T
tjm190
Guest
Someone who accepted evolution would deny the idea of a literal Adam and Eve
<------
- Status
<------
M
Matthias123
Guest
Ah! Touchstone! Many times I do believe you are a flower of reason in the meadow of sanity, surrounded by the so unfortunately vast swamp absurdity. Lets skim through this:
Internation Theological commision:
Personally I would be very disappointed if the fundamentalist creationist, by some fluke happened to be correct. There is something so unsatisfying about the blunt traditional actions of creation. It doesn’t sit right with me, and the more that I look at biology, and the more I look at the natural world, the more I explore the realms of cosmology, astronomy and philosophy, I see how fitting that species would be ordered in this way.
Actually you are almost 40 years behind the times. Monogenism did run into problems and polygenism has been reconciled with the doctrin of Original sin. Actually all of all theology now presumes polygenism. Now many people do not know this, but that is because they have read the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis and have not read any other documents pertaining to this. Although we were bound by religious obedience in the 1950s to not advance these ideas because in light of revealed doctrine we thought they were in error, but by 1969 the theologians started to say that there is not really a conflict. By the 1990s the probelms were resolved and now in 2004 our posistion is this:
Internation Theological commision:
Later in the same document (for Ed’s sake)
That is true, but since there is no conflict I would assert this shift towards a godless paradigm is rather illusionary, when viewed from a proper theological and teleological standpoint. Further there is a majestic and beauty of the natural evolution of species that I think aesthetically can give one a greater appreciation for the complexities of the plan of creation, and thus inspire greater awe in the Creator.
Personally I would be very disappointed if the fundamentalist creationist, by some fluke happened to be correct. There is something so unsatisfying about the blunt traditional actions of creation. It doesn’t sit right with me, and the more that I look at biology, and the more I look at the natural world, the more I explore the realms of cosmology, astronomy and philosophy, I see how fitting that species would be ordered in this way.
I would assert that this is due to ignorance of the distinctions between religion and science. As you must admit there is a general trend that very much wishes to disregard these distinctions and be gone with religion all together. So I see this as a legitimate, even though misguided self defence mechanism as what they see is an attack by the godless on their faith.
Scientism is basically ignoring the distinctions between science and any other realm of human intellectual inquiry. As soon as scientists put ideological baggage and philosophical package on to their science and claim the whole package is scientific truth, then we have some problems. Fr. Stanley L. Jaki OSB, was a Benedictine particle physicist and he stated that the greatest scientific task of this century is to separate the science of the evolution of species from ideology.
On the contrary I find I experience the greatest joy and happiness when devoting my self to this servitude. It is a pure guilt free happiness, an unchaining of the bonds of my own iniquity if you will. This is the great paradox, to die to self, and experience natural happiness beyond all reckoning. Although of course, there is only so much I can do sitting here in school, but I have experienced a taste of this joy, and the thought of a life like this, is a primary reason to why I am discerning, a religious vocation.
E
edwest2
Guest
To Matthias123 -
A few here may think that my opinions are simply that - my opinions. I agree completely with what Cardinal Schoenborn has to say here:
nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Peace,
Ed
A few here may think that my opinions are simply that - my opinions. I agree completely with what Cardinal Schoenborn has to say here:
nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Peace,
Ed
M
Matthias123
Guest
I agree with you Ed, but I think your interpetation might be a little off. Schoeborn came under fire from many within the Church for that article, and then in First Things he wrote a magnificent clarification and rebuttal.
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-designs-of-science–4
It might interest you too touchstone.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
So what you are saying is that God is incapable of making human beings through the process of biological evolution? That’s funny. I thought God was omnipotent.
If we didn’t have souls, we would be just animals. Since evolution cannot give us this, there is nothing to fear. Please drop this issue.
M
Matthias123
Guest
@ touchstone (sorry, I admire your level head, I decided to write more)
I also believe distinctions need to be made between people such as us, who enjoying thinking and philosophizing, and people who really couldn’t care less. I mean some people really don’t care about any advanced philosophical reason as to why they believe what they believe. Should they? You bet! Right now I help out with a youth group at my parish, and me and another one of the guys really would like to teach them some philosophy. I would like to teach them all about logical paradoxes, and really teach them how to think critically. I would like to talk to them about the different arguments for the existence of God, how to put them forward, and how to defend them. My buddy would like to talk to them all about the defence of theological positions, in a C.S Lewis style of apologetics, about the defence of Sacred Scripture, and other historical positions that we hold so dear.
You know what? These kids don’t care! I shouldn’t really say kids because some of them are in their senior year of high school, but you can see what I mean! I mean honestly I didn’t think about it until I was in a class at school that talked about issues such as these – it was called Comparative Civilizations, and my teacher asked my why I believed what I believed, and asked everyone else the same question. Unknowingly I had been shoved into a position where I had to defend the faith, and I have been attempting to do so ever since. Now this was a critical time, as it was the point that I moved form my childhood faith into my mature adult faith. “God exists because mom said so” is not going to cut it now. I needed to open up my brain and think, hold form the Sacred Doctrines of the faith. Unfortunately this is the point that many young people abandon the faith instead of fighting through it, and blossoming into a mature adult, well informed Christian. The point is that, some people really don’t give a hoot, as they would rather trust other people that have done the reasoning. My mother sure doesn’t go around philosophizing, and neither does my father – in fact sometimes they tell me to shut my trap about it because I start a big monologue.
So you really need to understand that believers that unfortunately do not give good reasons to justify their beliefs it quite expected. I mean come on, how much time do you spend reading about physics, or biology, or on hear with us beating our brains?
Not everyone does this; we need to have reasonable expectations.
I also believe distinctions need to be made between people such as us, who enjoying thinking and philosophizing, and people who really couldn’t care less. I mean some people really don’t care about any advanced philosophical reason as to why they believe what they believe. Should they? You bet! Right now I help out with a youth group at my parish, and me and another one of the guys really would like to teach them some philosophy. I would like to teach them all about logical paradoxes, and really teach them how to think critically. I would like to talk to them about the different arguments for the existence of God, how to put them forward, and how to defend them. My buddy would like to talk to them all about the defence of theological positions, in a C.S Lewis style of apologetics, about the defence of Sacred Scripture, and other historical positions that we hold so dear.
You know what? These kids don’t care! I shouldn’t really say kids because some of them are in their senior year of high school, but you can see what I mean! I mean honestly I didn’t think about it until I was in a class at school that talked about issues such as these – it was called Comparative Civilizations, and my teacher asked my why I believed what I believed, and asked everyone else the same question. Unknowingly I had been shoved into a position where I had to defend the faith, and I have been attempting to do so ever since. Now this was a critical time, as it was the point that I moved form my childhood faith into my mature adult faith. “God exists because mom said so” is not going to cut it now. I needed to open up my brain and think, hold form the Sacred Doctrines of the faith. Unfortunately this is the point that many young people abandon the faith instead of fighting through it, and blossoming into a mature adult, well informed Christian. The point is that, some people really don’t give a hoot, as they would rather trust other people that have done the reasoning. My mother sure doesn’t go around philosophizing, and neither does my father – in fact sometimes they tell me to shut my trap about it because I start a big monologue.
So you really need to understand that believers that unfortunately do not give good reasons to justify their beliefs it quite expected. I mean come on, how much time do you spend reading about physics, or biology, or on hear with us beating our brains?
Not everyone does this; we need to have reasonable expectations.
E
edwest2
Guest
God willing, I will continue to tell people they are not the product of the mechanism.
Peace,
Ed
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Pray tell, how are you so sure that God did not chose to create man through biological evolution?
You didn’t answer either of my inquiries, either.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Thank you for the edification there, seriously. I did not know that, and was indeed quite out of date in my understanding. It’s interesting to read that, as that is very, very close to my own thinking as a Christian and theistic evolutionist when confronted by unbelievers with questions about Adam and Eve. I used the concept of metonymy in that case, like when we say “the pen is mightier than the sword”, the “pen” stands a symbol for “all pens”, or “the things written with pens”, or “that which is written”. Adam I considered a metonymy for a population that disobeyed God’s command, and thus provoked the Fall. Not sure what my point is here, other than it is remarkable my own TE thinking brought me to such a similar position, unbeknownst to me.
Well, the illusory nature of all that is a point of passionate contention, of course, but I do agree, both as a Christian back then, and an “atheist familiar” now, that an old-earth, evolutionary creation yields both a level of elegance to creation and a robust theodicy that makes special creation theology look quite vulgar, banal.
That’s right, I have the same reaction. If I’m wrong, I could at least easily manage a sense of wonder and awe at God’s telos at work in a billions of years old universe driving the emergence of life and its diversification in the way science has revealed.
The god of special creation is a narcissistic one, I think, a projection of ourselves onto (or into) our vision of God as creator. Divine design as revealed by modern science (if that is indeed what is being revealed, *arguendo) *is fundamentally alien as much as it is awesome. It’s not work done the way we would do it. And the creator God for most of Judaeo-Christian history has really been a highly anthropomorphic God, a creator who works like a hobbyist would work in his garage.
There’s no small irony in the thought that many atheists are knowing and worshipping God in a deep and profound way that special creationists just miss and refuse, if God really obtains, and real science does reveal the “fingerprints of God”. We may be thrown into the lake of fire, but those of us (unbelievers) willing to behold the universe and the world as it is will have in that case “seen God” in a way that creationists refuse to. It’s a conceit of my own, I guess, to say that if I’m wrong and God exists, I still managed to understand and worship God more deeply on this level than the creationist, even as I deny God’s existence.
Agree. Advice from the “enemy” here is always suspect, but if I can slip a little “enemy intelligence” under the door here, that kind of reaction, which is understandable, really does play right into the unbelievers’ strengths. It is an attack by godless on faith, and one of the best ways for the religious to banish themselves to the intellectual ghetto is to get confused as you say – ignorant about the distinctions between religion and science.
OK, thanks for the start. I’ve had this term handed to me before, and have read a little. I’ll read more. It’s apparently so secret, this ideology that we “scientismists” (??) aren’t even aware that’s what we are! I don’t confuse the practice of science with the metaphyics that enable it, though, which I thought might disqualify me, but as I said, I’m still fuzzy on the concept.
I can accept that and don’t wish to deny you that. I do note, though, that joy and happiness are all too compatible with chains and enslavement for many. I think the “joyful slave” mentality is not nearly so paradoxical as many like to think. It turns out that real emancipation, being the slave of no one, can be a daunting, even terrifying experience for man.
A profound insight into the nature of man is paradoxical, though, I suggest. For all our talk of freedom and autonomy, a great many of us really at the core want and need to be slaves.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
I admire the attitude you have here, and as one with six kids who I homeschool and a very involved life with other families in our homeschool co-op, and various sports teams and clubs, I can appreciate the frustrations that such noble urges bring, as you mention below. But while I can tell just from your prose that you have a lot to offer in this regard, I am bound by conscience to object to teaching the “proofs for the existence of God” as examples of how to think logically and in a disciplined way. Those are largely exercises in indulging one’s intuitions I suggest, and that’s your right to teach, but Aquinas and Lewis are really terribly low goals for teaching the mind to reason and think logically. I know you disagree, and we won’t settle that here, but a young mind is likely much worse off in thinking logically in “training in Aquinas’ Five Ways”, in my view. It’s important to review once they’ve really learned, but these are negative examples, how not to think with a clear, disciplined mind.
I do know that’s a common pattern. I was raised a Baptist, but even by 9th grade or so, I was reading the ECF, for example, perhaps because I was fascinated with the RCC… it was “anti-Christ” to most Baptists in that era, doncha know.
In any case, I’ve been reading philosophy since a very young age, and only science has provided an antidote of that vice for me, but nothing pleased me more as a teen than finding other teens or adults that would engage in long, tough discussions about Lewis, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Kant, Mill, Jefferson, Spinoza, Hume, van Til, et al.
Totally understand. Like I said in my previous post, the “slave urge” is much stronger in humans than we’d like to admit. A great many of us are quite happy to “delegate”, if that’s an acceptable euphemism, and let other powers from their community and culture do the thinking and directing for them. That’s not just a theist urge, either. Truly emancipated minds are hard to come by, even for the self, let alone in others.
That’s a worthwhile caution, thank you. It’s worth saying that there are a lot of sharp minds on this forum; I have found lots of civil and thoughtful conversations on here. Try and strike up good debates like is had here often at puritanboard, or RaptureReady, or even TheologyWeb. I’m sure it sounds vain to say this, but there’s a reason I check in here and post from time to time, and not over there and on those kinds of forums.
-TS
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the urge for man to be free of constraints, at liberty, is an ancient and undeniable trait. people simply desire to be free. that seems to me, to be at the heart of atheism. whether it be freedom to satisfy sexual desires, or intellectual freedom to think and act as one may wish. it is that perception of freedom that drove my atheism beyond the first “no-see-umm” stage.
this almost seems related to the idea that Christains wish to believe that there is a loving G-d waiting to joyfully accept us into heaven and that desire for love, safety or whatever is at the heart of our faith.
that idea though seems to conveniently forget that the vast, vast majority of Christains are hell bound. it is a narrow path and few will enter. we all know this. we know that when we lie, steal, fornicate, etc, that we are committing mortal sins.
so in the hope of salvation we bind ourselves over to slavery, to the refusal of the ordinary pleasures in life, knowing even then the gate is narrow. giving up our cherished freedom.
M
Matthias123
Guest
I believe this is partialy true, and I understand where you are going with this. I assert this is due to us not understanding the scriptures in the first place. In all honesty we had, until recently no information about the time the scriptures were written it. We did not have the great tools that we have now, to do the proper exegesis. Even if evolution did not occur, it would have become painfully obvious that we were interpreting the scriptures far more literally then the sacred author ever intended. It is very obvious today that the book of Genesis is exclusively mythical work that conveys theological truth, with only kernels of historical truth. Genesis tells us not about the natural world (save for the fact that the universe had a beginning), or how life develops, it tells us about God and it tells us about ourselves, and how we relate to Him – that is what revelation is about anyways.
I have for very long time, rejected the propagandistic notion, that atheists automatically warrant eternal fire. This is not theology, this is obvious propaganda – there is no theological reason, for an atheist, who is ignorant of the truths of God, through no fault of his own, to merit hell. As far as Christian theology is concerned, they are in the same boat as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else under the sun. They will be given enough grace, and they will be called to seek goodness, and purify themselves of iniquity and error. An atheist who truly has very strong intellectual difficulties is no different, as far as I am concerned, in the eyes of God, then a Jew who has immense theological difficulties. Theologically speaking, they will be judged on their culpability, and response to the call and desire that every man has, for goodness.
Sorry for a bit of the rant, but it hits a nerve when people take theology and morph it to their own whims.
More specifically:
I would also be forced to morally object you teaching your children atheism – so it seems we are blow for blow here.
Well we seem to be able to agree on many things, and I wish to add another one. The Church is fully aware at the limitations of Thomism in our modern world. Now as a very devout Thomist, I will argue to the death, that what he said is completely true in valid, (We have already crossed swords on this) but this can only go so far. As it doesn’t really matter so much that it is true, it really matters if it is going to serve as compelling arguments. There is a big problem with Thomistic metaphysics, and I think you made it quite clear in our last skirmish over this – the language that is used is very broad and archaic.
I think you described them as “old men that scratched their beards thinking up strange things”. Now although I disagree with the notion that their metaphysic is false, I know where you are coming from. They are very abstract, and very general, and they seem to lack the mathematical precision that we are so accustomed to. Although I would assert that there is a certain advantage to this, as we are able to deal, with issues on a general level, and it does not come into conflict with other more precise methods of intellectual inquiry, on the lower more specific levels.
That being said, there is no denying that the concepts are hard to get across, and most of the time the reason the arguments are rejected is because there is a confusion of terms. This is hardly servers as a compelling argumentation. This is why the Church is actually shifting away from Thomism into copernicism. (I have no idea what this is; I am still trying to read about) I would even be so bold to assert that many, of your objections to Thomism are most likely held by the metaphysicians of the Church
Of course, you are not going to teach the cutting edge metaphysical research hot off the acedemic journal to kids. You might as well teach the arguments that are near their level, and tell them where is it weak and where it is strong.
I would challenge you to try to get your hands on a Catholic metaphysics research journal, I believe you would find it rather compelling – Catholic Philosophical Quarterly is one that I can think of off the top of my head – I also believe that the University of Notre Dame publishes a couple.
Peace
T
Touchstone
Guest
Too late to add more than just this quick comment here – will respond more in the morning, but just quickly on this:I would also be forced to morally object you teaching your children atheism – so it seems we are blow for blow here.
I do not teach my children atheism, nor do I plan to. This would be committing the same mistake my parents committed with me in “teaching me theism”, and I’m solidly against doing that if I can help it. It’s too late for my oldest kids – I indoctrinated them thoroughly in Christian credulity from the time they were old enough to speak. But my youngest are 2 year old twins, good “de facto atheists”, but only de facto atheists.
Atheism is a/the product of disciplined reasoning and ardent self-criticism and analysis. I do suppose that is the conclusion my kids will come to if I do my job in training their minds well, but atheism is a conclusion they will have to come to and maintain on their own, just as theism would be. My job is to train them to think well, be disciplined and honest in their analysis, to test all things, and to be courageous in relying on principle and virtue in their thoughts. If I do that, then I think the right thing will happen, even if I disagree with their eventual conclusions about God.
So perhaps you will be happy to know we are NOT at parity here, and that I won’t be teaching “atheist proofs” as a kind of reverse play on the parent who teaches the Five Ways. I can see the mind of my child being quite sharp and disciplined, and embracing theism. I cannot see that sharp mind embracing Thomistic metaphysics, though. Reasonable theism would have to be obtained in some other way – the fog of that kind of frivolous metaphysics is precisely what I think a skilled and adept mind avoids.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
I think this is certainly true on one level. But man is a complex animal. Psychologically, we have lots of inner tensions and dissonances. There is a part of man that wants to be free, emancipated. But freedom and emancipation tend to look very appealing from inside one’s cage, from the binding shackles of enslavement.
Emancipation, freedom, once established, or merely just supposed, looks a lot different. The “dream appeal” of it from the slave’s point of view easily and quickly gives way to terror, doubt, and even despair for many; freedom ain’t for sissies. It’s easy to be godless as a matter or self-indulgence and decadence. Being truly free in the mind to be virtuous, honest, aware and informed is a very difficult task. Many, including myself from time to time, get to longing for our chains, nostalgic for the safety and domination of cages we used to live in.
So you’re right, the urge to be free is pervasive and strong. But it’s not so simple that we might leave it at that. This is a case of “be careful what you wish for”, as true emancipation can be terrifying, a cause for a severe case of “buyer’s remorse”.
I recommend it heartily, nonetheless!
It seems that way to me, too.
Perhaps. But really, this strikes me quite strongly as the language of deep enslavement. Here is the call to surrender completely to force majeur, to assent to tyranny, even if we clothe the idea in the language of love and sacrifice. The very idea that when we steal that our consequences and offenses center on God and not the persons we have truly wronged signals servility. Not just your garden variety servility, mind you, but an abject, irrational servility. To grant that stealing from John is actually a cosmic offense against God is to renounce moral reasoning itself, and to embrace voluntarism.
Yes, alas. Life is so short, and yet we desire to live in chains.
-TS
M
Matthias123
Guest
Agreed, we are not on parity. Although keep in mind that this is a parish youth group, and these children havel already chosen Catholic Christianity. Therefore we will teach them how to defend the faith.
I understand your objections, but I very much disagree. I take issue with your positivism, ie, your contempt and rejection of the entirety of metaphysics. I believe although foggy, it is completely valid to explain such things, as it is the only method to do so. After my final exams, we shall cross swords on the First Way – I am sure it will be fun.
L
little_c
Guest
I couldn’t agree less with this statement.
As stated earlier, the Bible doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were the first humans ever to exist. They’re unique in that they were the first to be chosen by God (no free will) and filled with the Holy Spirit.
It is a false claim that everyone is a descendant of Adam & Eve because not every man, woman, and child that ever lived where given the Holy Spirit.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
What do you mean by “literal” Adam and Eve? Some theologians, for example, consider that the Fall happened at the moment of creation, as with the Angels. It seems to me that what exactly it means is, well, difficult for us to imagine.
As for whether all humans are descended from one couple - evolutionary theory has no real opinion on this. Some research based on evolutionary theory has suggestions, but that is all they are. (though some is quite interesting).
It is always a possibility that the story of the garden, while correct essentially, actually may have happened in a way we just haven’t thought of. What does it mean that we are descended from Adam and Eve? How are we supposed to understand how the effects of original sin are passed down? Genetically? What does that look like?
We really just don’t know. Maybe science could throw some light on these things, or maybe not. But why should we be scared of that possibility? God’s got it under control, we are what we are.
T
tjm190
Guest
Let me restate- someone who accepts evolution would deny that all human beings descend from a single man and woman.
T
tjm190
Guest
It’s inconceivably unlikely that the evolutionary process would result in exactly one male and one female of a new species- we would expect an entire community to evolve. I’m not aware of any work that suggests that we descend from a single set of parents, although I am aware of the ‘mitochondrial eve’, which is often misinterpreted as evidence for a single mother of all humans.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
What do you mean by new species? New species do not generally come into being in kind of a sudde lightning bolt of differentiation. It’s a gradual process.
As I said, there is no definitive evidence of any kind about this. There are some possibilities, but that is all they are - possibilities about how we might look for such a thing, how it could happen. That assumes we are understanding the idea of “descended from” correctly.
The point is,* we really have no idea what it would mean for a creature to move from being an animal with a sensitive soul to a person with a specially created, immortal, rational, soul. * Although, maybe, there could be some evidence of the difference (maybe death rituals would suggest a soul, though some animals have them too,) we could point to, it isn’t really any way science can address the nature of the soul, or the underlying forms of things either.
So, with science, we follow the evidence as best we can. If we do it well, it will always lead to God. There have always been mistakes, false starts, wrong conclusions drawn. But we have also discovered many wonderful things. When my daughter asks why we have gravity, I can tell her space is curved - how cool is that?
- Status