Evolution Was the Key in Joseph Campbell’s Loss of Faith

Uncommon Descent ^ | June 13, 2009 | William Dembski

[Rebel_Ace]

Dude, you're working WAYYY too hard at this. Let me help you out with some Automation

GGG Posting Short Form
Check All that Apply
□	I Read It In Answers In Genesis
□	I Read It In Creation Safaris
□	I Read It at The Discovery Institute
□	I Read It at The Institute for Creation Research
□	I Saw It At The Creation Museum

 

This is About
□	Refuting Something Darwin wrote over 100 years ago
□	Proving All Geology points to a World Wide Flood
□	Proving the Earth is less than 10000 Years Old
□	Linking "Darwinism" to:
	□	Nazism
	□	Socialism
	□	Communism
	□	Antidisestablishmentarianism
□	Something I don't understand, but it seems to support my viewpoint

 

I Would Also Like to Post
□	My Nifty Budda Picture
□	My Nifty Sniffing Dog Picture
□	My Naked Emperor Picture
□	My Mars Rover Picture
□	My Road Signs Picture

Just check the appropriate boxes, and you're good to go!  The cool thing is, just as much thought goes into every post!  You get the CONVENIENCE of automated posting without any compromise to your usual quality!

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...Sorry, your boxes don’t work, so I’ll have to keep doing it the old fashioned way.

[Varda]

I don’t know who Joseph Campbell is but no Catholic loses his faith because of evolution. It doesn’t even make any sense. That said the idea that all religions have some truth in them is very Catholic.

[count-your-change]

When I first listened to an interview with Cambell about his consulting work on the ‘Star Wars’ movie I thought his philosophy was a half-baked version of Jung. I was right.

Toss in some religious background and he becomes an atheist that thinks Christianity useful, even ‘beautiful’ but myth.

[Jaime2099]

"I don’t know who Joseph Campbell is but no Catholic loses his faith because of evolution. It doesn’t even make any sense."

I disagree, Human Evolution clearly states that the Genesis creation story is inaccurate and false. That would be devastating to a great number of people. Now what Evolution are we talking about because Evolutionist love to weasel around what Evolution is? If it is used to show how all species came from one, then of course one would lose their faith in God. How could someone believe such ridiculous, unscientific, word vomit as this Evolution and God at the same time. It's like telling your kids Santa isn't real, then put them to bed and wait for him to come out of the chimney. God is real or He isn't. If He said He created Humans without Evolution (as Genesis clearly states), then He did it. If you don't think He did, then why give a flip about anything else in the Bible?

[Varda]

You post is a perfect example of why no Catholic loses his faith over evolution. It’s an interpretation of scripture that has no authority behind it except the person. Every Catholic does personal interpretation but every Catholic also acknowledges that the Magisterium has final say on how those passages are to be taken. So far the Magisterium has said evolution of life forms (whether started from one life or many)is not a problem for the faithful. The authoritative reading is that God started life (not how God started life).

[Jaime2099]

"Every Catholic does personal interpretation but every Catholic also acknowledges that the Magisterium has final say on how those passages are to be taken."

So you're saying that Catholics are perfectly fine with whatever decision their leaders decide and it does not bother them in the least. I seriously doubt that. A five year old kid could read Genesis and know that Human Evolution is not possible if the words in the Bible are true.

The proof is his own words (and many others) who became atheists because of this make believe science. There is no evidence for Human Evolution, only a best guess using questionable fossils. The Bible has been around far longer than these crackpot Neo-Darwinists, I'll stick with it and I like my chances of being right.

[tioga]

I believe the Catholic church teaches that it is acceptable to believe Genesis is either actual fact or metaphorical. Leaving one to believe in evolution or not. Me? I believe it is literal.

[Varda]

The teaching authority of the Church is for matters of faith and morals which scriptural interpretation is a part.

"A five year old kid could read Genesis and know that Human Evolution is not possible if the words in the Bible are true. "

A five year old would interpret according to the axioms of his own culture and the limits of his knowledge. The Church accepts plain sense readings of scripture but acknowledges that these may be faulty.

This is a good thread that explains the Catholic view on this, Adam, Eve, and Evolution.

[aruanan]

A five year old would interpret according to the axioms of his own culture and the limits of his knowledge.

Everyone interprets what he observes according to the axioms of his own culture and the limits of his knowledge.

[Varda]

I actually had that written as part of my response but it is not precisely true. Some people have studied other cultures enough to be able to interpret differences in meaning. How educated their opinions are is certainly up for debate. Yet the Church recognizes that two cultures can say similar things and have very different meanings.

From the previous link-
“Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36). “

[BibChr]

That’s weird. He could have stayed RC and believed in evolution. You can believe in lots of things and be RC.

You just can’t believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone, and in the sufficiency of Scripture alone.

[Jaime2099]

I assume you take the stance of what the thread refers to as "(2)developmental creation or theistic evolution". What the thread does not explain is how the story of God creating Adam and then Eve from Adam is dismissed as the origin of life. I can understand how an atheistic scientist could just say there is no proof of that. But how can a Christian scientist or any Christian deny these words? Are you saying that humans evolved before Adam and God merely created Adam after he had already evolved Humans? How else could it have happened if you believe in the Bible?

Even with a five year old child's limited knowledge, it only requires the ability to read to understand the creation story in the Bible. God created Adam, no evolution mentioned. Very simple.