I think Kant needs no help from me in undermining Maritain and Gilson, et al, but that wasn’t really my angle there. Kant’s ideas on noumena are problematic in their own right, but sufficient for the scaffolds of arguments that undermines classical and scholastic metaphysics.i suspect a kantian attack on Martain as well, but lets see.
This is true only if you don’t take genetic science seriously. And of course, salvation does not require Catholics to take genetic science seriously.
- all modern humans have one set of common ancestors Adam & Eve
- We inherit original sin from this set of common ancestors
I was pointing at the cruel cynicism of that kind of language, of course. I’m fully behind the idea that industry in the path to achievement, innovation, and output of good products. It’s the truth of that concept that provides the exploitive basis for perversions like that seen in the Nazi’s “arbeit mach frei”. Consider the logic of this:Arbeit macht frei. Work makes [one] free. I suggest you read the words of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. And I recommend No Future Without Forgiveness by Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
I’m no relativist. I’m the science freak, remember? Reality is real, objectively real, and isn’t defined by or subject to anyone’s will – yours, mine or anyone else’s, including any putative gods.No man is an island and we are born in a community. When one believes that man invents himself, and in radical individualism, the social fabric is torn. Man idolizes his own concept of man, and his own mind. In the current Dictatorship of Relativism, absolute truth, or the wisdom of the ages, becomes a fog. However, there is a boundary line that defines: there are no absolute truths.
I suggest you examine the reasons for your trust, or lack thereof, because man has a built-in handicap called sin, or secular human nature. And there is truth and that is Jesus Christ. You may choose not to believe it but this truth must be offered to all.
OK, thank you. I will consider and have considered that, and understand the obligation you feel to offer it that way.Peace,
Ed
I think you are pretty much right, except that I would say the attempt to separate science and religion, by religious people, results in a kind of gnosticism rather than paganism, though the two t times have much in common.Psychological Warfare & Deception.
Evolution merely places natural processes beyond “kinds”. Its not really that radical to think that organisms change over time into different forms rather then remain within specific kinds. It became a problem because the new information was exploited and expressed within the context of philosophical naturalism (the world view that supposes that all is physical and can be explained by physical processes), under the pretense that because the theory contradicted traditional interpretations of genesis, that therefore the bible was wrong. Even today, people make TV programs about the theory of evolution that include non-scientific information and opinion such as the idea that sciences greatest achievement was to disprove the teleological arguement. They are constantly glorifying evolution, not for the sake of the theory itself, but because they think it has over thrown what they desire to be superstition. Understandably its not a surprise then that Church Authorities were on the defensive given that science was so closely related to atheist ideologies; but it would be a fallacy to believe that all Church authorities and lay Christians were against evolution. If i understand correctly, Augustine had ideas that were not far from evolution. One must wonder then if the church was ever fighting evolution at all, but rather instead confusing philosophical naturalism with genuine science; which unfortunately lead to the rift between science and religion.
As far as i can understand, the Catholic Faith has always believed in the “natural world” and “natural processes”; but to what extent natural events explained things, is a question that wasn’t available until empirical science was shown to us. I would say that to believe otherwise would be boarder-line pagan. Those who had an agenda for atheism, exploited the superficial appearance that evolution had disproved Biblical Christianity, which in reality amounted to nothing more then a poor understanding of the authority and meaning of scripture and the unwillingness of many Christians to let go of traditional interpretations.
Had science not already been steeped in the historical, political, philosophical and traditional idea that science was in fact liberating us from the superstition of religion, i doubt very much that evolution would have been so controversial.
The greatest threat against Christianity is not science, but rather, it is ignorance, psychological conditioning, and the desire to disbelieve.
I bigger case could be built to support my position, but it would not be appropriate for a thread based forum.
All the classic methods of psychological warfare are being used here to support a theory that cannot be reproduced in a lab, but a few have tried. This deception first preaches that God and the supernatural cannot be studied. This is then proven false when people post here about what they call “evidence” which must be taken “seriously.” Although this evidence is subject to constant revision and is sometimes overturned, it is presented as if it were certain - a fact - and therefore, the future is predicted as well. It is such a fact that it must cross its own self-imposed boundary and comment on God and the supernatural on this forum. It is therefore exposed for what it is - an ideological weapon to be used to state: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.” Even those claiming to be Catholic support such assertions.Psychological Warfare & Deception.
Evolution merely places natural processes beyond “kinds”. Its not really that radical to think that organisms change over time into different forms rather then remain within specific kinds. It became a problem because the new information was exploited and expressed within the context of philosophical naturalism (the world view that supposes that all is physical and can be explained by physical processes), under the pretense that because the theory contradicted traditional interpretations of genesis, that therefore the bible was wrong. Even today, people make TV programs about the theory of evolution that include non-scientific information and opinion such as the idea that sciences greatest achievement was to disprove the teleological arguement. They are constantly glorifying evolution, not for the sake of the theory itself, but because they think it has over thrown what they desire to be superstition. Understandably its not a surprise then that Church Authorities were on the defensive given that science was so closely related to atheist ideologies; but it would be a fallacy to believe that all Church authorities and lay Christians were against evolution. If i understand correctly, Augustine had ideas that were not far from evolution. One must wonder then if the church was ever fighting evolution at all, but rather instead confusing philosophical naturalism with genuine science; which unfortunately lead to the rift between science and religion.
As far as i can understand, the Catholic Faith has always believed in the “natural world” and “natural processes”; but to what extent natural events explained things, is a question that wasn’t available until empirical science was shown to us. I would say that to believe otherwise would be boarder-line pagan. Those who had an agenda for atheism, exploited the superficial appearance that evolution had disproved Biblical Christianity, which in reality amounted to nothing more then a poor understanding of the authority and meaning of scripture and the unwillingness of many Christians to let go of traditional interpretations.
Had science not already been steeped in the historical, political, philosophical and traditional idea that science was in fact liberating us from the superstition of religion, i doubt very much that evolution would have been so controversial.
The greatest threat against Christianity is not science, but rather, it is ignorance, psychological conditioning, and the desire to disbelieve.
I bigger case could be built to support my position, but it would not be appropriate for a thread based forum.
Am i to assume then that you are of the position that it is wrong for the Catholic Church to allow its members to believe in evolution?Even those claiming to be Catholic support such assertions.
The Catholic Church is correct in allowing this belief. However, as Pope Benedict stated in reference to the comment by Pope John Paul II, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” This brings it out of the realm of being a “fact” as is often stated here.Am i to assume then that you are of the position that it is wrong for the Catholic Church to allow its members to believe in evolution?
Oh goodness gracious. What is a complete scientifically proven theory supposed to be? THere is no such thing, and there isn’t supposed to be.The Catholic Church is correct in allowing this belief. However, as Pope Benedict stated in reference to the comment by Pope John Paul II, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” This brings it out of the realm of being a “fact” as is often stated here.
Peace,
Ed
As far as i know, correct me if i am wrong, it is considered by the scientific community to be a “scientific fact” (accept for a few fringe ellements), and this is different from a “metaphysical fact”. If you were to ask me to prove it, I am not a scientific expert, so i cannot say for sure if evolution is in fact a scientific fact. I merely accept that if the scientific community are in fact saying that it is a scientific fact then there is no reason for me to doubt it, as i see no reason to think that it is any less factual then any other scientific theory. However, there are two reasons why i would reject a scientific theory. One reason would be because it contradicted metaphysical fact, and the other reason would be because it rejected divinely revealed truth.The Catholic Church is correct in allowing this belief. However, as Pope Benedict stated in reference to the comment by Pope John Paul II, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” This brings it out of the realm of being a “fact” as is often stated here.
Peace,
Ed
You seem to be going around in circles; and it is due not just to your lack of understanding, but more due to the unfortunate language employed by scientists when expressing evolutionary events. You are also contradicting yourself because you are now saying that there is something wrong with evolution. You must understand that when scientist talk as scientists, they are not talking as theologians or metaphysicians. They are speaking strictly in respect of the immediate natural world. The question of how this relates to God is a job for metaphysicans and theologians. It is not a job for scientists. That this makes you upset because it means that you might have to think harder about your faith is due only to your own insecurity. There are indeed random events, and this is to be expected if one agrees that there is a natural world. You can’t get out of it. If God uses natural events, principles, and mechanisms, in the creation of things then you cannot escape the fact that organisms are going to evolve in accordance with that fact. Scientists are saying that they have indeed found this to be the case, that species or kinds have all evolved naturally, according to certain principles that have been found be apart of the natural order of things.It is far more than an opinion, since the Pope is well aware of the conflict. In the following, while recognizing certain things about science and faith, he tells us we must have the audacity to say something. Something about the fundamental process of evolution.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
Pope Benedict XVI
Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”
One cannot express Aquinas’ doctrine more concisely and clearly than Aquinas did himself. To use alternative expressions than what Aquinas used because of what one thinks others will understand more readily is the road to confusion and misunderstanding. Furthermore, your approach leaves the reader, one who is familiar with Thomism, with the distinct impression that your understanding of Thomism is vague and confused at best.I’m fine with “being qua being”, if that suits you better. That formulation usually is problematic in two respects, though. First, many readers just don’t understand what is meant by that, where “intuition of being” gets the gist across effectively. Second, “being qua being” tends to “overshoot” Aquinas and point directly to Aristotle. Aquinas leaned heavily on Aristotle, but “being qua being” emphasizes Aquinas’ Aristotelian influence at the expense of other influences he also incorporated.
If you have a better, one line phrase that captures the concept, I’m open to it. But those familiar with Aquinas in even a passing way should be able get my conveyance with either of these.
-TS
Well, if you think a 12,000 word chunk of Aquinas’ writing is the only way to capture it, then that would be quite cumbersome, wouldn’t it? I guess I’d say your response leaves me thinking you’re a bit new to the topic. Do you recognize “being qua being” from Aristotle? If so, do you see the connection Aquinas draws from that to his conviction that the subject of metaphysics is “being” (*ens) *that this ens is common to all beings? This is the “intuition of being” – it’s not an empirical construct, right? If not, whence this conviction, and do you agree it’s central to Aquinas’ thought?One cannot express Aquinas’ doctrine more concisely and clearly than Aquinas did himself. To use alternative expressions than what Aquinas used because of what one thinks others will understand more readily is the road to confusion and misunderstanding. Furthermore, your approach leaves the reader, one who is familiar with Thomism, with the distinct impression that your understanding of Thomism is vague and confused at best.
So, to demonstrate that you have a reasonably accurate understanding of Thomism you will have to speak concisely and clearly. Even the way you use the expression “being qua being” appears suspect in its accuracy.
In sum, I cannot agree to your reasoning in this matter, at all.
What can ever be sufficient about scaffolds built on sand?I think Kant needs no help from me in undermining Maritain and Gilson, et al, but that wasn’t really my angle there. Kant’s ideas on noumena are problematic in their own right, but sufficient for the scaffolds of arguments that undermines classical and scholastic metaphysics.
-TS
Well, be specific. What’s an assertion are you having trouble with? We can go from there. Sure you can see the irony in your protest here, three sentences of unsupported rant?What can ever be sufficient about scaffolds built on sand?
Anyone, even the most uneducated in philosophy, can make brazen, unsupported assertions. However, being able to defend those assertions is an entirely different matter. At this point, you have not said anything that leads me to believe that your statements can be anything more than thoughtless rants devoid of real philosophical understanding.
Thank you for your reply. You refer to “unfortunate language” used by scientists. Having read peer reviewed reports and documents where precision is required, I don’t see their word choice as unfortunate but deliberate. It is no accident that a certain point of view has been established to the exclusion of all others. And for scientific research, that’s fine. Set up whatever restrictions are necessary. But, do not come here, on a Catholic forum and express with all certainty, without knowing what will be “discovered” tomorrow, that you have a fact and “evidence” that you are certain, today, right now, shows the Bible is wrong, here, here and here.You seem to be going around in circles; and it is due not just to your lack of understanding, but more due to the unfortunate language employed by scientists when expressing evolutionary events. You are also contradicting yourself because you are now saying that there is something wrong with evolution. You must understand that when scientist talk as scientists, they are not talking as theologians or metaphysicians. They are speaking strictly in respect of the immediate natural world. The question of how this relates to God is a job for metaphysicans and theologians. It is not a job for scientists. That this makes you upset because it means that you might have to think harder about your faith is due only to your own insecurity. There are indeed random events, and this is to be expected if one agrees that there is a natural world. You can’t get out of it. If God uses natural events, principles, and mechanisms, in the creation of things then you cannot escape the fact that organisms are going to evolve in accordance with that fact. Scientists are saying that they have indeed found this to be the case, that species or kinds have all evolved naturally, according to certain principles that have been found be apart of the natural order of things.
But to interpret human beings as therefore being, “metaphysically speaking”, a haphazard mistake because of this fact, can be nothing more then a matter of opinion. Naturalism is a philosophy not a science. It is not a metaphysical fact expressed by the data. Local Contingent Chance, is different from ontological chance.
It seems to me that the church was addressing the atheistic overtones employed in the use of language, which is inevitable in a science that is interested only with empirical data and yet is also being hijacked by naturalist bigots. Yes the church must speak so that people like you don’t confuse this as meaning that human beings are haphazard mistakes.
You say set up what ever restrictions you like; but you claim before-hand to some extent that its a problem when scientists talk only about **natural events ** (which necessarily includes random and chance events) and do not speak about supernatural causes. Are you upset because they do talk about the supernatural in the science class room?And for scientific research, that’s fine. Set up whatever restrictions are necessary.
I agree. But where facts contradict human interpretation, there has to be revision; i will not accept the impending destruction of the legitimacy and value of biblical truth on the account of those who revel in stubborn pride, no matter how well intentioned and lord fearing they may be. The fact is a lot of doubt in God is caused by 6 day creationist/ultra-literalists whom think they know what God taught. Its because of them, that our wonderful religion is made to look ridiculous. As a result, intelligent people, whom have chosen to use the reasoning powers that God gave them, find it difficult to approach God. This idea that one must not be critical is not a Christian teaching; otherwise we would be fooled into any gullible position that are minds happen to come across.But, do not come here, on a Catholic forum and express with all certainty, without knowing what will be “discovered” tomorrow, that you have a fact and “evidence” that you are certain, today, right now, shows the Bible is wrong, here, here and here.
Your refusal to see reason exposes you. The only reason that you and others are offended by evolution and argue against it is because you like many others have been deceived in to thinking that its a threat invented by naturalists. Somebody told you that if evolution is true it disproves Gods existence or makes him less of a God, and you believed them. You have fallen into the paranoid pit of extreme conspiracy.You think that you are fighting on the right side; but in fact you are playing right in to the hands of naturalism; you are helping them win. Evil is not stupid; real deception is not easy to see.And please, don’t point out any imagined insecurity on my part.
Well, if we want to keep our faith credible as it should be, we are going to have to admit that the bible was never meant to be understood as or read as a science text book.I know about God and His work. What I’m concerned about are those that come here to explicitly cross the line between science and religion and make declarations about the Bible using Science, or have you somehow missed that?
I have not denied that philosophical naturalism is damaging are society.Do you know what 4 out of 5 kids in school read in the 1800s and early 1900s? “Religion, The Only Basis of Society” by William McGuffy. 122 million copies.
Nobody thats Catholic would or could deny that. How one understands Gods actual relationship with creation is another matter entirely.In the document Communion and Stewardship, the Church does not metaphysically or symbolically define God’s causal role in the development of life, it makes it clear that God, not some mindless mechanism, was required in actuality.