Theistic Evolution?

[Namesake]

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

But evolution does occur because of the three necessary ingredients. replication, mutation, and competition. Natural events like landslides don’t necessarily wipe out entire gene pools, and they are relatively rare events. Your scenario is flawed because we know that for the most part we observe successful competition leading to reproduction which mostly immortalizes the genes. That leads to replication, mutation, and competition all over again.

 

[edwest2]

Then we are programmed by our genes and environment. Biological machines whose only purpose is to successfully reproduce. This scenario is bankrupt since it does not include a connection to the one who made us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[archiecs2007]

if you believe it/that, do you think you are a preprogram being?

how do you see your freedom?

the moment that you started asking and thinking of God and other things beyond you that is already an indicator of a free and non-programmed being. isn’t it?

 

[edwest2]

No. The ruling thought, according to Evolutionary Psychology, is all of our abstract thoughts are just neurons firing, nothing more. Religion? An evolutionary survival mechanism given to us by our genes, nothing more.

May the Lord, Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Then we are programmed by our genes and environment. Biological machines whose only purpose is to successfully reproduce. This scenario is bankrupt since it does not include a connection to the one who made us.

Peace,
Ed

I didn’t say what you said.

The scenario isn’t bankrupt at all. You seem to want a unified theory and it just doesn’t exist, yet.

Barbarian claims that science cannot address the idea of God. He might be right, but I think maybe science is far enough along to begin addressing the idea of God.

There probably isn’t any purpose for our existence in a biological sense.

Nevertheless, biological evolution doesn’t depend on any supernatural constructs. It’s just science, but it is very powerful science and accepted by almost all scientists the world over because it is so elegant.

 

[edwest2]

Are you perhaps surprised on a Catholic forum that you are getting answers from a Catholic perspective? The Catholic Church teaches that God was intimately involved in the development of life on earth. No need to keep bringing up how the supernatural is beyond science’s ability to detect. The Church has divine revelation that is just as factual as any scientific knowledge.

The only problem here is when some go into theology or philosophy and basically say, I don’t care what your Pope thinks, the evidence doesn’t support it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Are you perhaps surprised on a Catholic forum that you are getting answers from a Catholic perspective? The Catholic Church teaches that God was intimately involved in the development of life on earth. No need to keep bringing up how the supernatural is beyond science’s ability to detect. The Church has divine revelation that is just as factual as any scientific knowledge.

The only problem here is when some go into theology or philosophy and basically say, I don’t care what your Pope thinks, the evidence doesn’t support it.

God bless,
Ed

I’m surprised how resistant some people are to science. And if the Church has facts about divine revelation that are up to the level of scrutiny that science must face then maybe it’s time to subject religion to scientific inquiry.

 

[PaulDupre]

Are you perhaps surprised on a Catholic forum that you are getting answers from a Catholic perspective? The Catholic Church teaches that God was intimately involved in the development of life on earth. No need to keep bringing up how the supernatural is beyond science’s ability to detect. The Church has divine revelation that is just as factual as any scientific knowledge.

The only problem here is when some go into theology or philosophy and basically say, I don’t care what your Pope thinks, the evidence doesn’t support it.

God bless,
Ed

That’s right. Pope JPII’s brilliant encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith And Reason) puts to rest the idea that science and religion are incompatible.

 

[emotel]

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

I don’t like to define my position by a term that expresses what it is not. I’m a “Humanist”. A person who thinks that responsibility for the state of the world lies with humans.
a priori:

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

The probability of a creator might be high but that doesn’t explain how the creator came to be or anything about his nature and motives. Belief in a good God is, for many if not all, just wishful thinking. Belief is not enough because many things that are not so can be believed. Hence the many different faiths throughout history.
a priori:

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

It wasn’t a consequence for me because I have, as yet, been unable to make sense of what I have been taught and have learned about religion. If I am to return to the fold then faith must now come first. That doesn’t seem to be happening.
a priori:

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.

Consider a seagull alighting on a rock on a beach and compare the organisational complexity of these two things. The rock is the plausible outcome of “matter plus time plus chance” the seagull however, is vastly more complex. It is superbly adapted to its environment. It could not have arrived at its position in complexity space “By chance”. It could only have got there via a directed pathway.

Cumulative Natural Selection provides that pathway by directing the evolution of a breeding population towards local peaks in the fitness landscape in which reproducers are reproduced.

That is why birds can fly and fish can live underwater etc.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

But evolution does occur because of the three necessary ingredients. replication, mutation, and competition. Natural events like landslides don’t necessarily wipe out entire gene pools, and they are relatively rare events. Your scenario is flawed because we know that for the most part we observe successful competition leading to reproduction which mostly immortalizes the genes. That leads to replication, mutation, and competition all over again.

Exactly so. Here’s how Darwin said just that in 1859.
Charles Darwin:

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

I’m surprised how resistant some people are to science. And if the Church has facts about divine revelation that are up to the level of scrutiny that science must face then maybe it’s time to subject religion to scientific inquiry.

Well said!

Emotel.

 

[buffalo]

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[emotel]

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

Well sad!

(These damn point mutations get everywhere )

Emotel

 

[emotel]

It’s an extremely important point. .

Well I started with the notion that LG 14 was very clear and that it didn’t need much by way of “interpretation”. Indeed, it is itself an interpretation of the scriptural verses it references. I now see that if you want it to mean the opposite of what it seems to mean then you have to “interpret” it very carefully.

I did consider it necessary to research “Baptism” to make sure that I fully understood what you were saying. That research merely confirmed that all forms of baptism require “explicit” faith and belief in Christ. Consequently the multiplicity of forms of “baptism” isn’t an issue here. But wait!

You still haven’t said which form of Baptism Muslims receive.

No, he did not. One more time…
.

So now you are saying (maybe you said it before but it didn’t register) that when I or a Muslim specifically declare that we do not believe that Christ was the son of God and reject membership of the church then there is some implicit mechanism that causes that to mean exactly the opposite of what it seems to mean. (Being a Logician, I don’t feel in anyway guilty for not spotting that before ).

That sounds like logical nonsense-land to me. But then if God does exist and is all powerful then he can clearly sweep aside anything that mere mortal think and do his own thing. If that’s how it is then we don’t need to bother with religion because it clearly isn’t necessary and nor is belief in Christ or his supposed role as saviour of the human race.

Hmmm… maybe that solves my personal dilemmas .

As you sure you **really **mean that?

… and they are entirely capable of accepting the divine gift while not having a belief in Christ.

Yes you **ARE **sure. Unless, of course, there’s an implicit mechanism at work that makes what you said there mean exactly the opposite.

Are you **REALLY **sure?

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 - …

I love logic! I live by it! People pay me real money to find logical flaws in supposedly high integrity logical systems. I thought I was good at it.

Because you apparently don’t understand what ‘implicit’ means in this context.

OK but am I learning? As I explained above my perception now is that, in Catholic circles, (and they do seem to move in circles) “implicit” means:- “irrespective of anything the people involved think, say or do in relation to Christ and the Church” - right?

They do not require faith in the way you describe… But the same holds if you’re a protestant, or anglican, or eastern orthodox.

Hmm… You list Christian denominations. I have no religion at all and the Muslims are not Christian. Does this mean that “true good” or “righteousness” are um… implicit references to Christianity?

If so then who says that Christianity has the right to highjack goodness and honesty? Not me. Not my Muslim friends.

When a man strives to do true good, he implicitly strives to do the work of God regardless of what he believes.

Yep! That’s the hijack scenario. I suppose you can be forgiven for that because you believe that goodness comes only from the Christian God. I reject that notion because I know where goodness really comes from. However, it does mean that Christ and the Church are unnecessary.

Strange that this all started with LG 14 which tries very hard to established with scriptural warrant that the church is indispensably necessary. JPII then abrogates ( a great Muslim word Qur’an wise) that by defining “implicit” to mean “(irrespective …etc.).

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

Gosh! A compliment that any logician would crave! Why thank you kind sir. I feel a need to respond in kind kind (sic).

We obviously disagree on many things but we are communicating in a highly civilised manner. You have even forgiven me for insulting you babble wise. I thank you for that.

IBut 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.

I now read that as meaning that when I or a Muslim say “I reject the idea that Christ is the son of God” the implicit hijack cuts in to make that mean “Because I am a good guy I really accept that Christ is the son of God so he can save me, the church can say that it is necessary, and I have been baptised water-wise but that’s ok because “know” really means “believe” so I won’t be more severely judged after all. - phew!

… But wait!

My Muslim friend hasn’t been baptised? ……

Or is a visit to Mecca an implicit baptism ?

I’m now wondering if the folk running the railways are implicit fascists? Mussolini was famous for making the trains run on time and he was nearly as good as Hitler at hijacking things. - but I jest. Hmmm… or do I?

Exactly what the Church takes it to mean.

Ah! I’m tuning in here now. I ask what John 3:18 means in your view and you give me an “implicit” answer. You say that it means whatever the Church wants it to mean.

Humpty Dumpty used to do that kind of thing and every Friday he would call the words together an pay them according to how well they had worked for him during the week. Did you know that Lewis Carroll was a satirical logician?

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

So, in Logician speak, a trip to Mecca = Baptism then ?

Gosh! The Muslim have faith in the idea that Jesus was NOT the son fo God. They regard the “mystery” of the trinity as heresy against the principle of “One True God” so the Holy Spirit is rejected as well.

… the Church accepts more than explicit water baptism - and has complete logical breadth to accept baptism for those who implicitly, not explicitly, desire Christ.

Gosh! My joke about a visit to Mecca being implicit baptism hit the nail on the head! Gosh again!

Your claims about what understanding the Church has of the bible have been shown to be flawed.

Well yes? I came here because even after 15 years of intense religious education in my distant youth I couldn’t form a logically coherent picture of the Church’s understanding. That hasn’t changed as yet and I am beginning to suspect that I know why.

All you have is 'I say it’s a contradiction, so even if you show but that reduces the conversation to monotony.

I’m sad that you are finding this conversation monotonous - I find it exciting. Ah! but I know from what you have said that you do too. I can read the implicit signs

poor grasp of logic, and mistaking mantra for argument.

Phew! Good job that I’m an implicit Christian then.

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

Gosh! ( why do I keep saying that?) Could it be that you have never encountered someone with a genuinely open mind who professes honesty and integrity and practices what he preaches? Many people who know me well have remarked on those aspect of my character. One wag said that I was clearly a “Catholic Humanist” because my moral code was the result of my Catholic Childhood.

They say that my very occasional consideration of my eternal fate and the factors that condition it borders on obsession. I reply that eternity is a very, very long time an a few mortal milliseconds per year is not an unreasonable amount of time to spend pondering the matter and that which continues to echo from my childhood in the, some say, emptyness of my head.

At least your offerings have shown why the Church regards some non-believers to simply be invincibly ignorant.

You strike a chord with me there. Many years ago my Biological Father met my Catholic Father in the street and was told that “I was so stupid that I could not be educated”. The encounter resulted in a long standing running joke in my family the current version of which comes from my son who, like me, is a graduate engineer ( I have an Honours Degree in Mathematical Physics from London University) . He tells people that he is still waiting to see if I’m going to be a late developer.

Emotel

 

[a_priori]

Consider a seagull alighting on a rock on a beach and compare the organisational complexity of these two things. The rock is the plausible outcome of “matter plus time plus chance” the seagull however, is vastly more complex. It is superbly adapted to its environment. It could not have arrived at its position in complexity space “By chance”. It could only have got there via a directed pathway.

Is there something in between “chance” and a prescient agent that can bring about the seagull? A “directed pathway” necessarily presupposes something/someone pointing the way with foreknowledge of the objective….or you have chance.

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

BTW, particle physics is fraught with paradox and contradiction.

 

[emotel]

Is there something in between “chance” and a prescient agent that can bring about the seagull?

That word “someTHING” is an interesting one philosophically. Is inflation ( the economic kind) a “thing?” Is the Theorem of Pythagoras a “thing”? Is the summer a “thing”?

Is “Natural Selection” a “thing”. I think not, it is “a Process” and it, in assocation with many other aspects of nature, can, and did, bring about the existence of the seagull.

A “directed pathway” necessarily presupposes something/someone pointing the way with foreknowledge of the objective….or you have chance.

Chance is not an option. The seagull’s position in complexity space is well beyond the reach of chance.

Consider this. The seagull is more aerodynamic than an elephant and has a power/weight ratio that is compatible with flight. These aspects represent peaks in the fitness landscape of an organism that survives by being able to fly. Natural selection directs the evolution of the species towards those peaks. This adaptation happens because individuals who are closer to the peaks have a relative survival advantage.

BTW, particle physics is fraught with paradox and contradiction.

Yes I know fascinating isn’t it. Maybe we should call it the “Decoherent principle of freedom from contradiction” Anyway, a principle can still be important even when it isn’t universal.

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Lumen Gentium 14 points out that the Church bases its teaching on scripture and “tradition“. By their very nature, scientific discoveries introduce a need to look very carefully at concepts that are held in place by the forces of tradition. The obvious reason for this is that prior to their discovery, advances in scientific understanding could not have figured in the establishment and maintenance of any traditional concept or principle.

The Theory of Biological Evolution is such an advance in understanding and it delivers enormous explanatory power regarding life on our Planet. It paints a very different picture from that depicted in Genesis where Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and committed the original sin.

In his encyclical Ratio des Fides, Pope John Paul II delivers strong reinforcement of the traditional story when he says this:
Pope 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.

But does this make sense when we examine it in the light of our modern scientific perspectives?

If Adam and Eve were created as adults then they would have been denied their childhoods during which they would have had the opportunity to learn and experience the consequences of their actions. But, anyway, who could they learn from? That must mean that their attitudes and moral instincts must have been created by God and implanted in theiir minds. So how can they be held responsible for those attitudes?

Could that talk to each other using language? If not then how could they formulate and discuss moral issues. They had no experience of evil or decption. In our modern age, such people would be easy prey to con-artists, smooth talking salespeople and the proverbial second-hand car dealers. But they didn’t encounter mere mortal tricksters, they were pitted against the Prince of darkness who, or so it is believed, could call on supernatural powers to achieve his ends.

Little wonder that Adam and Eve were outwitted. And even if they weren’t why are they to blame for their approach to life when their attitudes were placed in their minds by God?

And was it not God who allowed Satan to operate in the Garden of Eden?

So how can the cosmic levels of vengeance visited on Adam and Eve and the entire human race be either just of compatible with the notion of a loving God? It makes no sense.

The evolutionary model of how humans appeared on our planet does make sense. It offers explanatory power and evidence. The contrast with Genesis is dramatic. Did language and morals evolve in the way that Evolutionary Psychology is now unravelling or where Adam and Eve fluent linguists capable of discussing the abstract concepts of obedience, deception and morality?

When the light of scientific scrutiny is turned on Genesis, many such puzzles and mysteries appear. If the story is just a metaphor then that is to be expected. However, because of the relationship with the dogmas of original sin and the consequential necessity of Baptism and the Church, there are very strong forces holding the traditional story in place.

This results in a serious “muddle” regarding the historical aspects of the Adam and Eve story and the consequential array of deep philosophical questions of the kind described above.

Maybe its time for the tradition to be laid to rest in favour of a more logical perspective.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

But does this make sense when we examine it in the light of our modern scientific perspectives?

Supposedly, science cannot speak about the nature of God or the effects of His supernatural power so it doesn’t make sense to use modern scientific perspectives to understand such things.

If Adam and Eve were created as adults then they would have been denied their childhoods during which they would have had the opportunity to learn and experience the consequences of their actions.

They were told by their creator to observe his law. Their minds were not affected by the same kind of ignorance that was the result of original sin – so they knew the consequences of sin.

But, anyway, who could they learn from?

From God.

That must mean that their attitudes and moral instincts must have been created by God and implanted in theiir minds.
So how can they be held responsible for those attitudes?

It’s not their attitudes that are the problem but their free choice to disobey God. They were given some freedom of choice and they used it in the wrong way. So they are responsible for their own choice.

Could that talk to each other using language? If not then how could they formulate and discuss moral issues.

The discussion of moral issues was irrelevant in their state of sanctification – since that kind of discussion involves the nature of sin and sin did not exist for them yet.

They had no experience of evil or decption. In our modern age, such people would be easy prey to con-artists, smooth talking salespeople and the proverbial second-hand car dealers. But they didn’t encounter mere mortal tricksters, they were pitted against the Prince of darkness who, or so it is believed, could call on supernatural powers to achieve his ends.

They had the grace and spiritual wisdom of the greatest saints. There was no sin to cloud their judgement, but they did have the capability to choose against God.

Little wonder that Adam and Eve were outwitted. And even if they weren’t why are they to blame for their approach to life when their attitudes were placed in their minds by God?

Again, it’s not their approach to life (although I’m not sure what that means precisely) but their choice to disobey God. They were given a simple command to obey and they did face a challenge and they turned against God to pursue their own interest. It’s been that way for human beings ever since.

Adam and Eve were punished, but there is a tradition that teaches that they were not condemned to hell because they repented and were forgiven.

So how can the cosmic levels of vengeance visited on Adam and Eve and the entire human race be either just of compatible with the notion of a loving God? It makes no sense.

God gave humanity a chance to experience freedom. The choice for God comes amid much opposition – in some cases, to the point of martyrdom. For those who find God (fighting against a self-orientation) it’s a daily choice to live at the deepest level for him. In some ways, God’s love and care is so obvious that a denial of it, in justice, must come with the most severe punishment. With all the gifts Adam and Eve were given (the gift of life itself is overwhelming), how could they choose against God? The command was simple and clear. They were deceived because they didn’t appreciate God’s love. The punishment they endured made them appreciate what God really had given them.

This remains true for all of us still. What God gives us is worth more than any amount of money can buy – it’s worth even more than our own life. The gift is the pearl of great price that the man sells everything he has to purchase. It has a value that is so overwhelming, that no human being can ever appreciate it to a small degree.

But it takes some effort to glimpse that gift. One has to put aside inner distractions and truly seek God. Over time, one will gain a glimpse of the Gift that he has for us – and that is himself. To gain even a glimpse of God for one second would be something worth more than can be described.

The evolutionary model of how humans appeared on our planet does make sense. It offers explanatory power and evidence.

I don’t think it makes sense at all, myself.

The contrast with Genesis is dramatic.

I agree.

Maybe its time for the tradition to be laid to rest in favour of a more logical perspective.

Personally, I think the evolutionary mythology should be set aside before one approaches philosophy and theology in a reasonable manner. Darwinian theory has no category for the supernatural so it cannot provide an adequate critique of Christian theology.

 

[emotel]

Hi reggieM,

Thanks for your response.

reggieM:

Supposedly, science cannot speak about the nature of God or the effects of His supernatural power so it doesn’t make sense to use modern scientific perspectives to understand such things.

The scientific method was developed to improve our ability to understand the real world and the logical relationships between events and effects. Reality (Outside the quantum realm) “hangs together” remarkably well and when we say “makes sense” we mean that our model of a situation is relatively free from contradiction and paradox.

It follows that we can use the scientific perspective in our attempts to understand anything at all. Put another way, we use it to determine if the information we have hangs together with our scientific model of reality.

Conversely, if we don’t use the principles of logic and freedom from contradiction then we leave more doors open for error and misconception to enter into our thinking.

reggieM:

They were told by their creator to observe his law. Their minds were not affected by the same kind of ignorance that was the result of original sin – so they knew the consequences of sin.

They were as Children with no experience of the world and being tempted by ultimate evil
with supernatural powers of deception. If our children disobey us and take sweets from strange men etc. then we admonish them sure but we don’t visit cosmic vengeance on them and their descendents! If the strange man was dressed as a policeman, a doctor or any other figure that we had taught our children to respect then we would not blame the child for not seeing through the deception.

reggieM:

It’s not their attitudes that are the problem but their free choice to disobey God. They were given some freedom of choice and they used it in the wrong way. So they are responsible for their own choice.

If the serpent was able to deceive them into thinking that they would benefit by disobeying God then their understanding of the situation was clearly flawed. They had been deceived into thinking that they could benefit by eating the forbidden fruit. They had never encountered deliberate deception before ( let alone the supernaturally empowered kind) so how could they be expected to see through it?

The advertising industry has long known that people make decision of the basis of the information they have and the degree to which they consider what’s on offer to be “fashionable”. It is reasonable to suppose that Satan would know that and be well able to distort Adam and Eve’s perception of reality so that when they exercised their “free will” they did what he wanted them to do. Good detective fiction does that kind of thing all the time and we love it.

reggieM:

The discussion of moral issues was irrelevant in their state of sanctification – since that kind of discussion involves the nature of sin and sin did not exist for them yet.

But doesn’t that mean they never had any opportunity at all to think about morality and discuss it with others? They would have known less than a modern 3 year old child when they met the supernatural serpent deceiver.

But what language did they speak, if any, and how did they learn it?

reggieM:

They had the grace and spiritual wisdom of the greatest saints. There was no sin to cloud their judgement, but they did have the capability to choose against God.

What you say there reads like a contradiction for me. There were no “saints” and we would not call a modern human who’s judgement was totally uninformed by any knowledge of sin and it effects “wise”. We would call them “childlike” in their naive innocence.

We have to teach children that they cannot do whatever they wish to do because it may cause harm to others. In short, we have to teach them about “sin” so that they can make proper judgements in the light of possible consequences of their actions.

And of course, at least in retrospect, disobeying God was anything but a wise act and the mental faculties and lack of information in their heads were put their by God at the point of creation and not honed and conditioned by normal childhoods. God also knew about Satan because he created him and allowed him to operate in the Garden of Eden.

So how can the naive childlike Adam and Eve be to blame for a sin worthy of cosmic levels of vengeance?

reggieM:

In some ways, God’s love and care is so obvious that a denial of it, in justice, must come with the most severe punishment.

Well, I for one can’t see any “obvious” evidence of God’s love and care? So you are saying that I need to be “most severe punished” (rather than educated) for that. That claim is, in itself, hardly evidence of a loving God?

reggieM:

With all the gifts Adam and Eve were given (the gift of life itself is overwhelming), how could they choose against God? The command was simple and clear. They were deceived because they didn’t appreciate God’s love. The punishment they endured made them appreciate what God really had given them.

Well I have a lot of sympathy with them there (as explained above) and in spite of 15 years of Catholic Education, I am unable to see the God idea as being a credible model of reality. I don’t control what I believe and I can’t see why I should be severely punished for something that I don’t control.

reggieM:

God. Over time, one will gain a glimpse of the Gift that he has for us – and that is himself.

That hasn’t happened for me. The deeper I look the more inconsistencies and contradictions I find. When considering science, the opposite happens, the picture gets larger and more awesome. The scientific model of reality hands together remarkably well and the religious model falls apart at the seams.

reggieM:

Personally, I think the evolutionary mythology should be set aside before one approaches philosophy and theology in a reasonable manner. Darwinian theory has no category for the supernatural so it cannot provide an adequate critique of Christian theology.

But we, like Adam and Eve have a choice. If we can show that Darwinian theory is Myth rather than Science then we should do that and become really famous scientists. If we claim it is myth because we don’t understand it and want it to be false then we bear false witness against our scientific neighbours.

Is that why, to it’s credit, the Catholic Church does not reject Darwinian science and what the concept of “Theistic Evolution” has been formulated?
reggirM:

I don’t think it makes sense at all, myself.

Since the essence of Darwin’s great idea remains a cornerstone of modern evolutionary science 150 years after he published his work, it has survived more than the whole of 20th Century science. That’s quite an impressive qualification which probably means that it is your understanding that is at fault rather than the theory. If that is the case you should refrain from bearing false witness and look to improving your understanding.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

Emotel,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I would like to try to have this conversation without personal insults or attacks on the moral quality of the person so I apologize if I’ve offered any. To state that I’m guilty of bearing false witness because I question the value of Darwinian theory seems to be saying that my opinions are sinful.

I would jump ahead and rephrase your quote that seems similar:

Well, I for one can’t see any “obvious” evidence of God’s love and care? So you are saying that I need to be “most severe punished” (rather than educated) for that.

For myself, I cannot see that Darwinian theory is correct or true. For that, you are saying that I’m committing a sin of false witness (and am therefore deserving of whatever punishment you feel sin deserves)?

For you, Darwinian theory is obviously correct. For me, belief in God is supported by obvious evidence. It should be enough that this is a difference of opinion and leave it at that.

The scientific method was developed to improve our ability to understand the real world and the logical relationships between events and effects. Reality (Outside the quantum realm) “hangs together” remarkably well and when we say “makes sense” we mean that our model of a situation is relatively free from contradiction and paradox…

There’s an assumption here that “reality” is something that does not contain contradiction and paradox. In other words, there’s a belief that reality can explained fully through the use of human logic. This is a reduction of the universe to scientific and logical human constructs – and a reduction of the mystery of human life itself to logical categories.

I can’t see where science has proven that all of reality can be fitted to logical or mathematical models. I can see where “materialist philosophy” insists that this “must” be the case, but that is a denial of the supernatural a priori.

Logic and human sciences are limited tools. If God exists in the traditional Catholic teaching of Him, then those tools are not adequate to the task of understanding the universe and reality.

But again, I have not seen that science has proven that all of reality can be understood with through the use of logic. A philosophical question is why that should be the case, if it is.

It follows that we can use the scientific perspective in our attempts to understand anything at all.

It’s one means, but some will insist that it is the only means of understanding anything. That’s where I would object.

Conversely, if we don’t use the principles of logic and freedom from contradiction then we leave more doors open for error and misconception to enter into our thinking.

But we also leave the doors open for truths that logic and non-contradiction block-off or obscure.

Christ made it very clear that reality requires the embrace of paradox and contradiction. He teaches that reality is based on paradox – and that God designed it as such for a reason. Using tools that cut-off the possibility that paradox is inherent in the nature of reality is to limit one’s discoveries – and is to make it impossible to fully understand reality (or to understand the teachings of Christ, for example).

They were as Children with no experience of the world and being tempted by ultimate evil with supernatural powers of deception.

Yes, but you might be overstating the supernatural powers of evil in this case, since mankind is weakened by sin and evil has more power over us now. Adam and Eve had more power over evil in their condition of sanctification. Again, the great Catholic saints show this – in the face of temptations or Satanic assaults, they rise above them sometimes very easily. Their greatest obstacles are their own weaknesses rather than Satan’s strengths.

If our children disobey us and take sweets from strange men etc. then we admonish them sure but we don’t visit cosmic vengeance on them and their descendents!

Certainly, that’s true. But I think we should look at that example more carefully. I’ll come back to this in a later post.

If the strange man was dressed as a policeman, a doctor or any other figure that we had taught our children to respect then we would not blame the child for not seeing through the deception.

I can understand your view and how this seems to be an injustice by God. But I would ask, “in what case would a parent blame their child for something?”

If the serpent was able to deceive them into thinking that they would benefit by disobeying God then their understanding of the situation was clearly flawed. They had been deceived into thinking that they could benefit by eating the forbidden fruit. They had never encountered deliberate deception before ( let alone the supernaturally empowered kind) so how could they be expected to see through it?

Again, I find this very good. But I also think that we need to consider St. Augstine’s phrase, “Felix culpa” – or “O happy fault”. He was happy that Adam and Eve sinned because it gave humanity a chance to see God’s love poured out to overflowing in Christ’s sacrifice. Without the sin, we would not have known.

Without the risk, would there really be any possiblity of achievement?

So, the “cosmic vengence” is an expression of justice. It’s the necessary balance that is part of God’s creation. We all have a chance to be a part of that justice and mercy. There’s more to this that I’ll post later.

The advertising industry has long known that people make decision of the basis of the information they have and the degree to which they consider what’s on offer to be “fashionable”. It is reasonable to suppose that Satan would know that and be well able to distort Adam and Eve’s perception of reality so that when they exercised their “free will” they did what he wanted them to do.

Again, an excellent point that deserves a good response.

I’ll come back later – thanks again for an insightful post.