Posted on 12/09/2010 7:56:44 AM PST by spirited irish
“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical (cited above, and directly relating to BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION), new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” Pope John Paul II
“[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” Pope John Paul II, obviously talking about the biological evolution of humanity.
The current Pope I have already quoted, here it is again...
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
So how does some sort of “cosmic” evolution enrich our understanding of life?
Obviously in context of the argument between creationism and evolution - he is speaking of biological evolution.
It is generally creationists who seek to humpty dumpty the language to insist that ANY science that contradicts their peculiar theology (Geology, Astronomy, Physics, etc) is “evolutionary” or “evolutionism”. The Pope doesn't seem to share that delusion, and when he speaks of evolution, in context it is obvious to any but the deliberately obtuse that he is speaking of biological evolution.
There is no “faith” in science. Faith is the evidence of things unseen/unobserved. There is either confidence in the model or doubt in the model based upon evidence. Acceptance of the theory or rejection of the theory based upon evidence. There is no such thing as “scientific faith”.
“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical (cited above, and directly relating to BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION), new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” Pope John Paul II
“[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” Pope John Paul II, obviously talking about the biological evolution of humanity.
The current Pope I have already quoted, here it is again...
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
So how does some sort of “cosmic” evolution enrich our understanding of life?
Obviously in context of the argument between creationism and evolution - he is speaking of biological evolution.
It is generally creationists who seek to humpty dumpty the language to insist that ANY science that contradicts their peculiar theology (Geology, Astronomy, Physics, etc) is “evolutionary” or “evolutionism”. The Pope doesn't seem to share that delusion, and when he speaks of evolution, in context it is obvious to any but the deliberately obtuse that he is speaking of biological evolution.
There is no “faith” in science. Faith is the evidence of things unseen/unobserved. There is either confidence in the model or doubt in the model based upon evidence. Acceptance of the theory or rejection of the theory based upon evidence. There is no such thing as “scientific faith”.
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
We observe dice rolls as random (do you deny this? Deny that the word has ANY meaning?). They are unpredictable from one roll to the next, and yet God knows what the dice will read every time.
Creationists seem to have a big bugaboo about randomness in evolution and anywhere else in science. To many it seems that if I say something is random they think it means I am saying it is out of the control of God and whilly nilly anything can happen nobody is in control. Obviously they need to read their Bible.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." — Max Planck
The unfortunate logical consequence of such a position is it requires us make conclusions such as that our sins are God's will, regardless of what the Bible has to say on the subject.
Either that, or there is some force above even God, that controls the outcomes that we call "random."
Either way, you're stuck with a God that's different from what Christian theology says He is.
It's probably best to just get comfortable with the fact that this is a mystery.
I don’t see how it follows that God knowing the result of any random event beforehand means the absence of free will.
Sins must be the result of free will, not God’s will.
Christian theology is perfectly consistent with an omnipotent God who can predict the future (re: Revelations, and elsewhere) but also allows humans the capacity to sin via their own volition.
It is like KNOWING that when your kid gets home early from school they are going to watch TV even though it is forbidden to them. They exercised free will, but you (being older and wiser than they, and knowing them from even before their birth) just KNOW they are going to do it, because you know your kids.
Is punishing them now unjust, because you knew beforehand that they would give in to temptation? Or did the little miscreant exercise their free will and thus are responsible for their own actions?
bump
Now hold on a moment. You told us that even randomness (as we perceive it) is controlled by God.
Now you're telling us that there's such a thing as free will, as opposed to God's will: that things can happen outside of God's direct control.
And thus your case against randomness collapses.
God knows the result of our free will decisions beforehand, yet he does not CONTROL them. If he controlled them, they wouldn't be free will.
AARRGGHHHH! You are imputing things to the Pope which he did not say. Actually, several Popes.
WRT your first cite, Pope Pius XII ((2 March 1876 – 9 October 1958) carefully qualifies his remark: "... in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter...." In this he is conditionally [i.e., "in as far as...."] saying that the Church acknowledges that the human body has a physical or material (matter) basis in nature. And this basis must "pre-exist" the human body as its material cause. [Which in terms of classical Aristotelian causal categories omits the other three causes: formal, efficient, and final. The Church tends to set great store by Aristotle.] This "living matter" itself is a creature of God, deriving its existence and persistence from His Living Word in the Beginning, from Alpha to Omega....
Pius' observation to this point pertains only to the level of the matter composing the physical body, a distinction he makes clear with his next statement: "... the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." That is, God, not matter, is the first and final cause of the soul, even though the incarnated soul is embodied in "matter" (whatever that is — take a look at the stunning, profound insights of quantum theory, and you tell me.... A conversation for a later time perhaps.)
Whatever. That's how I read these lines. I don't see so much as a scrap of Darwinist theory anywhere in the Pope's remarks, let alone any endorsement of it. For where does Darwin say "where souls come from," let alone say they come from God? Of course, the entire point of Darwin's exercise is to expunge God (and souls, not to mention minds) from his description of the biological world, to place it firmly and exclusively on a purely material basis. Such that if there actually were such things as "soul," or "mind" (entities seemingly strenuously denied by Darwinist evolutionary biologists nowadays), they must be understood as epiphenomena of matter....
WRT the two quotes you have from Pope John Paul II, let's start with this from his first: "... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Which theory of evolution? Let's agree he's speaking about biological evolution here. Then the question becomes: Macro- or micro-evolution? It appears there is excellent support from direct observation and evidence that the latter happens; but none at all that the former does.
But Darwin's theory is a macroevolution theory....
The second quote from John Paul II pretty much recapitulates what Pius says in your earlier quote from him. But John Paul's statement is "tougher"; for he says "... theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
You quote Pope Benedict. "They [they??? I'm guessing: faith and reason] are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Again, which evolution — "the truth of which enriches our understanding of life and being as such?" Darwin's theory has no clue about the origin of "life and being as such." It has no theory of mind or consciousness. Yet we are supposed to fill up this gaping lacuna by stipulating life, being, mind, and consciousness as either epiphenomena of "matter in its motions," or entities which arise by "random mutation and natural selection" by "dumb" matter boot-strapping itself into higher forms.... (How'd it get so "smart?")
If you want to understand what Popes say, maybe you need to understand their theology better. Most prominent public Darwinists nowadays revile "religion" (especially Christianity). These men do not bother to do that and, to my mind, they end up looking like fools whenever they hold forth on theological issues. Examples: Dawkins; Lewontin; Pinker; Dennett; Hitchens; the "usual suspects"....
Well, just my 2-cents worth, FWIW.
Thanks for writing!
Of course there is! Scientists are not exempt from the human condition. Bottom-line, all human knowledge and action absolutely depends on, or "bottoms out" in faith of some kind. Crudely put, for scientists, typically this is faith in the intelligibility of Nature, or of the universe — de minimus. Otherwise, scientific activity would be pointless.
Thank you so much for your excellent observations, GourmetDan!
Yes; but to be driven to such a conclusion seems mindless to me. For after all, what can the word "random" possibly mean but "we do not know the cause of this phenomenon."
If things are "random," a/k/a "unpredictable," that only means we do not (yet) have the means to predict them. In which case science should not routinely obviate this question, but should ask the next question: Why can we not predict them? Answer: Our knowledge is insufficient. Conclusion: So try harder! Follow truth wherever it leads.
Though I imagine there is a point beyond which the human mind cannot go, vis-à-vis what God knows in His mind. Which is where "mystery" comes into the human picture....
I do not believe that allmendream is aware that his materialist, physicalist, mechanical "picture" of the world — as if the universe were some kind of fantastic, random (mindless) machine inexorably grinding on, rather pointlessly, according to Newton's (and Darwin's) laws — makes God responsible for all the evil in the world.
But I'm very, very glad that you noticed it, dear r9etb!
Thank you so very much for your most insightful essay/post!
They're your words: God created everything, even random events are controlled by God, species evolved and are still evolving.
So.... shall we continue our discussion?
Case in point: math is assumed to be true and universal -- as a matter of faith.
I quite agree!
The theory of evolution is Darwin's theory of natural selection of genetic variation. It is that theory that has gotten confirmation from multiple lines of inquiry as Pope John Paul II stated.
The first statement, that God created the soul of man, is not a confirmation of Darwin's theory, and it is absolutely ridiculous of you to suggest that I was making that argument!
I pointed out what Pius II said to show that it was obviously about HUMAN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, from pre-living matter.
When you talk your nonsense about ‘micro’ vs ‘macro’, a creationist delusion with no basis in science (evolution and common descent of species which is a consequence of evolution) and nothing the Pope has endorsed, some barrier regarding “Kinds” is the ‘micro’ ‘macro’ quibble, and Pope John Paul obviously rejected that argument utterly when speaking of the multiple lines of evidence that confirm the theory of evolution, and Pope Benedict did the same when speaking of the “scientific proof” in favor of evolution.
I think you need to understand Catholic theology better betty boop, they accept the science of a very old universe and the creation of man from pre-living material via evolution.
The creation of man from pre-living material, the subject of Pius that John Paul took up, is now just acceptance of “micro” evolution? Really? You are really going to make that argument?
My apologies, God can control all random events, but I did not mean to suggest that HE directs/controls every atomic decay and every dice roll, just that HE knows the outcome.
I agree with you that it is a mystery, but I still don’t see how knowing the outcome denies the existence of free will.
But what is obvious is that the Bible says directly that the results of a dice are “from the Lord”. Random events are not out of the control of God, and it doesn’t mean that God is not in control just because we observe events in nature that exhibit randomness.
That was the point I was making. Sorry for the mistake.
Jeepers, allmendream — talk about a "man of faith!" Your faith in this preposterous idea seems to have no bounds, and nothing can disturb it!
And you say "science" has nothing to do with faith!
Guess I'll just go bone up on my Catholic theology now....
Merry Christmas!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.