contains statements that are CONTRADICTORY. They cannot all be correct.

Your claims about what the LG statements say are incorrect.

You are now claiming that JPII is “Utterly incorrect”.

No, I’m not. And here you go again: Let’s see what directly follows the portion you quoted.

For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

Emphasis added by myself, of course.

PJPII is saying right here, clear as day - even people who are outside of the Church can be saved. Since we can assume that ‘not receiving the Gospel’ certainly implies not being formally baptized - my point stands.

Right there, in your own link, we have the Pope affirming that: Those who do not know the Church, or who even outwardly reject the Church, can still be saved - by Christ, and by the Church. Even in the portion you quote, “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14).” You, as an atheist, are ignorant of the fact - because it’s not awareness of the claim that is pivotal, but awareness of the truth of the claim. And when you understand how the Church views baptism - how it has viewed baptism for quite a long time - this all makes further sense.

So, if either of us is calling PJP2 wrong here - it has to be you.

Let’s try this approach. I see a document that says quite specifically (in LG 14) that a proposition, let’s call it “P” is true. Elsewhere in LG and in other documents we are told that P is false.

It’s a good thing that did not happen, then. Again, your own reference shows this much.

Look - you made several mistakes here. About baptism, about knowledge v belief, about culpability and its relation to ignorance. We’re now up to two post-LG popes who are on record as interpreting LG in the way I’ve explained to you. You can insist LG can only be read in the way you want it to be read all you like - it’s not going to help your case.

Here’s the appropriate extract from LG

Yes - that is the part of LG discussing infallibility. It’s not the same as showing that LG itself was infallible teaching. No need to get into this too deeply, as VII and LG still remains authoritative for Catholics - but there’s a difference between authoritative and infallible.

 

[emotel]

And as I’ve explained, there is no contradiction.

Let’s go through it a step at a time.

Your two quoted portions are a reference to faith and baptism being necessary for salvation (which only comes through Christ and the Church),

Yes that is the first portion from LG 14.

and the fact that people of other faiths - both protestant and muslim and non-religious and elsewise - can be saved.

Yes that’s the second portion from LG 18.

But when you understand that baptism covers more than the formal baptismal act, that faith is in reference to sincere efforts to find the truth and lead a good life, and that salvation through Christ means that Christ is what saves, not other faiths - there is no contradiction.

That “understanding” is not compatible with the explicit statement in LG 14 about baptism ( in whatever form) being “the means by which men enter the Church” and with the Gospel of St. John that LG 14 cites as a reference. That Gospel also states:

John 3,18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

You seem to be adamant that this verse is not correct?

No, it does not. It is explaining why faith and baptism is viewed as necessary for salvation. It is not talking about ‘what kind of faith and baptism’. Again, are you accusing me of making up the distinctions of baptism of blood and baptism of desire? Do I really have to pull the details out of the Catholic Encyclopedia? Do I have to trace the theological history?

No need. Baptisms of blood and desire are described here:

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

and I have never accused you of inventing them. What it says there is compatible with LG 14 and John 3,18. in that Blood and Desire are just additional forms of baptism in which the person being baptised demonstrates faith in Jesus Christ.

The Muslims don’t do that. I don’t do that.

You’re dealing with the one church where ‘Sola Scriptura’ certainly does not apply - when LG 14 refers to the bible, the explanation is not “whatever explanation you literally interpret”. It’s read in light of apostolic tradition and Church teaching.

The necessity of Baptism at the above link includes this:
"Catholic Answers:

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257).

That echoes LG 14 and then adds the qualification about Gospel proclamation. Muslims are well aware of the Christian belief and so am I. They were proclaimed to me at length in my youth and we all have the “possibility” of joining the Catholic Church. It follows that neither I nor the Muslims are to be saved. We are to be condemned in accordance with John 3,18.

PJPII is saying right here, clear as day - even people who are outside of the Church can be saved. Since we can assume that ‘not receiving the Gospel’ certainly implies not being formally baptized - my point stands.

No your point doesn’t stand. JPII CONFIRMS that

JPII:

The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14).

Neither I nor the Muslims are “ignorant of Catholic Teaching”

Nullasalus:

Right there, in your own link, we have the Pope affirming that: Those who do not know the Church,

Yes he is invoking the “God moves in mysterious ways scenario” for those who “do not know the church”.

Nullasalus:

or who even outwardly reject the Church,

JPII adds a further qualification to that:

JPII:

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church.

Neither I nor the Muslims deliver such an acceptance.

Nullasalus:

You, as an atheist, are ignorant of the fact - because it’s not awareness of the claim that is pivotal, but awareness of the truth of the claim.

This is perhaps the crux of the matter. If what you say there is true then it has some very interesting logical consequences. It means that by refusing to accept the truth of the Catholic teaching I received and leaving the church I can be saved if I lead a good life.

That would mean that for me ( and the Muslims) the Church is unnecessary. And that John 3:18 is not true. Even though LG 14 and “ecclesiam nulla salus” try very hard to demonstrate that the Church IS necessary for salvation and John 3:18 is the words of Jesus Christ.

This means that your position can be summarised very simply as follows:

“John 3:18 is not true and Faith in Christ, Baptism and the Catholic Church are only necessary if you believe them to be necessary.”

If that’s the case then why not express it simply in that way.

Is that really a fair summary of your position?

Nullasalus:

Yes - that is the part of LG discussing infallibility. It’s not the same as showing that LG itself was infallible teaching. No need to get into this too deeply, as VII and LG still remains authoritative for Catholics - but there’s a difference between authoritative and infallible.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.
LG:

1. Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature,(1) to bring the light of Christ to all men,

It then goes on to explain that such meetings are deemed to be infallible.

Emotel.

 

[DLC]

Theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible. The Bible teaches a day age creation truth. Read Genesis 1-11.

 

[warriorofpeace]

is this a day age creation truth - you all told me it was theistic your wrong -

words are strange and the law of attraction as well. words have an attraction clarity. such things as little words or small amount generally are attracted to larger things that are like circlular vesils if you may. consider all life and material goods as vesils and humans as temples of god. the vesels need a form of expression because of isolation. The holy spirit fills the vesels with wind words. these vesels have two size levels that i realize perhaps 3 holy things, big vesels, small vesels, some vesels do not contain an adequate amount of balance keep what it has to fulfill its purpose. things such as rust can biodegrate these vesles at a fast rate. such things as bed bugs help prepare an ariginal balance in humans. words are always in a craving mode in vesels and the meak in humans and or animals. a purpose instink mode if you dare. the instink of creating a vessel for a porticular purpose, strives to be a knowledgable never ending muti purpose devise. Though some things such as athiests and vesels need a required proof to adapt towards their desired purpose thus the acceptence of its long usage would be towards admiration.

There are several levels in vesels such things as freesers are admirable such things as holy things are admirable the cross being the best. such things as mirrors are admirable yet should not be dealt with shade. such things as windows are admirable also shouldnt be in shade. books and paper and pictures are also admirable. all electronics interconnect after awhile and become more of a comfort to vast lazyness. though still all individually called vesels including the computer. each have a multi purpose. know this is the clarity attraction, the more purpose or multi purpose a vesel has the greater law of attraction, thus the greater craving to use such things. We tend to seak safety and sustaining life being beyond this attractions short fall. The spirtual law inforces certain guide lines as such to induce rightiousness, faith, and beliefe. The ultimate goal is to succeed in a videly beliefe and admire the few that can sustain this inner craved attraction that life has presented us with. At times we fall short in the eyes of god and our inner craving leads us to medication or worse alcohol or drugs. This is an inner craving none the less a vurcular balance needs to over magnitude us according to the proper attraction leading us away from ultimate prideness or absolute prideness.

this craved attraction is based on being multi purpose. scientifically it could be seen as evolution and creation. the evolution is creating a device (material good) for a soul purpose. The creation is recomended being all multi pupose vesels at times connected ones such as clocks (clocks because each second minute hour has its purpose)

 

[a_priori]

Sadly many scientists paint their vocation in those colours. But I do not and nor do many of my scientific friends.

It is perfectly reasonable (and required by the scientific method) to only suspect divine intervention when there is a reason so to do.

No such reason has yet appeared so there is no need for any accomodation of supernatural actions.

Science is indeed cool but it does not ignore Religion - it explains it. Religion however, as evidenced here, is clearly struggling in its attempt to explain Science.

You do understand that this is a forum about philosophy? If we live in a strictly mechanical, clockwork universe as you seem to suggest, then there is really no need to pretend we can discuss spiritual things. They simply don’t exist on such a universe. Although quantum theory is cracking open the door into metaphysics.

How does religion struggle to explain science? Religion easily accommodates science.

I live 2 miles from a major university and I have close “scientific friends” hanging from the rafters. Their views on this issue are hardly monolithic.

If you presuppose that there is no supernatural because “no reason has appeared yet”, then you will toil away unmolested by the larger questions of life. Without God we are merely accidental machines.

 

[Nullasalus]

Let’s go through it a step at a time.

Etc, etc.

That “understanding” is not compatible with the explicit statement in LG 14 about baptism ( in whatever form) being “the means by which men enter the Church” and with the Gospel of St. John that LG 14 cites as a reference. That Gospel also states:

John 3,18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

You seem to be adamant that this verse is not correct?

No - I’m adamant that the Catholic Church does not operate by sola scriptura, and that your interpretation of those verses is not the Catholic interpretation. Obviously, since we’re now up to two Popes, the councils, and plenty of other theologians who disagree with your viewpoint.

It’s hard to get this any clearer.

and I have never accused you of inventing them. What it says there is compatible with LG 14 and John 3,18. in that Blood and Desire are just additional forms of baptism in which the person being baptised demonstrates faith in Jesus Christ.

No, they’re not ‘just additional forms of baptism’. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on baptism:

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

What this is establishing, indisputably, is that the Catholic Church does not see water baptism as the only type of valid baptism for the purposes of salvation. This isn’t some recent invention in order to sound more ecumenical either; it’s a very, very old teaching.

The moment that is established - and really, even you just admitted this by recognizing blood / desire as ‘different forms’ - that’s that. Formal, express water baptism is not the sole type available. Culpability comes into play with regards to those who do not get baptized for whatever reason - as PJP2 said, ‘because they do not know the church or outwardly reject her.’ Popes, councils, and theologians have plenty of logical room to spare when considering other situations where baptism applies, even when water baptism does not.

That echoes LG 14 and then adds the qualification about Gospel proclamation. Muslims are well aware of the Christian belief and so am I. They were proclaimed to me at length in my youth and we all have the “possibility” of joining the Catholic Church. It follows that neither I nor the Muslims are to be saved. We are to be condemned in accordance with John 3,18.

Argue this with some baptists if you like - it doesn’t work with the Catholic Church. Doubly so in your case, since if you were really born catholic, you were already baptized.

No your point doesn’t stand. JPII CONFIRMS that

JPII confirms that those who do not know the church or even outwardly reject the church can still be saved. By all means, tell me how you can outwardly reject the church yet not know the church. Tell me why JPII saw necessary to distinguish between the two.

I’m sorry, but you’re fighting a losing battle on this one. There’s more baptism in the Catholic view than water baptism insofar as salvation is concerned. When that’s understood, there is no contradiction - which is why LG was published in the form it was, and why we now have two popes quoted in this thread affirming as much.

Yes he is invoking the “God moves in mysterious ways scenario” for those who “do not know the church”.

No, he’s invoking it for both those who do not know, and those who outwardly reject. You may disagree with his view - hell, you may want him to view things your way - but I’m sorry, you’re wrong.

JPII adds a further qualification to that:

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church.

Acceptance, cooperation, and yes to the divine gift - not an outward acceptance of the Church itself. Hence those who ‘outwardly reject’ being able to be saved. Hence ‘implicit’, because it’s not explicit. Hence ‘mystery’.

This is perhaps the crux of the matter. If what you say there is true then it has some very interesting logical consequences. It means that by refusing to accept the truth of the Catholic teaching I received and leaving the church I can be saved if I lead a good life.

That’s not a very interesting logical consequence, unless by ‘interesting’ you mean ‘what I’ve been maintaining during this entire discussion’. PJP2 and LG spell this out in greater detail - that there is faith involved, efforts to honestly pursue the truth, and not knowingly rejecting what truth you do have available to you.

That would mean that for me ( and the Muslims) the Church is unnecessary. And that John 3:18 is not true. Even though LG 14 and “ecclesiam nulla salus” try very hard to demonstrate that the Church IS necessary for salvation and John 3:18 is the words of Jesus Christ.

No, the Church remains necessary by Catholic teaching - your salvation comes through Christ and the Church, no other source. Both documents we’ve brought up here going into that in greater detail. Further, you are vastly better off as a willing and true member of the Church than outside of it - and John 3:18 remains true. Your understanding of it is simply flawed.

“John 3:18 is not true and Faith in Christ, Baptism and the Catholic Church are only necessary if you believe them to be necessary.”

If that’s the case then why not express it simply in that way.

Probably because your expression of it is utterly incorrect, certainly by Catholic teaching. Baptism remains necessary, but in forms available other than express and water. Again, you’re back to apostolic tradition, Church teaching, and two popes disagreeing with you.

Is that really a fair summary of your position?

No, but you already knew this. At this point you’ve got no ground to stand on with viewing LG or Catholic views of salvation or baptism - we’re down to consolation prizes.

You may want to wonder what else you could be incorrect about.

 

[emotel]

You do understand that this is a forum about philosophy?

Yes indeed and the concept of freedom from contradiction is a very important philosophical principle,

If we live in a strictly mechanical, clockwork universe as you seem to suggest, then there is really no need to pretend we can discuss spiritual things. They simply don’t exist on such a universe. Although quantum theory is cracking open the door into metaphysics.

I don’t suggest that. I merely note that it is one of the options. There are many others and I have listed them frequently. I regard myself as a “spiritual person” in many senses of that term.

I am very wary of “The Loop” where people believe because they believe they believe. That is a philosophical point. I am unable to see how anyone can know what science cannot know. However, I can see that many here believe that they can know what science cannot know. For me belief is not sufficient.

How does religion struggle to explain science? Religion easily accommodates science.

Galileo would not agree with you there. His work on mechanincs was banned until 1835 and he wasn’t forgiven until 1992. I have yet to hear any explanation of why God chose to create humans via the evolutionary process and how that related to the Adam and Eve scenario.
a priori:

If you presuppose that there is no supernatural because “no reason has appeared yet”, then you will toil away unmolested by the larger questions of life. Without God we are merely accidental machines.

None of that is true.

I have said many times that I cannot prove that supernature doesn’t exist. I accept that I cannot know what science doesn’t know and I am unconvinced by folk who claim to know simply because they believe they know.

We are not “Accidental machines”. Evolution by natural selection is NOT a “Random Process” it is a “DIRECTED” process.

How we came to be as we are is one of the “big questions” and I am very interested in it. Because I don’t rate God as a likelyhood, for me, the responsibility for answering the big questions lies with humans. Consequently, I am more interested in them than I was when I was a Catholic.

Emotel.

 

[a_priori]

Umm… I see a contradiction in that If you know that the outside exists then you do indeed know something about the outside. The question is “How do you know what you claim to know”.

I don’t ultimately “know” anything and neither does anyone else. The question is what existed before the Big Bang? There is a temptation to suggest that the original particle preexisted. But the fact is, as you have eloquently pointed out, that you obviously cannot use words like “before” to describe circumstances where no time existed. Since time is generally linear, although in the quantum world not always moving “forward” and sometimes not moving at all. At the Big Bang, a timeline began. Since we are generally finite thinkers and lack the ability to describe things occurring outside of time, we are left with mere inadequate human language.

It would seem to me (disclaimer) that the atheist must start the universe from nothing. Nothing preexisted because there is no time, ruling out “pre” or “post” anything. He/she must start from ABSOLUTE NOTHING and all that implies. No time. No space. Nothing.

Time itself, space itself, matter and energy must literally spring from nothing.

There was a particle that exploded? That particle must have resided somewhere. Oh wait, there could not have been a “somewhere” in a situation lacking space or time. Heck, you can’t even have a “situation” without space and time. Words don’t seem to work. Cosmologists and theoretical physicists obviously have a huge leg up on me and they probably don’t lose sleep over it.

The theory of biological evolution delivers considerable and quite extraordinary insights into those questions. I find the explanatory power that it delivers quite breathtaking.

I very much like Pinker’s take on some of these things.

I, conversely, started with Catholicism and found it wanting. Science is by far the best tool we have for determining the truth about reality. ( and about Religion )

I guess we diverge on just what “reality” is. I’m all about science but in a philosophical sense I don’t want to be missing a piece of the puzzle. Do you think that leaving Catholicism/Christianity completely could at some point be considered an overcorrection? Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts on these subjects.

 

[a_priori]

Galileo would not agree with you there. His work on mechanincs was banned until 1835 and he wasn’t forgiven until 1992. I have yet to hear any explanation of why God chose to create humans via the evolutionary process and how that related to the Adam and Eve scenario.

I won’t defend the Church’s position with respect to Galileo. They were obviously excruciatingly wrong. Adam and Eve is a metaphor.

We are not “Accidental machines”. Evolution by natural selection is NOT a “Random Process” it is a “DIRECTED” process.

Directed by whom or what? Direction presupposes an active process governed by a predetermined objective doesn’t it?

How we came to be as we are is one of the “big questions” and I am very interested in it. Because I don’t rate God as a likelyhood, for me, the responsibility for answering the big questions lies with humans. Consequently, I am more interested in them than I was when I was a Catholic.

I don’t think the big questions are answerable in exhaustive fashion in this life. But I admire and appreciate people who are as preoccupied with them as I am, no matter what their worldview.

 

[emotel]

It would seem to me (disclaimer) that the atheist must start the universe from nothing.

I don’t describe myself as “An Atheist” but I don’t see why you should conclude that.

The proper scientific approach is to freely admit that we don’t know and we haven’t got satisfactory models ( no quantum gravity for example) that can guide us. However, it is right and proper that we should speculate and formulate hypotheses.

Claiming that you know that an intelligent supernatural being created the universe is not scientifically sustainable because it is a belief and not a conclusion.
"a priori:

Nothing preexisted because there is no time, ruling out “pre” or “post” anything. He/she must start from ABSOLUTE NOTHING and all that implies. No time. No space. Nothing.

Why can’t we consider the “fish-tank” scenario. Maybe we are fish in some super-alien’s cosmic aquarium. Maybe Satan created the Universe or Allah did? There are many such speculations but that’s what they are speculations. The honest position to adopt is the one that admits that we do not know.
a priori:

I very much like Pinker’s take on some of these things.

I met him a couple of weeks ago and I now have a signed copy of “The Blank Slate” . His writings are superbly clear.
a priori:

I guess we diverge on just what “reality” is. I’m all about science but in a philosophical sense I don’t want to be missing a piece of the puzzle. Do you think that leaving Catholicism/Christianity completely could at some point be considered an overcorrection?

No. Catholicism generated many contradictions and puzzles. I found myself unable to believe what I had been told I believed. As we have been discussing here, “Faith” is a fundamental pre-requisite for religion. In science, faith is a very bad idea not a holy one and extensive precautions have to be takes to ensure that experiments are not affected by a wish to see a particular kind of result.

So I realised that I didn’t believe in God and that it would be wrong for me to pretend that I did. With that realisation, all the contradictions and puzzles were resolved because religion didn’t have to make sense and hang together logically in the way that science has to.

Then I realised that if some kind of God does turn out to be there after all and he is a just God then my honest admission that I didn’t believe in him would be better than a dishonest pretence that I did. That works for any just God. If Satan turns out to be the ruler of the universe then we’re all in trouble anyway.
a priori:

Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts on these subjects.

Thank you and the others for making the process so enjoyable and stimulating.

Adam and Eve is a metaphor.

It seems not. The Church insists that they were real people who managed to get the whole human race into deep trouble. Hence the doctrine of original sin. I could never understand that.
a priori:

Directed by whom or what? Direction presupposes an active process governed by a predetermined objective doesn’t it?

Natural Selection directs the evolution of a reproducing population towards local peaks in the fitness landscape of the environment in which reproducers are reproduced. This results in levels of adaptation to those environment that could not arise “at random” of “by accident”.
a priori:

I don’t think the big questions are answerable in exhaustive fashion in this life

J S B Haldane said:

“Not only is the Universe queerer that we suppose, it may well be queerer than we CAN suppose.”

and Godel had a theorem for it. However, we have augmented our limited faculties with some very powerful computers and machines like the Large Hadron Collider. So who knows?
a priori:

But I admire and appreciate people who are as preoccupied with them as I am, no matter what their worldview.

I’m with you there.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Etc, etc.

What this is establishing, indisputably, is that the Catholic Church does not see water baptism as the only type of valid baptism for the purposes of salvation.

But that isn’t the point. As I pointed out, all forms of baptism require faith.

- as PJP2 said, ‘because they do not know the church or outwardly reject her.’ Popes, councils, and theologians have plenty of logical room to spare when considering other situations where baptism applies, even when water baptism does not.

But as I pointed out, JPII qualified that with a requirement for faith in Jesus Christ. That is the missing component in my case and in the Muslim case.

Nullasalus:

Argue this with some baptists if you like - it doesn’t work with the Catholic Church. Doubly so in your case, since if you were really born catholic, you were already baptized.

I was indeed baptised but I don’t qualify under JPII’s qualification because I am unable to honestly deliver a “yes to the divine gift”.

JPII:

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

and nor do Muslims and they don’t get baptised in any way at all.

With that qualification, JPII excluded me and excludes the muslims because we do not meet those prerequsite conditions. So salvation is not available to us.

Nullasalus:

JPII confirms that those who do not know the church or even outwardly reject the church can still be saved. By all means, tell me how you can outwardly reject the church yet not know the church. Tell me why JPII saw necessary to distinguish between the two.

He doesn’t say and tells us that the point is “Mysterious”. I read that as meaning that he sees the contradiction with his qualification and doesn’t know how to resolve it. I see it as just another logical contradiction.

Put them together and the contradiction is obvious:

" Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation even when a person rejects belonging to the church".

Mysterious indeed. It would seem that such people belong to the church even when they don’t. I prefer the term “Contradiction”.

=NullasalusI’m sorry, but you’re fighting a losing battle on this one.

That’s not how it seems to me.

Nullasalus:

There’s more baptism in the Catholic view than water baptism insofar as salvation is concerned. When that’s understood, there is no contradiction -

I do understand that but it doesn’t resolve the contradiction because all form of baptism require faith in Christ and that’s what the Muslims and I don’t have.

Nullasalus:

Acceptance, cooperation, and yes to the divine gift - not an outward acceptance of the Church itself. Hence those who ‘outwardly reject’ being able to be saved. Hence ‘implicit’, because it’s not explicit. Hence ‘mystery’.

Ingenious but you have omitted the bit about the acceptance being “Oriented to Christ and the Church” . So tell me how an acceptance orientated to the Church can exist when the Church is rejected?

You are not doing very well here with these logical constructs

That’s not a very interesting logical consequence, unless by ‘interesting’ you mean ‘what I’ve been maintaining during this entire discussion’. PJP2 and LG spell this out in greater detail - that there is faith involved, efforts to honestly pursue the truth, and not knowingly rejecting what truth you do have available to you.

Yes faith is involved and faith has to be “Oriented to Christ and the Church”. The pursuit of truth on a high integrity basis doesn’t require any faith at all let alone that particular form.

Nullasalus:

No, the Church remains necessary by Catholic teaching - your salvation comes through Christ and the Church, no other source.

Yes that’s what LG 14 says. Because we do not have faith that is “oriented to Christ and the Church” we are not to be saved.

Both documents we’ve brought up here going into that in greater detail. Further, you are vastly better off as a willing and true member of the Church than outside of it

We previously established that LG 14 says anyone who remains in the church only in a “bodily” manner and not "in his heart is to be “the more severely judged”. Then you argued that being outside the church made salvation available to me because that provision would then not apply because “knowing” really means “believing”. So it seems that “outside” is better.

It’s all a bit of a muddle really.

• and John 3:18 remains true. Your understanding of it is simply flawed.

OK so tell me what you think that John 3:18 means?

Probably because your expression of it is utterly incorrect, certainly by Catholic teaching. Baptism remains necessary, but in forms available other than express and water.

So tell me what form of baptism Muslims experience?

Nullasalus:

No, but you already knew this. At this point you’ve got no ground to stand on with viewing LG or Catholic views of salvation or baptism - we’re down to consolation prizes.

That seems to suggest that you don’t have a consistent interpretation of all this that I can use to determine if there is any possibility of salvation for me and good Muslims who reject Christ, the Church and never get baptised in any way at all.

This is one of the reasons that the Catholic faith fails to impress me philosophically. It’s replete with smoke, mirrors, mutually incompatible statements, claims of infallibility and Popes playing the Mysterious card in attempts to avoid patently obvious logical contradictions.

Nullasalus:

You may want to wonder what else you could be incorrect about.

What I think the church is trying to say isn’t that important - even to me. I just ask how it resolves what appears to be contradictions and I listen to any answers presented and try to make sense of them and then ask what they mean in my case and the case of good muslims.

Emotel.

 

[a_priori]

I don’t describe myself as “An Atheist” but I don’t see why you should conclude that.

So I realised that I didn’t believe in God and that it would be wrong for me to pretend that I did.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m confused.

Claiming that you know that an intelligent supernatural being created the universe is not scientifically sustainable because it is a belief and not a conclusion.

I’ve already stipulated that I don’t “know” anything. I believe because it is an area of higher probability for me.

I met him a couple of weeks ago and I now have a signed copy of “The Blank Slate” . His writings are superbly clear.

I spent a week at MIT last year so my son could attend a robotics camp. I had hoped to run into him but by that time he apparently had gone back to Harvard and I couldn’t pull it off.

I found myself unable to believe what I had been told I believed.

This is why I left evangelicalism 13 years ago for Eastern Orthodoxy.

As we have been discussing here, “Faith” is a fundamental pre-requisite for religion.

This could be the chicken/egg thing but I don’t think “Faith” is a prerequisite but rather a consequence.

Then I realised that if some kind of God does turn out to be there after all and he is a just God then my honest admission that I didn’t believe in him would be better than a dishonest pretence that I did. That works for any just God. If Satan turns out to be the ruler of the universe then we’re all in trouble anyway.

This is a very honest view. Although I don’t concur, it is well said. Thank you.

Natural Selection directs the evolution of a reproducing population towards local peaks in the fitness landscape of the environment in which reproducers are reproduced. This results in levels of adaptation to those environment that could not arise “at random” of “by accident”.

No matter how you dress it up, it still comes down to matter plus energy plus time plus chance. Ascribing “direction” to a process such as natural selection is expecting too much from it. Although I agree that natural selection got us here.

“Not only is the Universe queerer that we suppose, it may well be queerer than we CAN suppose.”

and Godel had a theorem for it. However, we have augmented our limited faculties with some very powerful computers and machines like the Large Hadron Collider. So who knows?

Agreed.

 

[Nullasalus]

But that isn’t the point. As I pointed out, all forms of baptism require faith.

It’s an extremely important point. Your argument hinged critically on a comparison of LG to your biblical interpretation - and we’ve since seen that your interpretation of baptism by Catholic standards is wrong.

But as I pointed out, JPII qualified that with a requirement for faith in Jesus Christ. That is the missing component in my case and in the Muslim case.

No, he did not. One more time.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church.

It is ‘implicitly oriented’, not an explicit acceptance. Even those outwardly opposed to the Church can be saved.

I was indeed baptised but I don’t qualify under JPII’s qualification because I am unable to honestly deliver a “yes to the divine gift”.

I’m in no position to argue what you personally think. I can, however, argue what an atheist or muslim or otherwise could think - and they are entirely capable of accepting the divine gift while not having a belief in Christ.

With that qualification, JPII excluded me and excludes the muslims because we do not meet those prerequsite conditions. So salvation is not available to us.

No, JPII included all outside the Church. I’ve explained the logic of how he can do that, which I notice you will not address - because it fits JPII’s words entirely, it fits B16’s words entirely, and removes any contradiction. You’re forcing a reading here to force a contradiction.

He doesn’t say and tells us that the point is “Mysterious”. I read that as meaning that he sees the contradiction with his qualification and doesn’t know how to resolve it.

No - he’s asserting that he has no formula on hand. There is no contradiction, no matter how many times you repeat it. Hell, you ceded as much when you accepted my explanation and then argued that, if it were correct, you think it means that you don’t need the Church for salvation.

Mysterious indeed. It would seem that such people belong to the church even when they don’t.

Because you apparently don’t understand what ‘implicit’ means in this context. You may as well go to an orthodox rabbi and tell him ‘This jew says he’s not a jew, he says he’s a christian. But you say he’s a jew because his mother was one. That’s a contradiction!’ It makes as much sense.

That’s not how it seems to me.

Naturally, since you’re incorrect.

I do understand that but it doesn’t resolve the contradiction because all form of baptism require faith in Christ and that’s what the Muslims and I don’t have.

They do not require faith in the way you describe. If you have faith in God, or in true good, or in righteousness - by the Catholic viewpoint, you are demonstrating a faith in God. Your faith is imperfect, misinformed. But the same holds if you’re a protestant, or anglican, or eastern orthodox.

Ingenious but you have omitted the bit about the acceptance being “Oriented to Christ and the Church” . So tell me how an acceptance orientated to the Church can exist when the Church is rejected?

Because the orientation is implicit - implied, contained in the nature but not readily apparent. When a man strives to do true good, he implicitly strives to do the work of God regardless of what he believes. When a man believes he is doing the work of God, he explicitly strives to do the work of God.

You are not doing very well here with these logical constructs

I agree - any other person would have admitted there was no contradiction awhile ago. But logic is all I can use with you.

Yes that’s what LG 14 says. Because we do not have faith that is “oriented to Christ and the Church” we are not to be saved.

I can’t speak for you, again. But it is entirely possible for someone to be a muslim, an atheist, or otherwise, and to still have a faith implicitly oriented to Christ and the Church.

We previously established that LG 14 says anyone who remains in the church only in a “bodily” manner and not "in his heart is to be “the more severely judged”. Then you argued that being outside the church made salvation available to me because that provision would then not apply because “knowing” really means “believing”. So it seems that “outside” is better.

In your case it would be.

OK so tell me what you think that John 3:18 means?

Exactly what the Church takes it to mean.

So tell me what form of baptism Muslims experience?

For those muslims who meed the qualifications, a salvific one granted by their faith implicitly oriented towards Christ and the Church of course.

That seems to suggest that you don’t have a consistent interpretation of all this that I can use to determine if there is any possibility of salvation for me and good Muslims who reject Christ, the Church and never get baptised in any way at all.

My interpretation is entirely consistent. Your claims about baptism have fallen, since it’s been shown the Church accepts more than explicit water baptism - and has complete logical breadth to accept baptism for those who implicitly, not explicitly, desire Christ. Your claims about the understanding of LG have fallen in the face of LG itself and multiple popes. Your claims about what understanding the Church has of the bible have been shown to be flawed.

All you have is ‘I say it’s a contradiction, so even if you show how it’s not, I just don’t accept it.’ Wonderful - but that reduces the conversation to monotony.

This is one of the reasons that the Catholic faith fails to impress me philosophically.

That’s nice. This whole conversation is one of the reason atheists never impress me philosophically - poor grasp of logic, and mistaking mantra for argument.

What I think the church is trying to say isn’t that important - even to me.

Ah, so that whole thing about how you were re-examining your Catholic faith was a canard. You’re advancing another agenda.

But, what you insist is a contradiction isn’t important to me either. I’ve shown how it’s not. If you can’t understand the view, your problem is more fundamentally based in an inability to reason than I can solve. At least your offerings have shown why the Church regards some non-believers to simply be invincibly ignorant.

 

[edwest2]

Yes indeed and the concept of freedom from contradiction is a very important philosophical principle,

I don’t suggest that. I merely note that it is one of the options. There are many others and I have listed them frequently. I regard myself as a “spiritual person” in many senses of that term.

I am very wary of “The Loop” where people believe because they believe they believe. That is a philosophical point. I am unable to see how anyone can know what science cannot know. However, I can see that many here believe that they can know what science cannot know. For me belief is not sufficient.

Galileo would not agree with you there. His work on mechanincs was banned until 1835 and he wasn’t forgiven until 1992. I have yet to hear any explanation of why God chose to create humans via the evolutionary process and how that related to the Adam and Eve scenario.

None of that is true.

I have said many times that I cannot prove that supernature doesn’t exist. I accept that I cannot know what science doesn’t know and I am unconvinced by folk who claim to know simply because they believe they know.

We are not “Accidental machines”. Evolution by natural selection is NOT a “Random Process” it is a “DIRECTED” process.

How we came to be as we are is one of the “big questions” and I am very interested in it. Because I don’t rate God as a likelyhood, for me, the responsibility for answering the big questions lies with humans. Consequently, I am more interested in them than I was when I was a Catholic.

Emotel.

Evolution is not a directed process. The mutations have no way of knowing what affect they will have on the organism, and the selection aspect is a zigzag process that allows some to survive and some to die. But the problem is that selection does not occur in a static environment.

In a real, dynamic environment, the animals that were selected for longer for die in a landslide or a flood or in the middle of a fire or volcanic activity. They are killed by disease or other predators or a comet causes an ‘extinction event’ that may wipe out entire species. The possibility of evolution occurring? Quite low.

Peace,
Ed