Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drpmjhess said:
Itinerant1, I agree with you about creatio continua in addition to creatio ex nhilo. However, I’m not convinced by your rather stark line of demarcation between beings that have free will and beings that don’t. Not all humans are mentally competent enough to have free will (e.g., anancephalic babies), and some animals – including the higher primates – clearly do exercise free will above the level of some humans.

Petrus
Click to expand...
Your question about free will was answered quite correctly by *The Deacon, *but I would like to also say that there is a distinction between free acts made by rational beings and the voluntary acts of higher animals.The acts of animals are voluntary in the sense that there is no external compulsion. The acts of animals originate with the animal’s instinct and cognitive abilities based on sense knowledge. The cognitive abilities of higher animals may include memory and an estimative power at the level of sense knowledge.

The voluntary acts of animals are radically different in kind from rational choices made by humans. Human acts that are free involve rational choice. The choice is self-caused. That is, the will is a self-causing power. The voluntary acts of animals do not rise to the level of knowledge and freedom exhibited in human acts. This is why the acts of animals are not moral acts. Animals act only according to their nature. If animals had reason and free will then the neighbor’s cat that raked my arm this afternoon when I tried to pet him needs to go to confession for his unjustified agression. What penance should the priest require of this feline?

On the other hand, since humans possess reason and free will, we can choose an act that is contrary to what is best for our human nature. This is what is meant by an immoral act.

Of course, many things can inhibit the exercise of free will, such as mental disorders, drug addiction, significant physical impairment, demonic possession, &c.
 
Namesake said:
Seriously, you don’t know about that stuff?

Do you know about the elephant and mirror studies?

Here is the first item I found in a Google search.

livescience.com/animals/061030_elephant_mirror.html
Click to expand...
And the elephant said, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest elephant of them all.”

Cognitively, animal self-recognition is not the same thing as human self-awareness. Ancient peoples often attributed human qualities to their gods. Moderns tend to attribute human qualities to non-rational animals. It’s becoming a question of which civilizations are more reasonable. The ancient anthropomorphisms about the gods lounging on Mount Olympus drinking apricot nectar all day long and getting into various and sundry kinds of mischief looks to be more reasonable and inviting than elephants looking into mirrors. But that is just my personal preference.

By the way, the existence and nature of the human spiritual soul can be proved by means of philosophical demonstration. Are you familiar with the philosophical distinction between universals and particulars?

Let me know if you have any background in traditional metaphysics as represented by the *philosophia perennis. *If so, I will proceed with arguments demonstrating the existence of the spiritual soul, as well as the radical difference in kind between human and higher animal cognitive abilities.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I will extend my answer from above. We believe the humans have a spiritual soul, because humans can act in a manner beyond physicality alone. Show me truth, justice, beauty, goodness, pride, things of this nature. You cannot, as they are immaterial concepts which man can understand. Since no one can do anything in a manner or plane in which they do not exist. Animals do not have this capacity in the essence of their being, man does. Thus rationality and spirituality. Immortality, I take on faith based in Jesus Christ, as his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection would have been needless if we do not have immortal souls…
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
So possession of an immortal soul is tied to having human DNA?
 
Possession of the immortal - rational human soul has to do with man and wife partnering with God in the creation of human life. I will not go on the slippery slope you are trying to lead me to.
Deacon Ed B
 
Think about the answer I gave you. If at first you don’t succeed in understanding the answer, try and try again. It should come to you.
Deacon Ed B
 
Here is a quote from an article on "Scientific Creationism, (About.com):

“The non-scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” is a common form of Scientific Creationism, and it is one which is particularly concerned with attempts to prove that certain aspects of our biological world could not possibly have developed by natural means.”

Is the statement above correct in its assertion that I.D. is a form of Scientific Creationism?
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Possession of the immortal - rational human soul has to do with man and wife partnering with God in the creation of human life. I will not go on the slippery slope you are trying to lead me to.Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Deacon B., I’m not leading you down a slippery slope. I’m trying to ascertain how we can interpret your theological anthropology in light of modern science. Anselm’s famous dictum that theology is faith seeking understanding" is as valid in 2008 as it was in the twelfth century. We refuse to engage in theology at our peril, and at the peril of Catholicism that will be judged irrelevant by those with whom we are in dialogue in an increasingly secular culture.

Theology is always an exercise in hermeneutics, or the translation of meaning for any given epoch. The Catholic faith is not self-evident or static, but is constantly being interpreted by theologians in light of the philosophy, science, and culture of the times in which it is embedded. Although the object of faith is always supra-rational and ultimately beyond the range of reason, the discussion of it is quite rational.

This is certainly true in the case of theological anthropology. The “soul” has been a part of Catholic theological discussion since the Early Church when the Apologists adopted Greek philosophical categories in order better to express certain Hebraic ideas to their Hellenistic audience in late antiquity. The task for theology today is to interpret the idea of “soul” in light of modern scientific understanding of what it means to be human. Essential to the scientific understanding of human beings is the science of genetics: without human DNA, we simply don’t have a human being. So in a theological context, it would seem that possession of a human immortal soul is ether predicated upon, or inseparable from, the possession of human DNA. Genetics is a necessary, if not a sufficient, foundation for ensoulment.

Petrus
 
drpmjhess said:
The task for theology today is to interpret the idea of “soul” in light of modern scientific understanding of what it means to be human. Essential to the scientific understanding of human beings is the science of genetics: without human DNA, we simply don’t have a human being. So in a theological context, it would seem that possession of a human immortal soul is ether predicated upon, or inseparable from, the possession of human DNA. Genetics is a necessary, if not a sufficient, foundation for ensoulment.

Petrus
Click to expand...
I like the Deacon’s answer. “…human soul has to do with man and wife partnering with God in the creation of human life.” There is no question that the baby that is produced is human. And we know it has human DNA (although that is just a side point). And the question of whether it has a soul or not is not dependent on DNA, it is dependent on how this baby came to be.

The only reason I can think of that anyone would ask about “what is human” is if they are monkeying around with human DNA for the purpose of creating clones, chimeras, hybrids, or are doing research to these ends. I thought that the Church had declared these activities to be off-limits both on the grounds that (up to now) human embryos were unwilling victims of the experimentation, AND that the result of any such diddling would result in a being with an unclear moral status - “Is it a human being, or not?”
 
drpmjhess said:
Deacon B., I’m not leading you down a slippery slope. I’m trying to ascertain how we can interpret your theological anthropology in light of modern science. Anselm’s famous dictum that theology is faith seeking understanding" is as valid in 2008 as it was in the twelfth century. We refuse to engage in theology at our peril, and at the peril of Catholicism that will be judged irrelevant by those with whom we are in dialogue in an increasingly secular culture.

Theology is always an exercise in hermeneutics, or the translation of meaning for any given epoch. The Catholic faith is not self-evident or static, but is constantly being interpreted by theologians in light of the philosophy, science, and culture of the times in which it is embedded. Although the object of faith is always supra-rational and ultimately beyond the range of reason, the discussion of it is quite rational.

This is certainly true in the case of theological anthropology. The “soul” has been a part of Catholic theological discussion since the Early Church when the Apologists adopted Greek philosophical categories in order better to express certain Hebraic ideas to their Hellenistic audience in late antiquity. The task for theology today is to interpret the idea of “soul” in light of modern scientific understanding of what it means to be human. Essential to the scientific understanding of human beings is the science of genetics: without human DNA, we simply don’t have a human being. So in a theological context, it would seem that possession of a human immortal soul is ether predicated upon, or inseparable from, the possession of human DNA. Genetics is a necessary, if not a sufficient, foundation for ensoulment.

Petrus
Click to expand...
In the case of Homo sapiens, we can say that the substantial form, which is the rational soul, is present at the moment of conception. In scientific terms of DNA, then one asks themselves what is it genetically that occurs at the moment of conception. It is during this physical event that the non-physical, rational soul is directly created by God and informs matter.

That is my short answer. My long answer is more precise and rather technical, being worded for those familiar with Aristotle’s De Anima and subsequent Thomistic works on the soul.
 
itinerant1 said:
In the case of Homo sapiens, we can say that the substantial form, which is the rational soul, is present at the moment of conception. In scientific terms of DNA, then one asks themselves what is it genetically that occurs at the moment of conception. It is during this physical event that the non-physical, rational soul is directly created by God and informs matter…
Click to expand...
What would be the ontological status of a human being with a genome created entirely outside the usual context of sexual generation, Craig Venter of Celera Genomics may be close to genetically sequencing the genome of, and producing, an organism by purely mechanico-chemical means.

(1) If he could sequence a human genome, insert the DNA molecule into an enucleated egg, and bring to term a baby that was in all genetic and phenotypic respects like any other baby, would that baby have a soul?

(2) If so, would that soul have been infused by God into the blastocyst in the test tube?
 
itinerant1 said:
Here is a quote from an article on "Scientific Creationism, (About.com):

“The non-scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” is a common form of Scientific Creationism, and it is one which is particularly concerned with attempts to prove that certain aspects of our biological world could not possibly have developed by natural means.”

Is the statement above correct in its assertion that I.D. is a form of Scientific Creationism?
Click to expand...
As is evident from the author’s comment and your response to it, it is very difficult to avoid the topic of intelligent design. As I pointed out earlier, anyone who uses the term “creationism” is choosing to be imprecise in order to further some agenda… Creation science begins with a presupposition and seeks to harmonize science with faith. Intelligent design begins with an observation and makes in inference to the best explanation.

In spite of Brother Ed’s contention that this thread is not about intelligent design, it is clear that this is exactly what it is about. I gather, for example, that Father Coyle wrote the original article using the term “creationism,” when he was alluding to intelligent design. The idea is to lmuddy the debate waters by linking CS and ID together as if they were one and the same. I
 
Stephen_LB said:
The idea is to lmuddy the debate waters by linking CS and ID together as if they were one and the same. I
Click to expand...
Well, they aren’t exactly one and the same but they are parts of a whole. Are you familiar with the wedge strategy?
 
Namesake said:
Well, they aren’t exactly one and the same but they are parts of a whole. Are you familiar with the wedge strategy?
Click to expand...
Sure, the wedge strategy is an attempt to change the culture. That has nothing to do with the methodology. CS is faith-based while ID is empircally based. Each has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years.
 
Stephen_LB said:
Sure, the wedge strategy is an attempt to change the culture. That has nothing to do with the methodology. CS is faith-based while ID is empircally based. Each has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years.
Click to expand...
Ya got me there. Can you explain the 2000 year pedigree?
 
In response to post 288, you got it exactly backwards my friend. The physical sciences can never ponder the eloquence of the human soul. It is because of the human soul that the physical sciences can ponder the physical world around them.
Deacon Ed B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top