Would an atheist / evolutionist agree with this quote?

[rossum]

I am not aware of evolutionist as an insult. Is that what you mean? Is the usage in some way incorrect? I only meant it as a description of a person who believes in evolution. I myself am not convinced of evolution in what I would call in the macro form or between species. If it means change within a species that obviously occurs.

Would you call a person who accepted the theory of gravity a “gravitationist”? People who accept (not “believe”) evolution are called “biologists”.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

Wot he said…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Would you call a person who accepted the theory of gravity a “gravitationist”? People who accept (not “believe”) evolution are called “biologists”.

rossum

Biologists are not the only people who accept evolution. It’s fair to use the term “evolutionist” to describe any person who accept the theory of evolution, as opposed to those who deny the theory.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Biologists are not the only people who accept evolution. It’s fair to use the term “evolutionist” to describe any person who accept the theory of evolution, as opposed to those who deny the theory.

As I’ve seen it used that term carries a lot of baggage, not just about evolution, but about the age of the earth, position on certain astrophysics propositions, geological propositions, certain positions in the political sphere, and more. I think it’s a term that is highly politicized and better avoided unless one is intentionally invoking some of the other implications of the word.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I’ve seen it used that term carries a lot of baggage, not just about evolution, but about the age of the earth, position on certain astrophysics propositions, geological propositions, certain positions in the political sphere, and more. I think it’s a term that is highly politicized and better avoided unless one is intentionally invoking some of the other implications of the word.

If I am not mistaken, you are talking about the Evolutionist/Creationist controversy.

I am an evolutionist who believes in Creation, but I am not a biologist.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If I am not mistaken, you are talking about the Evolutionist/Creationist controversy.

I am. I think the better qualifier to be used in the question’s title would have been “non-religious.” I think that identifies the group of interest while minimizing the amount of extra baggage that potentially may be interpreted from the question.

 

[inocente]

Lets break the statement down. What does it mean to be impelled by nature? Where does the moral obligation that binds us to seek the truth come from? Is there an innate desire of human beings to know the truth? Is their something written on our hearts that impels us to seek the truth? Is the truth outside us that we have too seek it? Why especially religious truth? If we are impelled by nature to seek the truth how did that evolve?

Nope to all the above. For instance, our ancestors had a better chance of surviving if they knew which berries are poisonous, and also if they were cautiously curious about berries they had never before encountered, as they might be a new source of food. But nothing impelled them to know any absolute truths about berries, whatever that might mean.

We, along with all animals, inherit such traits, as they aid survival, whereas hunter-gather ancestors who spent their time searching for religious truth instead of finding food probably didn’t last long enough to have offspring.

In any case, suppose our faith tells us that we will inevitably find falsehood and noise by actively seeking religious truth, and it will instead only be revealed if we give up striving and empty our mind?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We, along with all animals, inherit such traits, as they aid survival, whereas hunter-gather ancestors who spent their time searching for religious truth instead of finding food probably didn’t last long enough to have offspring.

I don’t think any Catholic in this forum advocates the notion that you can’t search for food and truth at the same time. Our ancient ancestors no doubt did.

 

[Aloysium]

A potential point of disagreement may be on the word “truth.” When I see it used by people in a religious context it often means something other than “a factual statement” or “concordant with reality.”

That is what you have observed; this is what I hold to be truth:

Truth in any context involves the intellectual relationship with what exists.
It is a statement of what constitutes reality.
It is a factual statement in that it would be generally accepted as the way things are.
And, truth is as concordant with reality as it is humanly possible to be so.
When one speaks of God as being Truth itself, it is because He is the ultimate Reality and Source of all that is.
He, Himself is the real Answer to all our questions and searchings.
The Word is the Truth revealed by His entering and becoming one with His creation as Jesus and in the Eucharist.
Through His Church, He enables a dialogue to exist between God and man whereby the Truth is revealed to us.
Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, we gain in understanding, knowledge and wisdom, and thereby, we are able to know Truth.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is a factual statement in that it would be generally accepted as the way things are.

That makes truth sound like a form of popularity.

When one speaks of God as being Truth itself, it is because He is the ultimate Reality and Source of all that is.
He, Himself is the real Answer to all our questions and searchings.
The Word is the Truth revealed by His entering and becoming one with His creation as Jesus and in the Eucharist.
Through His Church, He enables a dialogue to exist between God and man whereby the Truth is revealed to us.
Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, we gain in understanding, knowledge and wisdom, and thereby, we are able to know Truth.

Okay, well if the original question is directed at a non-religious person I’m not sure that a definition of “truth” that is a reference to a God to be agreeable.

 

[Aloysium]

That makes truth sound like a form of popularity.
Okay, well if the original question is directed at a non-religious person I’m not sure that a definition of “truth” that is a reference to a God to be agreeable.

As an idea, truth is not really a consideration in Science and the Courts, especially, where it is “facts” that are of interest.
What can be demonstrated is accepted as fact.
Truth is obviously not a matter of popularity, but facts may be.

A “truth” or belief system can be studied disconnected from the reality to which it speaks.
In this sense it is again is matter of popularity - individually and collectively, peoiple’s subjective musings.

As you say God cannot be referenced in a definition agreeable to non-religious people.
Before we can even get into the details of truth, we cannot even agree on the method of knowing the truth.
If it were to boil down to a matter of agreement or not, then “truth” would be a matter of popularity.

I will assert that regardless of its popularity, reflecting the ability of persons to grasp and/or accept it, a definition of truth that does not include God, is meaningless since it excludes the Ground of creation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I will assert that regardless of its popularity, reflecting the ability of persons to grasp and/or accept it, a definition of truth that does not include God, is meaningless since it excludes the Ground of creation.

That’s fine. That also translates to the original question posted as being one whose premise may not be agreeable to some one that is non-religious.

 

[LHJOHNSON]

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. Dignitatis Humanae - Pope Paul Vl - 12/7/65

This is a powerful statement by Pope Paul VI it covers a lot of ground as far as a world view is concerned. Got any thoughts on this one? Peace be with you,L

** “They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” **

How does the truth make demands on us? It sounds like the truth is outside us and we discover it. What would be a demand the truth would make on us? Does any one have any insight or questions about the actual statement I asked about? Read the actual statement and contemplate it the popes are extraordinary people the statement and the rest of the encyclical is full of thought provoking ideas. Peace be with you.

 

[grannymh]

** “They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” **

How does the truth make demands on us? It sounds like the truth is outside us and we discover it. What would be a demand the truth would make on us? Does any one have any insight or questions about the actual statement I asked about? Read the actual statement and contemplate it the popes are extraordinary people the statement and the rest of the encyclical is full of thought provoking ideas. Peace be with you.

First.

It is necessary to explore what “especially religious truth” refers to in terms of human history. Paragraph 28, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, observes that “man” is a “religious being.”

It is an obvious observation that human beings have an inherent ability to sense, not necessarily to know completely, that which is super-natural, that which is beyond their own human nature. For information about our own human nature, please refer to posts 7 and 8 above. Obviously, one needs to accept the existence of a super-natural Creator according to Catholic teachings in order to understand what Pope Paul VI is writing.

Going backwards through human history, we find evidence that human cultures were aware of something spiritual. The authors of the ancient myths attest to the fact that something spiritual, different from our decomposing anatomies, did exist. There is evidence that early human civilizations had various forms of religious beliefs. Not all religious beliefs and rituals were good in themselves. Good or bad is not the point. The point is that the human intellect can recognize that something or someone existed that was not an ordinary creature living on planet earth. In this context, the adjective religious refers to the interaction between humans (For example, Shamanism, etc.) and the super-natural. In a current dictionary, the word religion can refer to “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

In my humble observation, “especially religious truth” refers back to human nature with its inherent sense that the spiritual, the super-natural, exists in some way and the human desire to interact with the spiritual. Think ancient Roman and Greek war, love, harvest, etc. gods. Think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the ultimate interaction between ourselves and our Creator.

If nothing else, curiosity impels us to seek the truth about our own human nature and what it is that our human nature ultimately seeks.

Post 8 quotes CCC 357 and then LHJOHNSON asks important questions in post 12.

This current post is my attempt to answer yes to the question “Is there an innate desire of human beings to know the truth?” All of us recognize that we humans have an innate desire to know the truth of survival. As demonstrated above, there is also an innate desire to explore the truth about super-natural or spiritual existence aka religious truth. Because our human nature is an unique unification of both material and spiritual worlds, we, because of our nature, need to be free to explore both our material/physical environment and the spiritual world which is also our environment recognized or not.

My own approach to the post 12 question “Where does the moral obligation that binds us to seek the truth come from?” actually hinges on the true concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect. When we have profound respect for ourselves, we honor both our material and spiritual aspects. Non-theists would not agree that there is a God; yet, they will go to war to protect their country’s freedom. And what is freedom based on? It is based on the spiritual concept that there is more to a human than blood and guts. It is part of our nature to formally or informally seek the truth about human love, human goodness, and human loyalty. These spiritual truths, along with instincts for survival, are needed to perpetuate society. Thus, we can say that there is a moral obligation to seek the truth, which does include seeking religious truth in the broad sense.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think any Catholic in this forum advocates the notion that you can’t search for food and truth at the same time. Our ancient ancestors no doubt did.

I doubt anyone would advocate that, but it doesn’t seem very relevant to the question of why Dignitatis Humanae states that “all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.”

If it is a moral obligation on all men (not just Catholics but all men) then it follows directly that it is immoral for anyone, including non-Catholics, not to seek religious truth.

I’ve never heard of any such a moral obligation before, never, in any religion or in any system of ethics. Perhaps you could explain (a) how and why it is an obligation for Catholics, and (b) how and why non-Catholics must adhere to such a moral imperative.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ve never heard of any such a moral obligation before, never, in any religion or in any system of ethics. Perhaps you could explain (a) how and why it is an obligation for Catholics, and (b) how and why non-Catholics must adhere to such a moral imperative.

I could not explain it right now in depth. But in Catholic theology we have what is called natural theology, and also natural law. We believe that all men are called to earn their salvation, not just Catholics. So we believe that evangelization of the world is important as a way to bring out in all men the revealed theology that answers many of the questions raised by natural theology.

The fundamental question of natural theology is this: Why do I exist?

The Catholic answer is this: To know, love, and serve God in this world, and be happy with him forever in the next world.

The atheist answer is quite different: We just are, and then we perish forever.

It’s true that you cannot force an atheist to believe he is something more than he thinks he is. But you also cannot force a theist not to try and convince an atheist that he is something more than he thinks he is.

That is what the Pope is doing in that moral imperative you cite.

 

[inocente]

First.

It is necessary to explore what “especially religious truth” refers to in terms of human history. Paragraph 28, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, observes that “man” is a “religious being.”

It is an obvious observation that human beings have an inherent ability to sense, not necessarily to know completely, that which is super-natural, that which is beyond their own human nature. For information about our own human nature, please refer to posts 7 and 8 above. Obviously, one needs to accept the existence of a super-natural Creator according to Catholic teachings in order to understand what Pope Paul VI is writing.

Going backwards through human history, we find evidence that human cultures were aware of something spiritual. The authors of the ancient myths attest to the fact that something spiritual, different from our decomposing anatomies, did exist. There is evidence that early human civilizations had various forms of religious beliefs. Not all religious beliefs and rituals were good in themselves. Good or bad is not the point. The point is that the human intellect can recognize that something or someone existed that was not an ordinary creature living on planet earth. In this context, the adjective religious refers to the interaction between humans (For example, Shamanism, etc.) and the super-natural. In a current dictionary, the word religion can refer to “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

In my humble observation, “especially religious truth” refers back to human nature with its inherent sense that the spiritual, the super-natural, exists in some way and the human desire to interact with the spiritual. Think ancient Roman and Greek war, love, harvest, etc. gods. Think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the ultimate interaction between ourselves and our Creator.

If nothing else, curiosity impels us to seek the truth about our own human nature and what it is that our human nature ultimately seeks.

Post 8 quotes CCC 357 and then LHJOHNSON asks important questions in post 12.

This current post is my attempt to answer yes to the question “Is there an innate desire of human beings to know the truth?” All of us recognize that we humans have an innate desire to know the truth of survival. As demonstrated above, there is also an innate desire to explore the truth about super-natural or spiritual existence aka religious truth. Because our human nature is an unique unification of both material and spiritual worlds, we, because of our nature, need to be free to explore both our material/physical environment and the spiritual world which is also our environment recognized or not.

My own approach to the post 12 question “Where does the moral obligation that binds us to seek the truth come from?” actually hinges on the true concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect. When we have profound respect for ourselves, we honor both our material and spiritual aspects. Non-theists would not agree that there is a God; yet, they will go to war to protect their country’s freedom. And what is freedom based on? It is based on the spiritual concept that there is more to a human than blood and guts. It is part of our nature to formally or informally seek the truth about human love, human goodness, and human loyalty. These spiritual truths, along with instincts for survival, are needed to perpetuate society. Thus, we can say that there is a moral obligation to seek the truth, which does include seeking religious truth in the broad sense.

You have tried most valiantly, but I fear you leave more questions than answers.

Freedom is often based on a more businesslike common-wealth rather than any spiritual concepts, and all that needs is that we each give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to rape and pillage, in exchange for membership of society.

On top of this, a fair society requires that no one is obliged to give up more freedoms than anyone else (Thomas Hobbes “I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.”).

In this contractual scheme, freedom in expressed as equal rights under law rather than anything to do with religion, and the contract allows us (requires us) to rise up against society if it is not free:

*"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, …]" - un.org/en/documents/udhr/*

I can’t help thinking that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a lot easier to explain and understand than the somewhat exotic requirement made by Dignitatis Humanae that all men, including non-Catholics, are “bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.”

 

[LHJOHNSON]

First.

It is necessary to explore what “especially religious truth” refers to in terms of human history. Paragraph 28, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, observes that “man” is a “religious being.”

It is an obvious observation that human beings have an inherent ability to sense, not necessarily to know completely, that which is super-natural, that which is beyond their own human nature. For information about our own human nature, please refer to posts 7 and 8 above. Obviously, one needs to accept the existence of a super-natural Creator according to Catholic teachings in order to understand what Pope Paul VI is writing.

Going backwards through human history, we find evidence that human cultures were aware of something spiritual. The authors of the ancient myths attest to the fact that something spiritual, different from our decomposing anatomies, did exist. There is evidence that early human civilizations had various forms of religious beliefs. Not all religious beliefs and rituals were good in themselves. Good or bad is not the point. The point is that the human intellect can recognize that something or someone existed that was not an ordinary creature living on planet earth. In this context, the adjective religious refers to the interaction between humans (For example, Shamanism, etc.) and the super-natural. In a current dictionary, the word religion can refer to “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

In my humble observation, “especially religious truth” refers back to human nature with its inherent sense that the spiritual, the super-natural, exists in some way and the human desire to interact with the spiritual. Think ancient Roman and Greek war, love, harvest, etc. gods. Think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the ultimate interaction between ourselves and our Creator.

If nothing else, curiosity impels us to seek the truth about our own human nature and what it is that our human nature ultimately seeks.

Post 8 quotes CCC 357 and then LHJOHNSON asks important questions in post 12.

This current post is my attempt to answer yes to the question “Is there an innate desire of human beings to know the truth?” All of us recognize that we humans have an innate desire to know the truth of survival. As demonstrated above, there is also an innate desire to explore the truth about super-natural or spiritual existence aka religious truth. Because our human nature is an unique unification of both material and spiritual worlds, we, because of our nature, need to be free to explore both our material/physical environment and the spiritual world which is also our environment recognized or not.

My own approach to the post 12 question “Where does the moral obligation that binds us to seek the truth come from?” actually hinges on the true concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect. When we have profound respect for ourselves, we honor both our material and spiritual aspects. Non-theists would not agree that there is a God; yet, they will go to war to protect their country’s freedom. And what is freedom based on? It is based on the spiritual concept that there is more to a human than blood and guts. It is part of our nature to formally or informally seek the truth about human love, human goodness, and human loyalty. These spiritual truths, along with instincts for survival, are needed to perpetuate society. Thus, we can say that there is a moral obligation to seek the truth, which does include seeking religious truth in the broad sense.

Thank you for that reply it is a thoughtful reply and one that obviously took some time and effort, thank you. I also believe that a belief in God and some knowledge of Catholic teaching will help a person understand this statement by the Pope. One could write a paragraph on each sentence and what it means about life. How many people ever even give truth a few minutes of thought and now we understand that we have an obligation to seek it. The truth can place a demand when you discover it because in a logical progression of thought truth will demand certain action. Take a person who believes that it is true that life begins at conception so embryonic stem cells are wrong lets say they are offered a good job in their field of research but it involves the use of embryonic stem cells.They need the job but truth demands they not take take it. Just some thoughts anyway thanks again.I see you are an early riser too. Peace be wit you, L

 

[Charlemagne_III]

** “They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” **

How does the truth make demands on us? It sounds like the truth is outside us and we discover it. What would be a demand the truth would make on us?

Aristotle said all men by nature desire to know. What do they desire to know? They desire to know the truth. Nobody desires by nature to know what is false. In that sense the truth draws us toward itself, and we are therefore bound to adhere to it.

 

[LHJOHNSON]

You have tried most valiantly, but I fear you leave more questions than answers.

Freedom is often based on a more businesslike common-wealth rather than any spiritual concepts, and all that needs is that we each give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to rape and pillage, in exchange for membership of society.

On top of this, a fair society requires that no one is obliged to give up more freedoms than anyone else (Thomas Hobbes “I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.”).

In this contractual scheme, freedom in expressed as equal rights under law rather than anything to do with religion, and the contract allows us (requires us) to rise up against society if it is not free:

*"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, …]" - un.org/en/documents/udhr/*

I can’t help thinking that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a lot easier to explain and understand than the somewhat exotic requirement made by Dignitatis Humanae that all men, including non-Catholics, are “bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.”

Here is a thought and some questions that may help. Jesus said: “I am the way the truth and the life” he also said " You will know the truth and the truth will make you free." John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

Is there a relationship between truth and freedom?
What is the relationship between truth and freedom?
Can you have freedom without truth?
If Jesus is the truth and we search for truth are we not searching for Jesus and wouldn’t a search for truth lead to Jesus?
“May God richly bless you my beloved” - J.Vernon McGee