Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[Stephen_LB]

Ya got me there. Can you explain the 2000 year pedigree?

Sure.

On the one hand, we could consider examples of those who, in greater or lesser degrees, stressed the importance of believing prior to observing/reasoning/presupposing. Some more recent examples are Johann Georg Hamann and Blaise Pascal. Pascal said something to the extent that one of the functions of reason is to “know when it ought to submit.” A milder version can be found Anselm’s theology, as he quotes Scripture’s warning that “The fool has said in his heart that there is no God.” Going back further in time, some assign this position to Tertullian, with his phrase, “I believe because it is absurd.” Many scholars, however, insist that he was being taken out of context and there are good reasons for believing that. The point is, there is a long history of those for whom faith comes first in priority AND in time. At its extreme it becomes the heresy of “fideism.”

On the other hand, there is a historical pattern that consists of those for whom faith requires “motives for credibility.” This school insists that faith must first pass the test of reason so that (for Christians) it may then illuminate reason. Some dramatic examples include Aristotle, beginning with an observation of nature and arguing for a “prime mover’:” Aquinas, using empirical evidence to prove the existence of God five ways; and of course, Paley, providing his famous analogy about observing a watch and inferring a watchmaker. What these approaches all have in common is their empirical approach. At its extreme, it becomes the error of “rationalism.”

These examples are imperfect and somewhat amplified, but I use them because the names are generally well known. The broader point is that Creation Science follows the first school, while Intelligent Design follows the second.

 

[drpmjhess]

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

What are you talking about, and what do you not understand? I never said anything about the physical sciences pondering he human soul! You haven’'t offered a shred of response.

 

[drpmjhess]

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

Moreover, you never answered my question:

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?

 

[edwest2]

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

Catholicism will be judged irrelevant by who? Secularists? And so what is the problem? There are aspects of the Catholic faith that are immutable. You appear to embrace modernism and to what end?

Peace,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Catholicism will be judged irrelevant by who? Secularists? And so what is the problem? There are aspects of the Catholic faith that are immutable. You appear to embrace modernism and to what end?Peace,Ed

Do you live in a vacuum, Ed, hermeitcally sealed off from the rest of the world? Do you not know that there are tremendous issues being discussed out there, which cry out for the participation of a Catholic voice, a voice which can engage modernity as an equal discussant? You remind me of the monks wandering along in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, singing “Pie Jesu Domine” and whacking themselves in the forehead with a board at every fifth step!

Get a grip, man! Catholicism cannot hole itself up in darkened cloisters and pretend that the modern world and its science don’t exist. We’ve got big issues coming down the pike, perhaps bigger even than stem cell research and cloning. Celera Genomics is poised to formulate artificial “life” from DNA sequences. Will you simply sit curled up in your cloister wreathed in incense while the secular world does as it wills? Or will you educate yourself to this world and its disturbing issues, and earn the credibility to have the Catholic voice heard and respected?

Petrus

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

In response to post 298 & 299. In what you refer to as the advance of science, I see as the pride of man trying to usurp God in the creation of another human being, i.e., cloning. As a Catholic, this is defined as serious sin, grave sin, mortal sin. I chose not to debate what is as of yet a proposed hypothetical result. I can only say that I pray to God that we never get there. This is as about as close as one can get to the original sin of Adam, in that we see the modern epitome of Pride. This is a slippery slope which I will not approach. I can only say, that for those attempting and for those encouraging this blasphemy, that all are in my prayers that they be enlightened with Truth.
Deacon Ed B

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Do you live in a vacuum, Ed, hermeitcally sealed off from the rest of the world? Do you not know that there are tremendous issues being discussed out there, which cry out for the participation of a Catholic voice, a voice which can engage modernity as an equal discussant? You remind me of the monks wandering along in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, singing “Pie Jesu Domine” and whacking themselves in the forehead with a board at every fifth step!

Get a grip, man! Catholicism cannot hole itself up in darkened cloisters and pretend that the modern world and its science don’t exist. We’ve got big issues coming down the pike, perhaps bigger even than stem cell research and cloning. Celera Genomics is poised to formulate artificial “life” from DNA sequences. Will you simply sit curled up in your cloister wreathed in incense while the secular world does as it wills? Or will you educate yourself to this world and its disturbing issues, and earn the credibility to have the Catholic voice heard and respected?

Petrus

I suppose there is a concern that when science postulates truths that appear to contradict dogma, it can shake people’s faith.

It also is frightening that Science in the 20th century has changed the way we live for the good; but also in monstrously evil ways, e.g. wars fueled by technology, an increase in man’s pride that he, not God, is the measure of all things.

Is Cloning is the deliberate deprivation of a human being of parents? Is artificial insemination now stopping parents who would adopt from adopting?

I think I need humility to approach these questions. I think science does, too. They need to be approached in an effort to do good.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If by being sealed off from the rest of the world as you say, means that I oppose abortion, euthanasia,cloning, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Then I pray God, please seal me in this vacuum of “so called ignorance”. I oppose all these with every fiber of my being. If as you say, that makes me one of the monks in Monty Pythons Circus, I willingly accept that title. For those who lack faith and a true understanding of what living that faith means, many things of the Church seem foolish. **Then call me a FOOL FOR CHRIST. ** When asked before if I was a Jesus freak, my reply was “God, I hope so.” Put me there with all your rhetoric. I accept it and bathe in it. If what this research lab is doing as you say, posed to create artificial life, their definition itself bespeaks a lack of reality. Why else would it be called artificial. Thank you. You remain in my prayers.
Deacon Ed B

 

[ricmat]

Amen to Deacon Ed B’s last 2 posts.

And one good reason we should NOT be participating in cloning, etc. is that there IS NO WAY for us to determine whether those beings have human souls. Of course, we would need to treat them as though they do, to be on the safe side.

God gave us a way to create new human life. When we do it our way instead, all bets are off.

 

[drpmjhess]

In response to post 298 & 299. In what you refer to as the advance of science, I see as the pride of man trying to usurp God in the creation of another human being, i.e., cloning. As a Catholic, this is defined as serious sin, grave sin, mortal sin. I chose not to debate what is as of yet a proposed hypothetical result. I can only say that I pray to God that we never get there. This is as about as close as one can get to the original sin of Adam, in that we see the modern epitome of Pride. This is a slippery slope which I will not approach. I can only say, that for those attempting and for those encouraging this blasphemy, that all are in my prayers that they be enlightened with Truth.
Deacon Ed B

I agree with your concerns about fearsome new biotechnologies, but I don’t agree that we should bury our heads in the sand as we approach the slippery slope. This is precisely where we need theologians and philosophers. Whether it is Celera Genomics or a company in Indonesia or Japan, and whether we want it or not, I have no doubt that humans will someday soon be cloned, and we need to be prepared to respond.

Should a priest who is approached about baptizing a cloned baby refuse to do so? Would this be a human baby, if it has human DNA? Would it have a soul?

 

[drpmjhess]

And one good reason we should NOT be participating in cloning, etc. is that there IS NO WAY for us to determine whether those beings have human souls. Of course, we would need to treat them as though they do, to be on the safe side.
.

ricmat, if all humans have souls, and cloned babies – or babies created artificially by genomic assembly – have human DNA, would they not have souls?

 

[itinerant1]

ricmat, if all humans have souls, and cloned babies – or babies created artificially by genomic assembly – have human DNA, would they not have souls?

Counter-question: Would the researchers who do the cloning have souls, even though they have human DNA?

There should be concern for whether scientists ‘retain’ their own souls, or, will they have tried to gain the whole world, but lose their own souls in the process?

And the serpent said to the scientists, “You will have your eyes opened and be as a gods, knowing both good and evil.”

It occurred to me as I was thinking about the sin of Adam being the sin of pride (per St. Augustine), how little things have changed with the generations. There is a sinful pride in wanting to dominate and control human life through science and techniques of cloning.

The figure of the serpent in the garden providing the temptation is appropriate to the situation. In the ancient Near East, the serpent was a symbol of the prevalent fertility cults. Even today, with cloning, it’s all about manipulating fertility.

 

[ricmat]

ricmat, if all humans have souls, and cloned babies – or babies created artificially by genomic assembly – have human DNA, would they not have souls?

Tell me, how will you actually determine that you have an absolutely correct answer to this question?

Do mice that have 10% human DNA have spiritual souls? How much human DNA is required? 60%? 80%? 99%?

How much human DNA do you need by your definition to be human?

The answer IS, that we don’t know, and we will never know for sure if babies created artificially by genomic assembly have spiritual souls (but we must assume that they do for the purpose of human rights, etc.)

What we DO know for sure is that babies conceived in the normal fashion do have human souls.

And we know that the church has spoken loudly against any forms of conception outside the normal fashion. Perhaps this is the reason why, even if the Church has not elucidated it in that manner.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Tell me, how will you actually determine that you have an absolutely correct answer to this question?

Do mice that have 10% human DNA have spiritual souls? How much human DNA is required? 60%? 80%? 99%?

How much human DNA do you need by your definition to be human?

The answer IS, that we don’t know, and we will never know for sure if babies created artificially by genomic assembly have spiritual souls (but we must assume that they do for the purpose of human rights, etc.)

What we DO know for sure is that babies conceived in the normal fashion do have human souls.

And we know that the church has spoken loudly against any forms of conception outside the normal fashion. Perhaps this is the reason why, even if the Church has not elucidated it in that manner.

The Church’s teaching on contraception is the most important of all the social teachings. Unfortunately, clerics and teachers have been silent when they should be shouting from the roof tops. Because they have been so busy taking the politically correct side of issues like immigration reform, capital punishment, and poverty, they have no time left to address the true cause of the culture of death. Artificial contraception always leads to abortion and destroys respect for life…The American Catholic Church has lost its way. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Do you live in a vacuum, Ed, hermeitcally sealed off from the rest of the world? Do you not know that there are tremendous issues being discussed out there, which cry out for the participation of a Catholic voice, a voice which can engage modernity as an equal discussant? You remind me of the monks wandering along in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, singing “Pie Jesu Domine” and whacking themselves in the forehead with a board at every fifth step!

Get a grip, man! Catholicism cannot hole itself up in darkened cloisters and pretend that the modern world and its science don’t exist. We’ve got big issues coming down the pike, perhaps bigger even than stem cell research and cloning. Celera Genomics is poised to formulate artificial “life” from DNA sequences. Will you simply sit curled up in your cloister wreathed in incense while the secular world does as it wills? Or will you educate yourself to this world and its disturbing issues, and earn the credibility to have the Catholic voice heard and respected?

Petrus

Catholic theology properly understood never conflicts with science properly understood. As Catholics, we have been liberated to pursue truth in all its forms. The Church’s magisterial teachings provide us with theological and moral “truths” that help us illuminate the “facts” of science and their social significance. At the same time, there is no reason to deny those facts, because we understand that truth is indivisible. If science seems to contradict Scripture, either we are misreading Scripture or else the science is misguided.

With this freedom comes the solemn responsibility to use good judgment, especially when we are trying to resolve an apparent conflict between theology and science. There are two dangers: [A] We can fall into superstition by ignoring an obvious fact and clinging to an over-literalist Biblical theology or ** We can fall into heresy by treating the provisional findings of science as if they were unadulterated fact even when they challenge The Church’s teachings. If [A] happens, we end up looking like a fool; if ** happens we end up losing our soul. Thus, we must proceed with great caution

Occasionally, not often, the Catholic Church will expound on a theological or moral truth that requires a complete submission of our intellect and will. This is another way of saying that the matter has been settled. When this happens, the conflict is over, meaning that an infallibly revealed truth is to be preferred over any provisional claim of science. We are supposed to be bringing the teachings of The Church into the world and not the other way around. If the Catholic Church speaks for Jesus Christ, then we should accept, follow, and promote its teachings. If it doesn’t speak for Jesus Christ, then we shouldn’t even give it the time of day.****

 

[ricmat]

Have any of you heard of the “Mandatum?” [may not be spelled correctly].

If so, what is it? A friend mentioned it to me, but I’m not sure he knew what it is either.

 

[edwest2]

Do you live in a vacuum, Ed, hermeitcally sealed off from the rest of the world? Do you not know that there are tremendous issues being discussed out there, which cry out for the participation of a Catholic voice, a voice which can engage modernity as an equal discussant? You remind me of the monks wandering along in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, singing “Pie Jesu Domine” and whacking themselves in the forehead with a board at every fifth step!

Get a grip, man! Catholicism cannot hole itself up in darkened cloisters and pretend that the modern world and its science don’t exist. We’ve got big issues coming down the pike, perhaps bigger even than stem cell research and cloning. Celera Genomics is poised to formulate artificial “life” from DNA sequences. Will you simply sit curled up in your cloister wreathed in incense while the secular world does as it wills? Or will you educate yourself to this world and its disturbing issues, and earn the credibility to have the Catholic voice heard and respected?

Petrus

What kind of respect are you looking for? I am glad theologians do not run the Catholic Church. You should read Humani Generis that warns against those seeking to “change” things out of a desire for novelty or who somehow believe that great and spiriti-filled minds have not dealt with the fundamental issues in the past.

I know what Celera is doing. I am following progress in nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. These things, what? Impress you? Frighten you? Why? All of the components of these emerging technologies will be evaluated and appropriately judged by the Catholic Church using the same simple criteria it has always used. Do these violate the integrity, life or will of the persons that may be affected by them? That’s it.

You sound like a negotiator sitting at a table somewhere. If I may:

“Hi. I’m from the Catholic Church. Let’s talk.”

“OK. But only if you agree with us that evolution is a fact.”

“Uh. OK.”

“And that gay marriage is perfectly fine.”

“Well, uh.”

“What was that?”

“I, uh, am open to the idea. Anything else?”

“Hey. We’ve got a list of things you’ve got to agree to before we’ll talk to anybody from uh, where did you say you’re from?”

“The Catholic Church.”

“Uh, wait. Are you the guys who don’t believe in blood transfusions? Uh (checks notes), no. Sorry. I got confused. We’ll be meeting with them tomorrow.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Artificial contraception always leads to abortion and destroys respect for life…The American Catholic Church has lost its way.

How does it always lead to death?

 

[drpmjhess]

Tell me, how will you actually determine that you have an absolutely correct answer to this question?

Do mice that have 10% human DNA have spiritual souls? How much human DNA is required? 60%? 80%? 99%?

How much human DNA do you need by your definition to be human?.

Excellent questions. A chaemera (e.g., human/chimp) that exhibited self-consciousness and moral responsibility and future awareness, and that could recite the Pater Noster, would seem to be possessed of soul.

 

[ricmat]

Excellent questions. A chaemera (e.g., human/chimp) that exhibited self-consciousness and moral responsibility and future awareness, and that could recite the Pater Noster, would seem to be possessed of soul.

And why would one even want to go there, except to play God?

We will define for ourselves not just what is good and evil, but even what is human and not, what is made in the image and likeness of God, and not.

God help us.