So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?
rappoccio
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). Macaddicted
tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
can explain them to me (go figure).
I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little synopsis
as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
theologists acknowledge).
I'll give a brief summary of my viewpoints.
The Catholic Church teaches
"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
"taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
with the theory of evolution.
See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
Bodega
[snip]
Original sin is non-existent. This is like debating whether Batman and
Wonder Woman ever had sex.
TomS
<1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
I wonder whether your discussion applies to *evolution*,
rather than to some other scientific concept, such as genetics.
The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.
The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
DougC
> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
Is that bad?
Why do you zero in on "the original" sin? What about murder, theft,
insider trading, and all the other sins?
Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Doug Chandler
rappoccio
Wasn't that exactly the point I was trying to make?
John Wilkins
And if they did, was the Boy Wonder their lovechild?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
chris.li...@gmail.com
> rappoccio wrote:
> > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> Is that bad?
rapoccio makes no judgement either way, but I get the impression he
thinks it's a good thing.
>
> Why do you zero in on "the original" sin? What about murder, theft,
> insider trading, and all the other sins?
Because those other crimes you mention are committed by an individual,
and that same individual pays the penalty for them. No one is
claiming that if your father was an inside trader, you're going to
hell.
>
> Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
It's actually quite a reasonable question, and it deserves an answer.
I'd like to see Tony Pagano's take on this also.
Chris
>
> Doug Chandler
rappoccio
That's the point. If it wasn't clear I apologize.
rappoccio
> "On 22 May 2007 22:14:50 -0700, in article
Not at all, it uses evolution to show how a concept in a religion is
inconsistent.
> rather than to some other scientific concept, such as genetics.
I don't think so, the point I was making is that we know (from
evolution, not genetics) that there wasn't really a "first" person
living in a garden.
>
> The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
> relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
> some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.
That's my point.
> The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
> clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.
However the debunking of the myth comes from variation.
rappoccio
> > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> Is that bad?
Is what bad? That original sin isn't consistent with evolution because
it relies on a fairy tale? For me that's not bad (I'm glad we can
debunk this myth), for people that believe in this it seems to be a
bad thing.
>
> Why do you zero in on "the original" sin?
It's the one that's least sensible. By doing nothing, we did something
wrong.
<baffled>
> What about murder, theft,
> insider trading, and all the other sins?
They actually did something wrong. Punishment would actually be
deserved (eternal punishment is a different story).
>
> Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
It's not my nonsense, and yes, it is inconsistent with the theory of
evolution. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought
original sin was true. I was stating the position of the Church.
>
> Doug Chandler
rappoccio
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 9:07 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > rappoccio wrote:
> > > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > Is that bad?
>
> rapoccio makes no judgement either way, but I get the impression he
> thinks it's a good thing.
I'm not being too clear, I think it's a very good thing that we can
use an observable fact to debunk an unsatisfactory metaphysical idea
(sinning before we're actually capable of doing anything that could be
called "sin").
er...@swva.net
> So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
> upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
> Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). Macaddicted
> tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
> find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
> understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
> can explain them to me (go figure).
>
> I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little synopsis
> as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
> Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
> Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
> theologists acknowledge).
>
If one isn't a biblical literalist, and looks at the story of of Adam
and Eve and the concept of original sin as metaphors for an existence
in which we will often be our own worst enemies, then there is no way
the non-existence of a literal Adam and Eve could disprove it. In
fact, is the concept of disproving a metaphor even coherent? I
suppose at some point there might be some statistical instrument for
rating a metaphor, but I am pretty sure the value of a metaphor will
be one of degree.
(snip)
Eric Root
VoiceOfReason
Would you expect science and a religious belief to be consistent? If
so, why?
<...>
TomS
<1179928220.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
I fail to see how evolutionary biology has anything to say about
living in a garden. As far as there being a "first person", I don't
see how evolution presents any more difficulties than other
sciences, such as genetics.
>
>>
>> The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
>> relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
>> some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.
>
>That's my point.
>
>> The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
>> clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.
>
>However the debunking of the myth comes from variation.
I agree that the present variation within Homo sapiens strongly
tells against there being a single "founding couple" for all of
us. But, again, that's a matter more appropriate to genetics, not
particularly evolution.
rappoccio
When was the last time someone was theorized to be punished for
eternity in a lake of fire over a metaphor?
The point is, the Church places a huge amount of importance on the
"erasing of sin" in baptism (and goes so far as to argue that those
that aren't baptized with water are baptiized anyway, by being good
people to make the message more palatable). However the entire concept
is nonsense. No one can sin by the very nature of their existence
before they make any choices. It's simply a non-sequitor.
VoiceOfReason
Can you expand upon this? How does science know that this specific
individual never existed?
> and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
*expect* the two to be consistent? For that matter, the concept of
God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
consistent with science.
(Feel free to insert jokes, as you see fit.) ;-)
Noelie S. Alito
(<riffle-riffle>...now where did I put those definitions...? Ah!)
non sequitur - an argument which does not follow from the line of reasoning
non sequiter - being more non sequit than something else
non sequitor - superhero fighting for truth and justice by changing the subject
Noelie
--
<my_first_name>2007@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is one a biblical literalist if one believes Jesus literally lived,
died, rose from the dead and floated up into the sky? And in dying, He
atoned for all the sins of mankind, those sins placed upon mankind's
shoulders due to Original Sin? I'm not sure most Christians would
agree to the "metaphorical" nature of Salvation...
slothrop
slothrop
slothrop
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
First of all, the bible doesn't actually say we're all descended from
Adam and Eve (popular myth). It says man was created on the sixth day,
male and female, in Chapter One and later, in Chapter Two, God created
Adam as a special project ("Let us make man in our own image"). Adam
represents an improvement in the basic design of man, which of course,
in time, becomes the Jewish people. After all, that's who the Old
Testament is about!
Original sin isn't something you inherit by genetics. There was
someone that originated the casting of bronze and others originated
the developement of iron, in the modern age, we have the production of
aluminum and petroleum products. These innovations catch on and
redefine the human condition, much more swiftly and extensively than
genetics. We have the Jewish people to thank for originating sin,
which has become an extremely popular innovation, ever since.
As with any advance in technology, sin is seen as making us weaker and
less human, more disconnected from reality (a.k.a. "wrong"). It's sort
of inescapable that certain popular mass innovations (Original Sin,
the Bronze Age, the Industrial Revolution, etc.) change how we
interact in our environment (most recently, global warming). We know
it's wrong, but there are advantages to the innovations that we are
unwilling to live without, until we absolutely have to.
Whether Adam actually existed or not, is something of a mute point.
The Jewish people do exist and they brought us this innovation of sin
and have been widely condemned and persecuted for it. The term "Jew"
is often a slander as a result. Our embrace of the innovation doesn't
seem to register with us. It's assumed since they originated it, they
have a greater mastery of it. However, at this point in time, it would
be hard to deny (as rappoccio does) that the innovation of sin isn't
widely mastered throughout the world.
Now, it is true that Catholic theologians have muddled the facts with
a bunch of theological nonsense, but then, that's what they're good
at. The fact that the Old Testament was written for the Jewish people,
as a means to give them a sense of identity and philosophy, is so
completely ignored that you'd think Abraham was a Christian. Things
need to be taken in context, but Catholics are like atheists, they
don't believe that people can discern the facts, so they make up a
worldview that suits them and try to shove it down everybody's throats
(typical human behavior).
JTG 5/23/07
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
People consistently ignore the real issue here.
Is it not true that at one time people thought that Genesis should be
taken literally? Was it not the scientific world-view that gave a clue
to people that Genesis had to be metaphorical? If this is not the
case, I'd be curious to see references on just where it was in church
history that it was determined what parts of the Bible were to be
considered spiritually true (whatever that means in context of an
origins story) and which ones were to be considered historically true,
and on what basis this distinction was made.
If there are Christians who think the story of Jesus and the whole
Salvation thing is spiritually true (again, whatever that means, as it
deals with my eternal soul and the historical record of a guy who
physically affected people's lives), I don't think I've ever met any.
And yet most of those same Christians believe Genesis to be
spiritually true.
Which leaves the question that has been asked a bunch of times around
here and I've not yet seen an answer from Christian believers: If the
story of Genesis and original sin is spiritually true, and the story
of Jesus and the Resurrection is historically true, then why did Jesus
die?
Religion says, according to some people:
1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
2.) Jesus died to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, which
contaminated humanity to an eternity of not being with God (at best)
or an eternity of burning in Hell (at worst), depending on how liberal
your Christianity is.
So if you're one of these people who believe this, how do reconcile
the two? The mental gymnastics I've seen employed on this has over
time soured me to most people of religious persuasions. The reasoning
usually boils down to "I have to be saved, I have to live forever, so
therefore the Genesis account has to have some validity to it, I'll
let the more theologically-minded worry about how it all works..."
slothrop
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
damn Google!!
rappoccio
People who can only argue with a misspelled word: useless.
rappoccio
The very concept of a "first human" isn't even defined particularly
well. It depends on "species" being some sort of set-in-stone group of
individuals. This is a horrible way to look at ancestry. It's much
more fluid than that, with generations slowly merging from one
"species" to another over time (with no clear-cut "well, dad here is
an ape, but the baby is a human"). There would not be a "single" human
ancestor because there is no "single" gene that makes us human. Over
time, the genes that define "modern" humans would have evolved, one at
a time. Each new mutated individual would have been able to reproduce
with relatives from recent generations (his/her brothers/sisters/
cousins/parents). Over time, if those mutations are beneficial, they
will "migrate" to the general population, but no single "individual"
was a human and everyone he/she was related to was not. Thus, a better
concept than a "foundation person" is a "foundation group" that become
reproductively isolated from the rest of their species and evolve
independently, allowing a new species to form that is distinct from
the larger "parent" group.
It's better to look at "clades" (i.e. groups that descend from a
common ancestor). There are MANY common ancestors in a species.We
often single out the "most recent common ancestor", but this concept
is actually dependent on the living population, and is not by any
stretch of the imagination the "first" of the ancestors. The most
recent female common ancestor was 140,000 years ago, and the most
recent male common ancestor was 60,000 years ago, so clearly they
didn't actually know each other. They were not part of the first
generations of "humans".
>
> > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> *expect* the two to be consistent?
The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
observable fact. Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
assertions have to get smaller).
> For that matter, the concept of
> God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> consistent with science.
Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
(and by and large all have been falsified).
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
>
> - Show quoted text -
" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
2.) Jesus died to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve..."
That's way too specific!
We are all born into the technology of our time, innovation, the
original innovation being "Sin" from which all other innovations are
in part based. These innovations and technologies make it impossible
to exist in our natural condition (altruistic, positive, contented,
communing with nature). Therefore, in a basic sense, they are
inherently wrong. To the extent that a couple named Adam and Eve
started us down the road of technology and innovation is lost to the
past and virtually irrelevent.
Innovation being a creation of the human mind and the noted "God"
being a Creator God and not particularly impressed with the inevitable
consequences of human innovation, there existed a long period of time
(The Old Testament) in which this God tried to convince the Jewish
people that innovation and technology were wrong. This eventually
proved to be futile. At which point to gain some perspective, God
entered into the world as a man to experience innovation and
technology from a human perspective. While Jesus found that his basic
objections were correct, he came to understand how perverse the human
perspective had become and decided to forgive man for his innovations
as long as they were willing to accept, in principle, that God
intended his best for them. The whole innovation of Roman Law and his
crucification serves to point out that human innovation doesn't
embrace the consequences of its use and Jesus rising from the dead
signifies that human innovation doesn't dictate the will of Nature
(a.k.a. "God). Atonement is a means of overlooking the rightness and
wrongness of humanity and just trying to get along.
The New Testament ends with "Revelations" which pointedly reasserts
the inevitable wrongness of technology and innovation (ultimate
wholesale destruction). In the modern age, it's a given that if we
don't destroy ourselves, our planet, squander our resources, cheat our
future, that we are destined for extinction, anyway. So, science and
religion are agreed on our eventual fate.
JTG later 5/23/07
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
>
> - Show quoted text -
" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
>
> - Show quoted text -
" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
rappoccio
wrote:
Let me know how evil you think technology and innovation are when you
go home tonight. If they're so evil, you should
1) Stop posting on that computer.
2) Turn off all the lights.
3) Never get another innoculation or take another pill.
4) Don't mend any of your broken bones.
5) Don't recusitate anyone who has a heart attack.
6) Don't vaccinate children from smallpox or other killers.
7) Don't give women cesarean sections to help them to not die in
childbirth.
8) Sell your house. Give all the money to charity (you won't be
needing it).
9) Go into the woods.
10) Live in caves (you can't build a lean-to, that's technology).
11) Eat only raw animals and vegetables (don't cook them, fire was
technology too).
12) Get back to me after you've experienced how "evil" technology and
innovation are.
Perplexed in Peoria
"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Could you expand on what you think the evidence is that he didn't exist?
> and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
I think you are right about doctrine, but the conflict with biology is a
bit more uncertain. Here is where to find the doctrine. Especially
paragraph 36 & 37.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
rappoccio
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com > wrote in messagenews:1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>From a few posts up (I'll assume you missed it):
>
> > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> > carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
> I think you are right about doctrine, but the conflict with biology is a
> bit more uncertain. Here is where to find the doctrine. Especially
> paragraph 36 & 37.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
The one dated August 12, 1950, written by Pius XII, you mean? I've
read it, and also wikipedia has a nice little summary (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)
I'll cut to the chase. Brief history:
1) In the Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII says evolution
might have occurred in the past, but doesn't occur now, but there was
ONE Adam and Eve, and they committed Original Sin.
2) Later (around 1996), Neuner and Dupius, along with Roberta Masi
state that it didn't have to be ONE person that was "Adam", but
possibly a foundation group (never mind Pius XII on this, we're sure
he wasn't listening to God just then). No official encyclicals backing
them up as far as I know.
3) The International Theological Commission (endorsed by then Cardinal
Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict) claims that Adam was symbolic of the
first hominids who God breathed a soul into, who were then capable of
sin (and their parents weren't), thus original sin was born. It also
claims that the definitive characteristic of human beings is a large
brain size which "culminated" in homo sapiens.
4) Benedict claims that evolution "isn't a complete, scientifically
proven theory" and it's still possible that intelligent design is
true. (Does the Pope have to go to confession if he lies to the world?
Does he just talk to himself or something?)
5) When this happened is answered by Fiorenzo Facchini in 2006: "The
spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where
and in the ways God willed it."
So let's get this summed up, shall we? So now, the idea (unofficially)
is that the following happened (but they're not really sure):
1) Hominid Group A exists, but isn't human. No "divine spark", no
soul, no possibility of getting into heaven/hell/etc, incapable of
sin, still living in the "perfect world" where members of group A can
be eaten by cats and crocodiles but that's okay, the world is still
free of sin because nothing disobeys God (no free will, I guess).
2) Hominid Group B is born to Hominid Group A (let's say they are the
first generation). Now they get the "divine spark", they receive a
soul as a gift from God, they're able to get into heaven or go to
hell, they are now capable of sin, know the difference between right
and wrong, and God tells them not to sin (eat apples, whatever). The
whole group sins anyway, and the world is taken out of the "perfect
state" and original sin is thrust upon the entirety of the genetic
lineage of this group of people (their parents are still not able to
sin, though, remember).
Here's the problem: This distinction is totally artificial. It's
completely arbitrary. There would be almost no biological difference
between them, no more than you have from your parents. The development
of intellect happened over thousands of generations, it wasn't as if
one hominid was born with a fully formed persona and intellectual
capabilities, but his/her parents were not. Did the soul evolve too?
Was there a "proto-soul"? Or did God just cut the line arbitrarily and
say "Before this line, you don't have a soul, and after it, you
do" (amidst moaning and groaning from the "old" generation, they were
certainly capable of understanding language as well as modern humans
are, and probably buried their dead and sang songs).
This is a totally incoherent scenario. There is no natural way to
explain this, aside from covering one's eyes and ears and saying "God
must have done it anyway, leave me alone and stop asking questions".
There is no way to place a specific location of where a species
"develops" a soul that isn't totally arbitrary. Therefore, there is no
place where one can place "original sin" squarely on the shoulders of
any individuals but not their parents, and therefore evolutionary
theory is still incompatible with the story of original sin.rappoccio
Perplexed in Peoria
"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Of course I missed it. I stopped reading through your postings on about
the fifth identical response to the question about Batman and Wonder Woman.
My newsreader (OE) shows all of your postings on this thread to be responses
to the OP. But I'm not sure Google can be blamed, because at least some
of your postings appear to have a valid In-Reply-To line.
You have a strange notion of what 'evidence' means. Those two paragraphs
contain nothing but a reiteration of your opinion that Adam didn't exist.
The also confuse the notion of the theological first human and the
biological first human. Since the latter concept makes little sense
when you look closely, you claim that the first makes no sense either.
You also seem to be making the assumption that there will be a monist
explanation for man's consciousness and personality, whereas I believe
that the RCC still holds to a dualist position. After all, it is the
non-physical portion of the mind which carries guilt and will ultimately
be rewarded or punished.
Thanks for the history, but Humani generis was 'ex cathedra' and all
the more recent stuff that you cite was not. I don't see how they can work
around that inconvenient fact.
What am I saying? Of course they can work around it! They can say
that 'Adam' consists of three or more persons in one ancestor. Or that
there is the appearance of polygenism, but the substance is monogenic.
They have done this kind of thing before.
I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
rappoccio
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, Google had an anurism today. I removed the dupes.
Because such a concept is not defined, as I've mentioned.
> The also confuse the notion of the theological first human and the
> biological first human.
As I've mentioned, unless God is arbitrary, there is no such concept
of either.
> Since the latter concept makes little sense
> when you look closely, you claim that the first makes no sense either.
I said either it is inconsistent, or it's totally and completely
arbitrary. Arbitrariness doesn't seem to be something God would be
interested in (if God exists), so I'm going with "doesn't exist".
> You also seem to be making the assumption that there will be a monist
> explanation for man's consciousness and personality, whereas I believe
> that the RCC still holds to a dualist position. After all, it is the
> non-physical portion of the mind which carries guilt and will ultimately
> be rewarded or punished.
The one that hasn't been shown to exist, you mean? Just realize your
assertions are totally metaphysical and unfalsifiable.
Fine with me. Easier to prove it's wrong.
> What am I saying? Of course they can work around it! They can say
> that 'Adam' consists of three or more persons in one ancestor. Or that
> there is the appearance of polygenism, but the substance is monogenic.
> They have done this kind of thing before.
They can say whatever they want, doesn't mean it makes any sense.
<snip>
>
> I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> absurd.
I think it's definitionally absurd. I have shown that a single
rational choice for an "ancestor of all humanity" isn't a defined
concept.
> It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story.
That I agree with.
> But I thought you were
> going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
I think I have done that. I've shown that no "natural" distinction
could be placed to a single individual or group of individuals that
could be considered the "beginning" of humanity. If God (assuming God
exists) is comfortable with "You guys on my left, you're in, but on
the right, bugger off", then there's nothing I can do about that.
wf3h
rappoccio wrote:
>>
> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to say adam did/
didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.
as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
when i was a catholic seminarian, not a single catholic theologian
supported your view. the 'original' parents of the human race were
understood to be defined by god.
unless, of course, you think you're god. most creationists do have
that tendency
Perplexed in Peoria
"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179965914.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Uh, yes. We are discussing theology, aren't we?
No. It was "You animals on the left are going to get a soul. The ones on
the right don't. And, since I know the future, I can say that it is really
the ones on the right that are the lucky ones today."
I have to say it again. You have demonstrated nothing other than that the
Catholic (and most common Protestant) worldview is incompatible with your
own worldview. But you knew that going in. So you are actually just wasting
everybody's time here.
Nic
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
be biologically heritable? What possible theological point would
there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
in the high street never entered by the fathers?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...> wrote [to rappaccio]:
> > I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> > operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> > you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> > absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> > strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> > the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> > forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
> > going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> > biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
>
> You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
> on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
> theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
> would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
>
> If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> be biologically heritable?
No more odd than that guilt should be heritable. Which is to say, it is
friggin' bonkers.
> What possible theological point would
> there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> in the high street never entered by the fathers?
The truly odd thing about the Judaeo-Christian notion of heritable guilt
is that it only makes sense in a materialist-evolutionist world-view.
Because if you really want to punish (and the Tit-for-tat analysis convinces
me that punishment is sometimes what you ought to want to do) then if
you can't apply enough punishment from the perpetrator himself, you
really ought to apply it to the offspring. After all, evolutionary theory
leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.
And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.
Nic
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On 23 May, 23:59, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote [to rappaccio]:
> > > I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> > > operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> > > you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> > > absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> > > strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> > > the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> > > forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
> > > going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> > > biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
>
> > You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
> > on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
> > theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
> > would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
>
> > If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> > be biologically heritable?
>
> No more odd than that guilt should be heritable. Which is to say, it is
> friggin' bonkers.
Well, isn't that the biological case here? If you want to have a
'first guilt holder', then don't look to biology for a distinguishing
characteristic worthy of such a heavy burden. That's an answer on
behalf of biology, isn't it? I still don't see what more you could
expect rapproccio to have said.
> > What possible theological point would
> > there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> > visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> > in the high street never entered by the fathers?
>
> The truly odd thing about the Judaeo-Christian notion of heritable guilt
> is that it only makes sense in a materialist-evolutionist world-view.
> Because if you really want to punish (and the Tit-for-tat analysis convinces
> me that punishment is sometimes what you ought to want to do) then if
> you can't apply enough punishment from the perpetrator himself, you
> really ought to apply it to the offspring.
This is an entirely different matter - the biological basis for common
morality (as opposed to the RCC's rather desperate morality). It may
indeed be advantageous to visit the sins down the germ line, and it
may indeed be that there is nothing more to right and wrong than what
is most advantageous. However, it is part of the common usage of
moral language that right is not the same as advantageous, or at least
not the same as advantageous to the individual making the choice. It
is the biological basis of this more altruistic morality that needs
explaining.
So yes, it may in some sense be a public service/altruism if you
prosecute a family vendetta down the generations. Our natural
inclination is to hate the sinner and not the sin. The naturalistic
underpinning of that inclination is that there is no point in
intervening over a one-off offence (if it is too late to stop it), but
if we think such offences arise chronically from an individual's
'nature', then there is every point in intervening. So as you say,
our inclination to visit sanctions down the generations might be
caused by the heritability of certain behaviours. I question whether
we even have such an inclination in the first place, though. I never
feel it. I could quite believe you are just trying to rationalise
something that never existed outside the tortured meta-ethics of a
certain religious tradition.
> After all, evolutionary theory
> leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
> so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.
>
> And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
> other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
> our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.
I answered this above, but I will add that my attitude towards my
enemies' descendants is governed by my expectation of their attitude
towards me. So there is a game-theoretical instability here.
macaddicted
<1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, after all this time, a whole thread dedicated to little me.
> So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the
> facts upon which the theology of original sin is based in the
> Catholic Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).
Fable is a bit better than fairy tale.
> Macaddicted tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some
> things" to find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should
> first understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are
> before hecan explain them to me (go figure).
No. Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp.
of scripture
>
> I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little
> synopsis as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the
> Catholic Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't
> descend from Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other
> moderntheologists acknowledge).
Exogenesis is different from exegesis. There is little said about the
former and a lot about the latter.
>
> I'll give a brief summary of my viewpoints.
>
> The Catholic Church teaches
>
> "By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
> justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
> human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
> nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
> holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
> result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
> subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
> inclined to sin (this inclination is called
> "concupiscence")."Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
>
> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin.
The "sin" of Adam (singular) was the "Original Sin."
> Since Adam didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual
> sin, then the "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent
> because he himself is non-existent, therefore the concept of original
> sin is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Yes, and I already responded to this point. The Church doesn't read
Gen 1-11 as history as we understand history in the modern context of
the word. The Church does not read the Bible perspicaciously (having a
ready insight into and understanding of things). You need both to make
your point.
>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain
> them carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
>
Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references he
requested and I haven't been able to get to them yet. My thesis
director called today to see if I had died, seeing as I haven't had
the time to respond to his emails either. Do a google groups search
for my sig in this group and you will see many posts where I discuss
some of the topics you have brought up, mostly in response to posts by
Pagano
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
macaddicted
<1hylase.1svfjck93oioaN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>j.wil...@uq.edu.au
(John Wilkins) wrote:
> Bodega <michael...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 10:14 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Original sin is non-existent. This is like debating whether Batman
>> and Wonder Woman ever had sex.
> And if they did, was the Boy Wonder their lovechild?
>
With a GREEN codpiece? No, I don't see it.
Nic
> In article
> <1179897290.537628.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
>
> <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, after all this time, a whole thread dedicated to little me.
>
> > So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> > I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the
> > facts upon which the theology of original sin is based in the
> > Catholic Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).
>
> Fable is a bit better than fairy tale.
It's shorter. Brevity is the soul of wit.
>
> > Macaddicted tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some
> > things" to find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should
> > first understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are
> > before hecan explain them to me (go figure).
>
> No. Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp.
> of scripture
>
>
>
> > I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little
> > synopsis as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the
> > Catholic Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't
> > descend from Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other
> > moderntheologists acknowledge).
>
> Exogenesis is different from exegesis. There is little said about the
> former and a lot about the latter.
>
That could be because exegesis means saying a lot about something.
I hope things improve. As you can see, this topic is of interest to a
lot of us.
rappoccio
> rappoccio wrote:
>
> > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to say adam did/
> didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.
The existence of Adam is a historical concept.
>
> as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
> ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
And their parents weren't "self-aware" enough? Since they could have
in principle mated with their parents (or species members from that
generation), they're the same species. There is no dividing line on a
generation-by-generation basis of "species".
>
>
>
> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> > carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
> when i was a catholic seminarian, not a single catholic theologian
> supported your view. the 'original' parents of the human race were
> understood to be defined by god.
I'm expressing my opinion. You're free to disagree and so are they.
> unless, of course, you think you're god. most creationists do have
> that tendency
Nope. No delusions that I'm God here.
rappoccio
I did? I didn't mean to. Sorry if I was unclear.
>
> If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> be biologically heritable?
That's kinda my point.
> What possible theological point would
> there be for that?
Required inclusion for political purposes?
> Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> in the high street never entered by the fathers?
Agreed.
Perplexed in Peoria
"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179977433.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I think he means that I did.
rappoccio
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Great points. I've never thought of it that way :)
wf3h
rappoccio wrote:
> On May 23, 8:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > rappoccio wrote:
> >> >
> > sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to say adam did/
> > didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.
>
but sin is neither an historical nor a scientific concept.
>
> >
> > as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
> > ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> > 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
>
> And their parents weren't "self-aware" enough?
don't know. go ask god. he would seem to know...
Since they could have
> in principle mated with their parents (or species members from that
> generation), they're the same species. There is no dividing line on a
> generation-by-generation basis of "species".
you're ignoring variations in populations which includes mental
processes.
>
Perplexed in Peoria
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1179973301....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The logic of deterrence suggests that there is every reason to intervene
(or rather, punish) even one-off offenses. It is, after all, the one-off
offenders whom you wish to deter.
> but
> if we think such offences arise chronically from an individual's
> 'nature', then there is every point in intervening. So as you say,
> our inclination to visit sanctions down the generations might be
> caused by the heritability of certain behaviours.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am suggesting that the purpose
of punishment is deterrence, and that the deterrence is more fearsome
and effective if you know that your sins will result in punishment of your
progeny.
> I question whether
> we even have such an inclination in the first place, though. I never
> feel it. I could quite believe you are just trying to rationalise
> something that never existed outside the tortured meta-ethics of a
> certain religious tradition.
>
> > After all, evolutionary theory
> > leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
> > so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.
> >
> > And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
> > other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
> > our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.
>
> I answered this above, but I will add that my attitude towards my
> enemies' descendants is governed by my expectation of their attitude
> towards me. So there is a game-theoretical instability here.
There is indeed. But my suggestion was not that you slay your enemy's
children to remove bad genes or bad attitudes and thus to make the world
a better place. You kill the kids so that every neutral observer draws the
conclusion that you are one mean mutha' and that it would be very unwise to
mess with you.
er...@swva.net
> On May 23, 10:10 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 1:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> > > I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
> > > upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
> > > Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). Macaddicted
> > > tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
> > > find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
> > > understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
> > > can explain them to me (go figure).
>
> > > I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little synopsis
> > > as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
> > > Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
> > > Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
> > > theologists acknowledge).
>
> > and Eve and the concept of original sin as metaphors for an existence
> > in which we will often be our own worst enemies, then there is no way
> > the non-existence of a literal Adam and Eve could disprove it. In
> > fact, is the concept of disproving a metaphor even coherent? I
> > suppose at some point there might be some statistical instrument for
> > rating a metaphor, but I am pretty sure the value of a metaphor will
> > be one of degree.
>
> When was the last time someone was theorized to be punished for
> eternity in a lake of fire over a metaphor?
>
In the Bible. Of course, the "lake of fire" is most likely a metaphor
also.
> The point is, the Church places a huge amount of importance on the
> "erasing of sin" in baptism (and goes so far as to argue that those
> that aren't baptized with water are baptiized anyway, by being good
> people to make the message more palatable). However the entire concept
> is nonsense. No one can sin by the very nature of their existence
> before they make any choices.
You aren't paying attention. The "original sin" is a nature inclined
to f**k up.
> It's simply a non-sequitor.
Eric Root
Nic
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179973301....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Deterrence seems to be a different thing, and yes it often works by
example, being especially efficacious against non-offenders. That is
the civillised rationalisation of what we do.
However, if we are talking about how the logic of the situation has
caused behaviours to evolve, then I don't see that deterrence is
involved. The feelings that drive punishing behaviour seem to be
centred on getting ones own back, and not simply on preventive
intervention. Also the feelings can be of strong disdain for some
other group, even though they have done nothing against us.
Far from wanting to deter an offender, or set an example to others, we
often experience feelings of forgiveness when we are convinced that an
offence was just a one off, or was caused by factors external to that
individual. In other words, when we can't see a reason for hating the
sinner, we can be quite apathetic about the whole incident, and just
take it like the weather.
>
> > but
> > if we think such offences arise chronically from an individual's
> > 'nature', then there is every point in intervening. So as you say,
> > our inclination to visit sanctions down the generations might be
> > caused by the heritability of certain behaviours.
>
> No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am suggesting that the purpose
> of punishment is deterrence, and that the deterrence is more fearsome
> and effective if you know that your sins will result in punishment of your
> progeny.
>
That is true, but I don't see how evolution could get to grips with
it. Characters that are useful when expressed in an oppressor, are a
liability when expressed in the oppressed. The genes don't know who
they are in, and know nothing of the status quo in society and so are
unable to take sides.
Suppose that a predisposition to crime were heritable. Couldn't that
be quite a successful trait? It seems to me that what could be
selected for is a tendency to get away with what you can, and to stop
everyone else getting away with things. That would explain the
hypocritical flavour of much moral argument - the actions being
justified by it were never in the first place *supposed* to be
anything but hypocritical.
>
> > I question whether
> > we even have such an inclination in the first place, though. I never
> > feel it. I could quite believe you are just trying to rationalise
> > something that never existed outside the tortured meta-ethics of a
> > certain religious tradition.
>
> > > After all, evolutionary theory
> > > leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
> > > so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.
>
> > > And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
> > > other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
> > > our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.
>
> > I answered this above, but I will add that my attitude towards my
> > enemies' descendants is governed by my expectation of their attitude
> > towards me. So there is a game-theoretical instability here.
>
> There is indeed. But my suggestion was not that you slay your enemy's
> children to remove bad genes or bad attitudes and thus to make the world
> a better place. You kill the kids so that every neutral observer draws the
> conclusion that you are one mean mutha' and that it would be very unwise to
> mess with you.
Which works just as well whether you are the victim or the criminal.
rappoccio
> rappoccio wrote:
> > On May 23, 8:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to say adam did/
> > > didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.
>
> > The existence of Adam is a historical concept.'
>
> but sin is neither an historical nor a scientific concept.
If sin was created by humans, it's a historical and psychological
concept. If the basis of sin is based on historical events, the basis
itself is historical (I guess that goes without saying).
> > > as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
> > > ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> > > 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
>
> > And their parents weren't "self-aware" enough?
>
> don't know. go ask god. he would seem to know...
>
> Since they could have
>
> > in principle mated with their parents (or species members from that
> > generation), they're the same species. There is no dividing line on a
> > generation-by-generation basis of "species".
>
> you're ignoring variations in populations which includes mental
> processes.
No, I'm not at all. The point is, there isn't some magic "switch" that
turns on mental processes, but a gradual "awareness" that would have
evolved over generations. It's not like one day one person suddenly
came into realization that "he was surrounded by fricken idiots" and
was self-aware it was much more gradual. So where do you set the
"switch point"? It's arbitrary.
rappoccio
I'm paying perfect attention. The nature to sin is not the same as
actual sin. It's like punishing a young man of African descent in Los
Angeles when he's a child and throwing him in juvenile delinquency
homes just because he'll probably screw up anyway. It's nonsense.
rappoccio
>
> Hey, after all this time, a whole thread dedicated to little me.
>
> > So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> > I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the
> > facts upon which the theology of original sin is based in the
> > Catholic Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).
>
> Fable is a bit better than fairy tale.
Why?
>
> > Macaddicted tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some
> > things" to find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should
> > first understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are
> > before hecan explain them to me (go figure).
>
> No. Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp.
> of scripture
Not an answer.
The Church's official position (i.e. from the last encyclical I know
of) is that there was ONE Adam and Eve. Recently people have argued
that even if there were many then Adam is a "symbol", but they all
still committed original sin (for which we're all still being
punished). As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human
history to place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here, you're
not human, and after here, you are", unless God is comfortable with
completely arbitrary designations.
>
> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain
> > them carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references he
> requested and I haven't been able to get to them yet. My thesis
> director called today to see if I had died, seeing as I haven't had
> the time to respond to his emails either. Do a google groups search
> for my sig in this group and you will see many posts where I discuss
> some of the topics you have brought up, mostly in response to posts by
> Pagano
Well I hope you're feeling better.
VoiceOfReason
> On May 23, 10:35 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 1:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> > > I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
> > > upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
> > > tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
> > > find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
> > > understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
> > > can explain them to me (go figure).
>
> > > as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
> > > Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
> > > Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
> > > theologists acknowledge).
>
>
> > > The Catholic Church teaches
>
> > > "By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
> > > justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
> > > human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
> > > nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
> > > holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
> > > result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
> > > subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
> > > inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")."
> > > Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
>
> > > didn't actually exist
>
> > Can you expand upon this? How does science know that this specific
> > individual never existed?
That's all fine and good, but it really doesn't address the question.
Obviously, science can tell us volumes about how our species evolved
into its present form. But science cannot prove that "an Adam" never
existed. For example, "Adam" may have been the first human who was
spiritually aware. As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
really an apples/oranges thing.
> > > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> > theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> > *expect* the two to be consistent?
>
> The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
> observable fact.
Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?
> Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
> eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
> meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
> merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
> assertions have to get smaller).
I'm not sure, but I think you're touching on areas where some
Christians (especially YECs) seem to want to find physical evidence to
support their beliefs. They are a distinct minority. To some
Christians, searching for "evidence" in that manner borders on heresy,
as it indicates a lack of faith.
> > For that matter, the concept of
> > God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> > consistent with science.
>
> Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
> (and by and large all have been falsified).
I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
creation a few thousand years ago? The vast majority of Christians do
not hold that belief.
<...>
Perplexed in Peoria
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1180012632....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> > ... But my suggestion was not that you slay your enemy's
> > children to remove bad genes or bad attitudes and thus to make the world
> > a better place. You kill the kids so that every neutral observer draws the
> > conclusion that you are one mean mutha' and that it would be very unwise to
> > mess with you.
>
> Which works just as well whether you are the victim or the criminal.
Not necessarily. If the massive retaliation really is a response to
a wrong inflicted against you, the neutral observers will note this and
draw the conclusion that it is unwise to wrong you. But if the massive
retaliation is a response to a failed extortion on your part, then the
observers will also take note, and quite likely form a coalition against
you.
rappoccio
The first human that was "spiritually aware" (whatever that means)
bears no necessary relation to the first actual human being. The first
human that was "spiritually aware" could have been a Neandertal which
later went extinct, or some other hominid species that wasn't actually
human. In any case, the hominid *population* in question would have
been only *slightly* more intelligent than it's predecessor
populations (since there was an active selective bias toward larger
brain size). They would have had only a slightly more developed sense
of "spirituality" than their ancestors, and even THIS is only on
average. A specific hominid wouldn't fit the bill.
> As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
> really an apples/oranges thing.
Sure it does. We can certainly examine what makes people think there
is something spiritual in the first place. Clearly there is no
evidence for it. Originally, spirituality was a way of coping with
death (ancestor worship) and the gaps in the species' understanding
(nature gods). It evolved (it's a meme after all) to something we have
today, after a few tens of thousands of years. You can claim all you
want about a plane of existence that doesn't actually affect our
universe in any demonstrable way. Literally. You can literally claim
ANYTHING you want. God created the universe. There's turtles all the
way down. Field mice are performing a science experiment to develop
the ultimate question (the ultimate answer being, of course, 42). If
this is what you mean by "spirituality", then of course science can't
touch it because it doesn't seem to touch us in any demonstrable way.
And before you say it, let's not confuse spirituality with humanism.
> > > > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > > As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> > > theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> > > *expect* the two to be consistent?
>
> > The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
> > observable fact.
>
> Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?
The existence of a "first man or men" that disobeyed God who single-
handedly caused the world to "fall from grace" and for who's sins, all
of humanity must pay the price and suffer.
>
> > Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
> > eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
> > meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
> > merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
> > assertions have to get smaller).
>
> I'm not sure, but I think you're touching on areas where some
> Christians (especially YECs) seem to want to find physical evidence to
> support their beliefs. They are a distinct minority. To some
> Christians, searching for "evidence" in that manner borders on heresy,
> as it indicates a lack of faith.
Then tell me why original sin should exist, if no "Adam" existed?
> > > For that matter, the concept of
> > > God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> > > consistent with science.
>
> > Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
> > (and by and large all have been falsified).
>
> I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
> they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
> assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
> creation a few thousand years ago?
It's a prediction about God's nature, which was FALSIFIED. Don't think
for a second that people didn't at one time (and in some cases, still
do) think the universe was created in 6 days in the order specified in
Genesis, that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe,
that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the
world stopped spinning around it's axis at one point, that the world
was covered in a global flood, etc. Theists (particularly Christians)
did NOT think these concepts were wrong until we PROVED they were
wrong (falsified). In fact, religionists actively struggled AGAINST
scientific progress because it disagreed with their notions (and they
STILL do). So let's not put on overly rosy glasses about what happens
when the beliefs of a theist are proven to be false. Many will
continue to hold on to beliefs that are falsified because they will
not accept them to be disproven. Sure, some will accept actual
verifiable scientific fact as showing that aspects of their faith are
wrong. Good. That's a good thing. I applaude them for their
sensibility and efforts. However, when THEOLOGY is based on a
falsifiable assertion, and the assertion is falsified, at BEST you can
perform some unconvincing theological acrobatics to wriggle out of the
rock that was thrown on it, but usually they fail.
For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?
Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
new species? It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
evolution), and a whole bunch will just deny that it occurred at all.
(In fact, 44% of the US population takes this tact, so let's not get
sanctimonious, shall we?).
> The vast majority of Christians do
> not hold that belief.
I'm sure you have statistics for this? I do have statistics for the
percentage of US people (of all religions and lack thereof) that deny
evolution based ENTIRELY on theological assertions.
I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.
TomS
<1180017485.6...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
[...snip...]
>For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
>sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
>wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
>would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
>actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?
>Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
>that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
>new species? It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
>personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
>examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
>belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
>assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
>evolution), and a whole bunch will just deny that it occurred at all.
>(In fact, 44% of the US population takes this tact, so let's not get
>sanctimonious, shall we?).
>
>> The vast majority of Christians do
>> not hold that belief.
>
>I'm sure you have statistics for this? I do have statistics for the
>percentage of US people (of all religions and lack thereof) that deny
>evolution based ENTIRELY on theological assertions.
>
>I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
>to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.
>
As a matter of historical fact, for most of the history of
Christianity, there was no opinion about the origins of
species.
Generally speaking, people accepted ideas like spontaneous
generation and major changes in living things (individuals,
that is). After all, everyone could see metamorphosis
taking place; and there were folk-beliefs about origins of
individuals by means other than what we would call today
ordinary reproduction.
I don't have world-wide statistics on how Christians accept
anti-evolutionism; but I wouldn't extrapolate from the
situation in the USA.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
rappoccio
> "On 24 May 2007 07:38:05 -0700, in article
I don't think that's quite true at all. I think Christian people just
assumed God created them all as described in Genesis, and other people
similarly believed in their own creation myths. The Catholic Chruch
has never said it was doctrinal, but that doesn't mean the Catholics
didn't have any opinion as to the origin of species.
> Generally speaking, people accepted ideas like spontaneous
> generation and major changes in living things (individuals,
> that is). After all, everyone could see metamorphosis
> taking place; and there were folk-beliefs about origins of
> individuals by means other than what we would call today
> ordinary reproduction.
>
> I don't have world-wide statistics on how Christians accept
> anti-evolutionism; but I wouldn't extrapolate from the
> situation in the USA.
But you can't discount it either. The point is, there are a HUGE
number of people that don't believe in science when it contradicts
their religious beliefs.
TomS
<1180023388.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
I realize that a lot of people share your misconception, which is
why I brought it up.
But it seems that the idea of Divine creation of immutable
species does not occur before the 17th century.
No one saw any description of the creation of species in Genesis 1
for close to two thousand years, and that is not an unreasonable
reading. The Bible is rather consistent with the common-sense
acceptance of spontaneous generation and metamorphosis.
TomS
<1180023388.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
>
I realize that a lot of people share your misconception, which is
why I brought it up.
But it seems that the idea of Divine creation of immutable
species does not occur before the 17th century.
No one saw any description of the creation of species in Genesis 1
for close to two thousand years, and that is not an unreasonable
reading. The Bible is rather consistent with the common-sense
acceptance of spontaneous generation and metamorphosis.
VoiceOfReason
Non sequitur. If spiritual awareness actually evolved, there had to
be a first mutation that took place in one individual. And don't
automatically assume that spiritual awareness is closely linked to
intelligence. There may be no connection between them.
[Insert obvious jokes here.]
> > As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
> > really an apples/oranges thing.
>
> Sure it does. We can certainly examine what makes people think there
> is something spiritual in the first place. Clearly there is no
> evidence for it.
Of course not. Why would you *expect* to find direct evidence for
it?
> Originally, spirituality was a way of coping with
> death (ancestor worship) and the gaps in the species' understanding
> (nature gods). It evolved (it's a meme after all) to something we have
> today, after a few tens of thousands of years. You can claim all you
> want about a plane of existence that doesn't actually affect our
> universe in any demonstrable way. Literally. You can literally claim
> ANYTHING you want. God created the universe. There's turtles all the
> way down. Field mice are performing a science experiment to develop
> the ultimate question (the ultimate answer being, of course, 42). If
> this is what you mean by "spirituality", then of course science can't
> touch it because it doesn't seem to touch us in any demonstrable way.
Obviously, spirituality means different things to different people/
religions/etc. It's not based on a single, monolithic idea. Perhaps
the problem is that you're trying to distill all things spiritual into
one little nugget. I doubt that's possible.
> And before you say it, let's not confuse spirituality with humanism.
Okay. *shrug* And your point would be..................?
> > > > > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > > > As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> > > > theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> > > > *expect* the two to be consistent?
>
> > > The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
> > > observable fact.
>
> > Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?
>
> The existence of a "first man or men" that disobeyed God who single-
> handedly caused the world to "fall from grace" and for who's sins, all
> of humanity must pay the price and suffer.
How do you propose to "observe" this? Note that, if you search for
something and don't find it, that's not an "observable fact."
> > > Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
> > > eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
> > > meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
> > > merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
> > > assertions have to get smaller).
>
> > I'm not sure, but I think you're touching on areas where some
> > Christians (especially YECs) seem to want to find physical evidence to
> > support their beliefs. They are a distinct minority. To some
> > Christians, searching for "evidence" in that manner borders on heresy,
> > as it indicates a lack of faith.
>
> Then tell me why original sin should exist, if no "Adam" existed?
As we have not determined that "an Adam" never existed, the point is
moot.
> > > > For that matter, the concept of
> > > > God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> > > > consistent with science.
>
> > > Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
> > > (and by and large all have been falsified).
>
> > I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
> > they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
> > assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
> > creation a few thousand years ago?
>
> It's a prediction about God's nature, which was FALSIFIED.
With all due respect to your caps, please list a few of these
predictions that were "falsified?" Also please indicate which major
faith(s) made these predictions?
> Don't think
> for a second that people didn't at one time (and in some cases, still
> do) think the universe was created in 6 days in the order specified in
> Genesis, that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe,
> that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the
> world stopped spinning around it's axis at one point, that the world
> was covered in a global flood, etc. Theists (particularly Christians)
> did NOT think these concepts were wrong until we PROVED they were
> wrong (falsified). In fact, religionists actively struggled AGAINST
> scientific progress because it disagreed with their notions (and they
> STILL do).
You realize, of course, that we are no longer living in the Middle
Ages? Things have changed a bit since then, both in religion and
science.
> So let's not put on overly rosy glasses about what happens
> when the beliefs of a theist are proven to be false. Many will
> continue to hold on to beliefs that are falsified because they will
> not accept them to be disproven.
True, but again, don't lump all religions into the same basket. The
title of the thread is about Catholic belief, but much of what you've
said has nothing to do with Catholicism.
> Sure, some will accept actual
> verifiable scientific fact as showing that aspects of their faith are
> wrong. Good. That's a good thing. I applaude them for their
> sensibility and efforts. However, when THEOLOGY is based on a
> falsifiable assertion, and the assertion is falsified, at BEST you can
> perform some unconvincing theological acrobatics to wriggle out of the
> rock that was thrown on it, but usually they fail.
Our knowledge of the world changes. Science changes with it. So do
religions. And you think this is a problem because .........?
> For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
> sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
> wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
> would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
> actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?
Mysterious are the ways of Apollo. :-)
> Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
> that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
> new species?
If I remember correctly, such evidence was first presented around 150
years ago, give or take. Most religions managed to have survived the
event.
> It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
> personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
> examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
> belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
> assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
> evolution),
Really? How does incorporating newly discovered facts into a theology
"weaken" it? Incorporating newly discovered facts into *science*
doesn't weaken it -- why do you think it would weaken a religion? Is
that a case of wishful thinking?
> and a whole bunch will just deny that it occurred at all.
> (In fact, 44% of the US population takes this tact, so let's not get
> sanctimonious, shall we?).
Indeed -- let's not.
> > The vast majority of Christians do
> > not hold that belief.
>
> I'm sure you have statistics for this? I do have statistics for the
> percentage of US people (of all religions and lack thereof) that deny
> evolution based ENTIRELY on theological assertions.
Well, let's start with the Catholics. (Remember them? That's who the
thread is about...) To that add the Episcopal Church, the
Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and I'm sure quite a few
others. Oh, and here's a sprinkling of around 10,000 or so Christian
Clergy who feel the same way: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
> I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
> to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.
And you seem to be consumed by your own prejudices. Pity, that.
snex
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
>
> carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
the non-existence of adam and eve are the least of problems for
catholics. they believe that miracles are *still* happening, but cant
seem to show a single one to any skeptic.
chris.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references he
Get better soon. Let Wilkins wait.
Chris
rappoccio
> "On 24 May 2007 09:16:28 -0700, in article
Are you saying that somehow before the 17th century people were aware
that species evolved, but they forgot, and then figured it out again?
I have no idea what you mean. You mean that a nobleman in France in
1241 who heard the creation myth in Genesis at mass (let's assume they
spoke Latin and could understand it) actually thought to themselves
"Naw, that's not right, species evolved anyway"? I cannot fathom what
brings you to this conclusion.
rappoccio
Well, it's the one that came up in converstation :).
rappoccio
> On May 24, 10:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The first human that was "spiritually aware" (whatever that means)
> > bears no necessary relation to the first actual human being. The first
> > human that was "spiritually aware" could have been a Neandertal which
> > later went extinct, or some other hominid species that wasn't actually
> > human. In any case, the hominid *population* in question would have
> > been only *slightly* more intelligent than it's predecessor
> > populations (since there was an active selective bias toward larger
> > brain size). They would have had only a slightly more developed sense
> > of "spirituality" than their ancestors, and even THIS is only on
> > average. A specific hominid wouldn't fit the bill.
>
> Non sequitur. If spiritual awareness actually evolved, there had to
> be a first mutation that took place in one individual. And don't
> automatically assume that spiritual awareness is closely linked to
> intelligence. There may be no connection between them.
I should actually have been more careful and say that the *capability*
of being spiritually aware behaves as I've shown above. The actual
"spiritual awareness" is not defined by genetic information, but
*memetic* information rather. Eventually, individuals that were
*capable* of ancestor worship or nature god hypothesis actually got
around to doing so (and this has nothing to do with whether or not
they were homo sapiens sapiens or some other hominid). This is only
dependent on the culture of their social group, not on their DNA
makeup.
>
> > > As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
> > > really an apples/oranges thing.
>
> > Sure it does. We can certainly examine what makes people think there
> > is something spiritual in the first place. Clearly there is no
> > evidence for it.
>
> Of course not. Why would you *expect* to find direct evidence for
> it?
If something actually is purported to play such an intricate role in
the formation of our universe, you don't think it's odd that not a
trace of it can be found? The fact that people believe in it anyway is
a very interesting (and scientific) question. The supernatural was
*originally* used for ancestor worship, and to explain ordinary
phenomena that were totally misunderstood by early cultures (rain,
thunder, earthquakes, the sun, etc). As those ordinary phenomena
became more and more understood, the supernatural simply changed face.
There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our
understanding, or have just postulated that God and/or the
supernatural exist anyway, even without any evidence to support the
claim. Very fascinating.
> > Originally, spirituality was a way of coping with
> > death (ancestor worship) and the gaps in the species' understanding
> > (nature gods). It evolved (it's a meme after all) to something we have
> > today, after a few tens of thousands of years. You can claim all you
> > want about a plane of existence that doesn't actually affect our
> > universe in any demonstrable way. Literally. You can literally claim
> > ANYTHING you want. God created the universe. There's turtles all the
> > way down. Field mice are performing a science experiment to develop
> > the ultimate question (the ultimate answer being, of course, 42). If
> > this is what you mean by "spirituality", then of course science can't
> > touch it because it doesn't seem to touch us in any demonstrable way.
>
> Obviously, spirituality means different things to different people/
> religions/etc. It's not based on a single, monolithic idea. Perhaps
> the problem is that you're trying to distill all things spiritual into
> one little nugget. I doubt that's possible.
I'm placing them all into the category of "metaphysics", that is,
things that cannot be proven true or false and don't have any
demonstrable and repeatable affect on our world.
>
> > And before you say it, let's not confuse spirituality with humanism.
>
> Okay. *shrug* And your point would be..................?
It was mostly a joke, but one based in reality. Many people jump in
with "the world is beautiful therefore the supernatural exists,
morality can't exist without divine retribution, if you don't believe
in God you can't love, etc etc" as proof that the supernatural exists.
You should see the arguments that some theists bring up. Did you
happen to catch Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, by any chance? Tweedle-
dee and Tweedle-dum. They are absolutely absymally delusional, and I
think they took a look at the "Top 5 Worst Arguments Made By Theists"
and said "hey, gee, these look like a great idea".
>
> > > > > > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > > > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > > > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > > > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > > > > As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> > > > > theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> > > > > *expect* the two to be consistent?
>
> > > > The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
> > > > observable fact.
>
> > > Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?
>
> > The existence of a "first man or men" that disobeyed God who single-
> > handedly caused the world to "fall from grace" and for who's sins, all
> > of humanity must pay the price and suffer.
>
> How do you propose to "observe" this? Note that, if you search for
> something and don't find it, that's not an "observable fact."
The fact that we show that it's not a defined concept given current
observational evidence makes it an observable fact. I could say "the
first black US President told you that you could go to college for
free" but since we observe that there have been no black US presidents
means that the fact that he said you could go to college for free is
also false (or technically, irrelevant).
>
> > > > Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
> > > > eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
> > > > meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
> > > > merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
> > > > assertions have to get smaller).
>
> > > I'm not sure, but I think you're touching on areas where some
> > > Christians (especially YECs) seem to want to find physical evidence to
> > > support their beliefs. They are a distinct minority. To some
> > > Christians, searching for "evidence" in that manner borders on heresy,
> > > as it indicates a lack of faith.
>
> > Then tell me why original sin should exist, if no "Adam" existed?
>
> As we have not determined that "an Adam" never existed, the point is
> moot.
The very concept is undefined and nonsensical. Something that is
nonsensical cannot exist. Such as a being that can create a rock so
big it cannot lift it. It's nonsense. It's just an ill-defined
concept.
So I'll ask it again: Tell me why original sin should exist, if no
"Adam" existed.
>
> > > > > For that matter, the concept of
> > > > > God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> > > > > consistent with science.
>
> > > > Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
> > > > (and by and large all have been falsified).
>
> > > I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
> > > they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
> > > assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
> > > creation a few thousand years ago?
>
> > It's a prediction about God's nature, which was FALSIFIED.
>
> With all due respect to your caps, please list a few of these
> predictions that were "falsified?"
I guess the huge list in the following paragraph wasn't enough for
you? I'll list them again.
1) 6 day creationism that occurred 10,000 years ago.
2) The fact that the first thing in the universe that was created was
light, then the earth, then the stars, etc.
3) That the world was covered in a global flood.
4) That the world stopped on it's axis a few thousand years ago.
5) That human beings were made from dust and ribcages.
6) That someone eating an apple caused carnivores to exist.
7) That human beings walked with dinosaurs.
Laugh all you want. There are plenty of people around that still
believe in these things. You can either recognize that they exist and
are a problem, or ignore the problem and claim they're not "really"
Christian or whatever. If you're not one of them, I applaud you and am
very glad you can actually get past a fourth-grade reading level
(unlike the vast swaths of the US population that can't).
> Also please indicate which major
> faith(s) made these predictions?
In this case, various sects of Christianity.
>
> > Don't think
> > for a second that people didn't at one time (and in some cases, still
> > do) think the universe was created in 6 days in the order specified in
> > Genesis, that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe,
> > that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the
> > world stopped spinning around it's axis at one point, that the world
> > was covered in a global flood, etc. Theists (particularly Christians)
> > did NOT think these concepts were wrong until we PROVED they were
> > wrong (falsified). In fact, religionists actively struggled AGAINST
> > scientific progress because it disagreed with their notions (and they
> > STILL do).
>
> You realize, of course, that we are no longer living in the Middle
> Ages? Things have changed a bit since then, both in religion and
> science.
Some people haven't noticed. Or are you blind to that fact? Have you
seen a US evangelical church? Do you realize that 44% of the US
population still believes evolution is false?
>
> > So let's not put on overly rosy glasses about what happens
> > when the beliefs of a theist are proven to be false. Many will
> > continue to hold on to beliefs that are falsified because they will
> > not accept them to be disproven.
>
> True, but again, don't lump all religions into the same basket. The
> title of the thread is about Catholic belief, but much of what you've
> said has nothing to do with Catholicism.
You asked me for things that religions have stated that have been
disproven. I gave you a list of things that science has disproven, and
some religions changed their minds. You don't see how this answers
your question?
Do you want to actually ask the question "What does Catholicism
*currently* believe that science has disproven?" Well, for starters,
that evolution isn't a proven science (it is) and that intelligent
design might still be true (it isn't). But aside from that, finally
and thankfully, not much. But let's see, remind me how long it took
the Church to admit that the earth goes around the sun and Galileo was
right? Yes. Several hundred years (JPII finally got around to it in
the mid-1990's). The fact that the Catholics happen to have changed
their stance on their previous uninformed claims about the world
around us is exactly what I've been talking about.... they RECOGNIZE
that their claims were wrong, and (thankfully) changed their minds
(what that says about a religion supposedly inspired by God is your
own interpretation). So like I said... very often science disproves
claims of religion. What they do with their beliefs after they're
shown to be wrong is their own business. Some religions change
doctrine (or "suggestions", or whatever you want to call what they
tell all their adherents to follow). Not all religions do the same. A
huge number do not, in fact.
>
> > Sure, some will accept actual
> > verifiable scientific fact as showing that aspects of their faith are
> > wrong. Good. That's a good thing. I applaude them for their
> > sensibility and efforts. However, when THEOLOGY is based on a
> > falsifiable assertion, and the assertion is falsified, at BEST you can
> > perform some unconvincing theological acrobatics to wriggle out of the
> > rock that was thrown on it, but usually they fail.
>
> Our knowledge of the world changes. Science changes with it. So do
> religions. And you think this is a problem because .........?
I think this is a problem because some do not (which you appear to be
totally oblivious to). I guess that point isn't getting through to
you.
>
> > For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
> > sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
> > wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
> > would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
> > actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?
>
> Mysterious are the ways of Apollo. :-)
Translation: metaphysical. Unprovable. Not affecting our universe.
>
> > Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
> > that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
> > new species?
>
> If I remember correctly, such evidence was first presented around 150
> years ago, give or take. Most religions managed to have survived the
> event.
Some of them recognized the fact. However, many of them ignore it, and
survive by preying off the weak minded and undereducated.
>
> > It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
> > personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
> > examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
> > belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
> > assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
> > evolution),
>
> Really? How does incorporating newly discovered facts into a theology
> "weaken" it?
It makes it a weaker *ASSUMPTION*. A weak assumption is a good thing
in a logical argument, in case you hadn't been aware. Weak assumptions
include "I exist", "the universe exists", "you're not all figments of
my imagination", "all of reality exist as we observe but I think God
did it anyway". Strong assumptions include "I can prove that God
exists because the moon is pretty", "I assume God made the sun out of
swiss cheese", "I assume that I'll make a million dollars next week",
"God made human beings out of dust from the earth and ribcages", etc.
Savvy?
> Incorporating newly discovered facts into *science*
> doesn't weaken it -- why do you think it would weaken a religion? Is
> that a case of wishful thinking?
No, just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
>
> > and a whole bunch will just deny that it occurred at all.
> > (In fact, 44% of the US population takes this tact, so let's not get
> > sanctimonious, shall we?).
>
> Indeed -- let's not.
Which you seem to have done.
>
> > > The vast majority of Christians do
> > > not hold that belief.
>
> > I'm sure you have statistics for this? I do have statistics for the
> > percentage of US people (of all religions and lack thereof) that deny
> > evolution based ENTIRELY on theological assertions.
>
> Well, let's start with the Catholics. (Remember them? That's who the
> thread is about...)
Not all Catholics believe in evolution. The church doesn't tell them
they have to. It says they're "free to believe it and not be
excommunicated", basically.
> To that add the Episcopal Church, the
> Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and I'm sure quite a few
> others. Oh, and here's a sprinkling of around 10,000 or so Christian
> Clergy who feel the same way:http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
And from:
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Religions that don't believe in evolution include the Assemblies of
God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church,
the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal
Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness
churches.
"According to a 2006 Gallup poll,[104] about 46% of Americans believe
in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created
man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000
years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only
13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any
supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely
correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22%
believe in strict creationism.[104]A poll in the year 2000 done for
People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that
evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[105]
There are interesting divisions in public opinions about evolution
between conservatives and liberals, or people with different political
leanings. A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 60 percent of
Republicans are creationists, and only 11 percent express a belief in
evolution, but 29 percent of Democrats are creationists and 44 percent
accept evolution. Also, the Pew survey found that 70 percent of
evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed
since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of
mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll[106]
estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives
agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.[65]"
I'll let these facts speak for themselves. I'll highlight one : 46% of
Americans believe in strict creationism (the young earth kind, i.e.
10,000 years ago and 6 days). If that doesn't terrify you, you're not
paying attention.
>
> > I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
> > to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.
>
> And you seem to be consumed by your own prejudices. Pity, that.
Not my own prejudice. My own experience. I live in a country that
routinely has to fight against idiots who think that evolution didn't
actually occur (that's the whole point of why this website exists).
Fighting against irrational claims is a necessary part of modern
science, unfortunately. I wish people were educated enough to simply
be happy with metaphysical statements about God, but NOOOOO, they need
to screw up science education to prove they're right too. Like I said,
you didn't see the "Cameron-Comfort" interview on ABC recently, did
you? How do you explain their HUGE popular support otherwise?
Nic
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1180012632....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Here you seem to be saying that the neutral observers aren't really
neutral - they are either preprogrammed with some sense of fair play,
or it is in their self interest to exert themselves differentially.
The former is ok if there really is such a thing as wrong, which is
what I was questioning. If there is such a thing as wrong, then
evolution can probably discriminate it as readily as nervous systems
can.
The latter (self interest) is obviously a candidate for evolution, and
perhaps that is all you are saying.
Are you sure that a policy of siding with the 'wronged' party and
against the wronging one really is better? And how do you know the
distinction isn't artificial anyway? I mean 'winning side' may well
be an objective property of real world scenarios, but is 'deserves to
be the winning side'?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1180038500.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Oh, I am definitely talking about self-interested observers.
> Are you sure that a policy of siding with the 'wronged' party and
> against the wronging one really is better?
That is a toughie all right. And I think that it is the reason why humans
are obsessed with the notion of morality, and why they spend so much time
debating it. That, after all, is the function of most gossip. To share
information about morally-relevant actions of others and the prevailing
social mores.
However, the context here is how should the observer react to one person
inflicting 'punishment' on another. If the 'punishment' is consistent
with a known policy of "righteousness" on the part of the punisher, then
it may well be in the interest of the observer to remain neutral unless
he intends to commit the same transgression as the punishee.
But if the punishee is simply an obstinate victim of attempted extortion,
then it may well be in the interest of the observer to start looking for
coalition partners. After all, he may be the next victim of the extortionist.
> And how do you know the
> distinction isn't artificial anyway? I mean 'winning side' may well
> be an objective property of real world scenarios, but is 'deserves to
> be the winning side'?
Whether it is fully 'objective' is not the real question. The issue arises
in the context of coalition formation and in which direction the coalition
will intervene. So the only issue is where the social consensus lies.
Is that a 'subjective' issue or an 'objective' one?
macaddicted
<1180028110.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>"chris.linthompso
n...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's more guilt on my part. Wilkins is always helpful and has given me
some tips in the past. I want to return the favor but just haven't
been able to get to it yet.
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
macaddicted
<1180013161....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 10:38 pm, macaddicted <macaddic...@ca.REMOVETHISrr.com>
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1179897290.537628.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
>>
>> <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, after all this time, a whole thread dedicated to little me.
>>
>> > So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>>
>> >
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189? >
>> I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the >
>> facts upon which the theology of original sin is based in the
>> > Catholic Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of
>> Eden). Fable is a bit better than fairy tale.
> Why?
>
Semantics mostly. Fairy tale connotes an a priori belief that the
information is essentially made up. Fable or myth allows for the fact
that the information is based in some way on some truth, even if it is
not immediately available of understanding from within the text itself.
>> > Macaddicted tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read
>> some > things" to find the answer, because it's complicated, and I
>> should > first understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis
>> are
>> > before hecan explain them to me (go figure).
>>
>> No. Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text,
>> esp. of scripture
> Not an answer.
>
Yes it is. I was trying to help you to understand biblical
interpretation methods, which is exegesis. Exogenesis is a completely
different topic
The Catholic dogmatic definition of original sin, as set forth at
Trent, IMPLIES that Adam was the first human. It is a major argument
in Catholic theological circles as to just how concrete the definition
of Adam as the first person is. The dogmatic statement from Trent
starts from the assumption that Adam was the first person; at the time
(mid-Sixteenth century) there was no reason to doubt it. There was
talk at Vatican I of making Adam as the first person a dogmatic
statement but the Franco-Prussian war broke out before it could be
discussed.
I would guess that the encyclical you are referring to is Pius XII's
"Humani Generis" (1950). To date it is the closest thing the Church
has to an official statement on the study by Catholic scientists and
scholars of evolution. But to truly understand Humani you have to look
at it in terms of what had happened in the recent past, at how the
Church had changed with the introduction of neo-Thomism, how the
increasing use Protestant exegesis in Catholicism had given rise to
heterodox theologies, the fights of the late Nineteenth and early
Twentieth that were based not only in competing theologies but in
competing interpretations, how Pius XII tried to re-ignite the fire
that Leo XII had started in "Providentissimus Deus" with his own
encyclical on exegesis "Divino Afflante Spiritu." Given that a mere 50
years before authors were still being placed on the Index for arguing
in favor of evolution the fact that Pius XII ALLOWED for the fact that
evolution could be true is amazing.
This is why I kept saying that it is a complicated subject. There have
been massive changes in nearly every aspect of Catholicism since
Vatican I.
> Recently people have argued that even if there were many then Adam
> is a "symbol", but they all still committed original sin (for which
> we're all still being punished).
Original sin is best understood as an attempt to understand why there
is a separation between man and God.
> As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human history to
> place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here, you're not human,
> and after here, you are", unless God is comfortable
> with completely arbitrary designations.
You're asking a theology student if God is comfortable with arbitrary
definitions?
I would tend to agree that physiologically that it would be difficult
to point to a particular moment and say "That's where humanity began,"
the arguments over the physiology of man and his roots are being left
more and more to science. If you read the portion of JPII's 1996
address he speaks of the "ontological disconnect" between biology and
theology concerning how man became Man. There remains a great distance
between Dennett and the Church on that subject.
>
>> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain
>> > them carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>>
>> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
>> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
>> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references
>> he requested and I haven't been able to get to them yet. My thesis
>> director called today to see if I had died, seeing as I haven't had
>> the time to respond to his emails either. Do a google groups search
>> for my sig in this group and you will see many posts where I discuss
>> some of the topics you have brought up, mostly in response to posts
>> by Pagano
> Well I hope you're feeling better.
>
>
--
chris.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article
> <1180028110.553934.169...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>"chris.linthompso
>
> n...@gmail.com" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 10:38 pm, macaddicted <macaddic...@ca.REMOVETHISrr.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
> >> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
> >> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references
> >> he
> > Get better soon. Let Wilkins wait.
>
> > Chris
>
> It's more guilt on my part. Wilkins is always helpful and has given me
> some tips in the past. I want to return the favor but just haven't
> been able to get to it yet.
Then consider this: you will do a better job of it when you're well.
Chris
Nic
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1180038500.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
At a certain level of organisation, coalition formation takes place a
lot, but not in pursuit of fairness (I'm thinking of anticompetitive
behaviour amongst companies). When it comes to individuals, it is
sooo rare that we are likely to know their names, e.g. Fletcher
Christian. If one is unwilling to conclude anything about human
nature from the existence of serial killers, dismissing them as
statistical outliers, then so much more should one be suspicious of
coalition formers. We just don't do that. We are too scared the
others will defect.
> > And how do you know the
> > distinction isn't artificial anyway? I mean 'winning side' may well
> > be an objective property of real world scenarios, but is 'deserves to
> > be the winning side'?
>
> Whether it is fully 'objective' is not the real question. The issue arises
> in the context of coalition formation and in which direction the coalition
> will intervene. So the only issue is where the social consensus lies.
> Is that a 'subjective' issue or an 'objective' one?
It _might_ be subjective. I believe it is wrong to stuff peas up ones
nostrils, so do you. We can form an effective coalition to stop this
practice, as somebody putting peas up their nose can't fend off two
oncomers (unless they know kickboxing). So I don't see how coalition
formation can reveal any kind of useful rule that evolution might have
stumbled upon.
Suppose there is such a rule. How would coalition formation show we
had got it the right way round? Wrong could be right, and right could
be wrong, and we'd be oblivious to the fact. Consider North and South
magnetic poles. The only breaking of symmetry was done by human
convention.
Ok, you might weigh in here with the point that cooperation *looks*
different from competition, from 20,000 feet. They are structurally
different and therefore not like the magnetic poles analogy at all.
Maybe what we call 'good' is ant-like beaviour, and everything else is
bad. Certainly there can be selection for that even in mammals.
Naked mole rats, for instance.
Sorry if my objections have been mutually inconsistent. I'm just
trying to put several different sides at the same time.
Nic
wf3h
rappoccio wrote:
> On May 24, 5:27 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> >
> > but sin is neither an historical nor a scientific concept.
>
> If sin was created by humans, it's a historical and psychological
> concept. If the basis of sin is based on historical events, the basis
> itself is historical (I guess that goes without saying).
sin is not an event like the destruction of israel in 580 BC or the
bombing of pearl harbor. it is an idea and ideas can have historical
consequences.
>
> > > > as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
> > > > ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> > > > 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
> >> >
> > you're ignoring variations in populations which includes mental
> > processes.
>
> No, I'm not at all. The point is, there isn't some magic "switch" that
> turns on mental processes, but a gradual "awareness" that would have
> evolved over generations. It's not like one day one person suddenly
> came into realization that "he was surrounded by fricken idiots" and
> was self-aware it was much more gradual. So where do you set the
> "switch point"? It's arbitrary.
?? again you're ignoring the fact that god would, presumably, know
when the 'magic switch' was thrown.
you saying he's too stupid to know that?
wf3h
rappoccio wrote:
>
> The Church's official position (i.e. from the last encyclical I know
> of) is that there was ONE Adam and Eve.
really? from:
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official
position on whether various life forms developed over the course of
time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so
under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation
must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous
biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special
creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
from pre-existent and living matter-[but] the Catholic faith obliges
us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
so you wanna ring up the pope and tell him he's wrong??
Recently people have argued
> that even if there were many then Adam is a "symbol", but they all
> still committed original sin (for which we're all still being
> punished). As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human
> history to place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here, you're
> not human, and after here, you are", unless God is comfortable with
> completely arbitrary designations.
?? i'm always glad for god that he has you folks around. he's kinda
stupid, dumb, not too bright and you're always willing to help him
out.
of course, most folks think that god would be smart enough to
understand when evolution produced the first humans...
but creationists don't think god's that bright...
>
Vend
> On May 23, 2:41 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com > wrote in messagenews:1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> > > I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
> > > upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
> > > tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
> > > find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
> > > understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
> > > can explain them to me (go figure).
>
> > > as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
> > > Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
> > > Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
> > > theologists acknowledge).
>
>
> > > The Catholic Church teaches
>
> > > "By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
> > > justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
> > > human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
> > > nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
> > > holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
> > > result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
> > > subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
> > > inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")."
> > > Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
>
> > > didn't actually exist
>
> > Could you expand on what you think the evidence is that he didn't exist?
> >From a few posts up (I'll assume you missed it):
> > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > > carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
> > bit more uncertain. Here is where to find the doctrine. Especially
> > paragraph 36 & 37.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
>
> The one dated August 12, 1950, written by Pius XII, you mean? I've
> read it, and also wikipedia has a nice little summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)
>
> I'll cut to the chase. Brief history:
>
> 1) In the Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII says evolution
> might have occurred in the past, but doesn't occur now, but there was
> ONE Adam and Eve, and they committed Original Sin.
> 2) Later (around 1996), Neuner and Dupius, along with Roberta Masi
> state that it didn't have to be ONE person that was "Adam", but
> possibly a foundation group (never mind Pius XII on this, we're sure
> he wasn't listening to God just then). No official encyclicals backing
> them up as far as I know.
> 3) The International Theological Commission (endorsed by then Cardinal
> Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict) claims that Adam was symbolic of the
> first hominids who God breathed a soul into, who were then capable of
> sin (and their parents weren't), thus original sin was born. It also
> claims that the definitive characteristic of human beings is a large
> brain size which "culminated" in homo sapiens.
> 4) Benedict claims that evolution "isn't a complete, scientifically
> proven theory" and it's still possible that intelligent design is
> true. (Does the Pope have to go to confession if he lies to the world?
> Does he just talk to himself or something?)
> 5) When this happened is answered by Fiorenzo Facchini in 2006: "The
> spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where
> and in the ways God willed it."
>
> So let's get this summed up, shall we? So now, the idea (unofficially)
> is that the following happened (but they're not really sure):
>
> 1) Hominid Group A exists, but isn't human. No "divine spark", no
> soul, no possibility of getting into heaven/hell/etc, incapable of
> sin, still living in the "perfect world" where members of group A can
> be eaten by cats and crocodiles but that's okay, the world is still
> free of sin because nothing disobeys God (no free will, I guess).
> 2) Hominid Group B is born to Hominid Group A (let's say they are the
> first generation). Now they get the "divine spark", they receive a
> soul as a gift from God, they're able to get into heaven or go to
> hell, they are now capable of sin, know the difference between right
> and wrong, and God tells them not to sin (eat apples, whatever). The
> whole group sins anyway, and the world is taken out of the "perfect
> state" and original sin is thrust upon the entirety of the genetic
> lineage of this group of people (their parents are still not able to
> sin, though, remember).
>
> Here's the problem: This distinction is totally artificial. It's
> completely arbitrary. There would be almost no biological difference
> between them, no more than you have from your parents. The development
> of intellect happened over thousands of generations, it wasn't as if
> one hominid was born with a fully formed persona and intellectual
> capabilities, but his/her parents were not. Did the soul evolve too?
> Was there a "proto-soul"? Or did God just cut the line arbitrarily and
> say "Before this line, you don't have a soul, and after it, you
> do" (amidst moaning and groaning from the "old" generation, they were
> certainly capable of understanding language as well as modern humans
> are, and probably buried their dead and sang songs).
Well, sould doesn't necessarly have to correlate with intellect. It
could be that A hominids had an intellect without having a soul like B
hominids (that would induce the question of what it does mean to have
a soul).
Or it could be that A hominds had souls (or lesser souls, or 'proto-
souls', or whatever) but for some reason weren't given any
commandaments, thus they could not sin.
This of course requires dualism, or at least free-will.
> This is a totally incoherent scenario. There is no natural way to
> explain this, aside from covering one's eyes and ears and saying "God
> must have done it anyway, leave me alone and stop asking questions".
> There is no way to place a specific location of where a species
> "develops" a soul that isn't totally arbitrary. Therefore, there is no
> place where one can place "original sin" squarely on the shoulders of
> any individuals but not their parents, and therefore evolutionary
> theory is still incompatible with the story of original sin.rappoccio
I agree that the religious scenario is unscientific, but it doesn't
seem to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.
John Wilkins
Yes, do. Nothing I have asked for is either urgent or all that important
when compared to health...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
> "On 24 May 2007 09:16:28 -0700, in article
> <1180023388.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
> >
> >On May 24, 11:02 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
...
> >>
> >> As a matter of historical fact, for most of the history of
> >> Christianity, there was no opinion about the origins of
> >> species.
> >
> >I don't think that's quite true at all. I think Christian people just
> >assumed God created them all as described in Genesis, and other people
> >similarly believed in their own creation myths. The Catholic Chruch
> >has never said it was doctrinal, but that doesn't mean the Catholics
> >didn't have any opinion as to the origin of species.
> [...snip...]
>
> I realize that a lot of people share your misconception, which is
> why I brought it up.
>
> But it seems that the idea of Divine creation of immutable
> species does not occur before the 17th century.
>
> No one saw any description of the creation of species in Genesis 1
> for close to two thousand years, and that is not an unreasonable
> reading. The Bible is rather consistent with the common-sense
> acceptance of spontaneous generation and metamorphosis.
I back this reading. In several places the Bible shows an acceptance of
folk biology (including both sympathetic magic influencing ontogeny, and
spontaneous generation), and no evidence that kinds were either special
or fixed.
It was not until the logical term "species" began to be used by Fuchs,
Gesner and others in the 16th century that the notion of a *biological*
kind even made sense, such that when John Ray, in 1686, produced a list
of plants, he wrote
"In order that an inventory of plants may be begun and a classification
of them correctly established, we must try to discover criteria of some
sort for distinguishing what are called "species". After long and
considerable investigation, no surer criterion for determining species
has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate
themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations
occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of
one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as
to distinguish a species ... Animals likewise that differ specifically
preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs
from the seed of another nor vice versa." [_Historia plantarum
generalis_, in the volume published in 1686, Chap. XXI (Quoted in Mayr
1982:256). The Latin of the definition is _Nulla certior occurit quam
distincta propagations ex semine_.]
Until that point the term "species" was used no more technically in
ordinary situations than "sort" is in English, a point made by Locke at
about the same time. This is the first use of "species" in a purely
biological sense. Not coincidentally, Ray is also the guy who said
species didn't change, for the first time:
"... the number of species being in nature certain and determinate, as
is generally acknowledged by philosophers, and might be proved also by
divine authority, God having finished his works of creation, that is,
consummated the number of species in six days." [Letter (quoted in
Greene 1959:131)]
Prior to this you will find the term "species" to mean a kind at any
level, ranging from breed to above our genus. And new "kinds" of
organisms were expected to be produced from time to time by
hybridisation.
Greene, John C. 1959. The death of Adam: evolution and its impact on
Western thought. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity,
evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
John Wilkins
I think the point is not that people thought species either evolved or
were created, but that they had no conception of what we now call
species, and that they did not consider if these non-conceived entities
were fixed or mutable.
People *did* think that [what we now call] species could change. It was
"common knowledge" that if you had a spontaneous generation of a
barnacle in rotting driftwood, it would grow into a barnacle goose, and
there were many other cases. In fact at least one theologian claims to
have seem this very case by how own eyes in the 17th century. People
also thought, based on a reading of Aristotle's Hisory of Animals, that
new [what we now call] species could form by interbreeding between
different [what we now call] species at waterholes, and in other cases.
Genesis is clearly about God causing spontaneous generation of animals
and plants from soil, except for Adam, who is specially created (and is,
I think, the progenitor not of all mankind, but of the lineages leading
to the Israelites/Jews). This is why nobody has any trouble with the
daughters of Adam and Eve, and their children's children, finding mates.
There were *other* people out there, but *this* lineage was divinely
created and chosen. But that interpretation is not common after
Christianity.
TomS
<1hyo7d0.w4zc7ao2sgvfN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
It isn't clear that the word translated as "kind" in Genesis and elsewhere
was read as being a statement about what we today call "species". It
could be something like "breed" (of livestock), or it could have just been
part of an idomatic phrase, like "sorts" in "all sorts of animals".
>
>People *did* think that [what we now call] species could change. It was
>"common knowledge" that if you had a spontaneous generation of a
>barnacle in rotting driftwood, it would grow into a barnacle goose, and
>there were many other cases. In fact at least one theologian claims to
>have seem this very case by how own eyes in the 17th century. People
>also thought, based on a reading of Aristotle's Hisory of Animals, that
>new [what we now call] species could form by interbreeding between
>different [what we now call] species at waterholes, and in other cases.
And I'd also add that metamorphosis in insects was at least sometimes
taken to be a case of a "change in kind". A "worm" changed into a
butterfly. But the idea of "change to a species", rather than "change
to an individual", that had to wait for a concept of "species" as a
thing, something with properties, something which could be thought
of as changing those properties.
>
>Genesis is clearly about God causing spontaneous generation of animals
>and plants from soil, except for Adam, who is specially created (and is,
>I think, the progenitor not of all mankind, but of the lineages leading
>to the Israelites/Jews). This is why nobody has any trouble with the
>daughters of Adam and Eve, and their children's children, finding mates.
>There were *other* people out there, but *this* lineage was divinely
>created and chosen. But that interpretation is not common after
>Christianity.
While I tend to agree with your reading, I won't insist upon it. Rather,
I'm just saying that for a long time, that's the sort of reading that
was taken for granted by Christian Bible-readers.
There are other places in the Bible where it seems that the author
took spontaneous generation, for granted. Perhaps most clearly in
the story of Samson, where he observed bees generated in the carcass
of the lion that he had killed. At least, that is how some of the
Christians read that episode.
rappoccio
wrote:
> In article
> <1180013161.343326.49...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
This is all well and good, but it doesn't answer the quesiton of "was
original sin committed by a person or persons", or is it just a
statement of our inherent horrible nature (which is then somehow
cleansed at baptism). In any case, as I've argued extensively, the
concept of a "first person" is nonsensical scientifically, so unless
God is satisfied with arbitrary designations, then it still doesn't
make any sense.
>
> > Recently people have argued that even if there were many then Adam
> > is a "symbol", but they all still committed original sin (for which
> > we're all still being punished).
>
> Original sin is best understood as an attempt to understand why there
> is a separation between man and God.
So it *wasn't* a sin actually committed by a person or persons?
> > As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human history to
> > place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here, you're not human,
> > and after here, you are", unless God is comfortable
> > with completely arbitrary designations.
>
> You're asking a theology student if God is comfortable with arbitrary
> definitions?
> I would tend to agree that physiologically that it would be difficult
> to point to a particular moment and say "That's where humanity began,"
> the arguments over the physiology of man and his roots are being left
> more and more to science. If you read the portion of JPII's 1996
> address he speaks of the "ontological disconnect" between biology and
> theology concerning how man became Man. There remains a great distance
> between Dennett and the Church on that subject.
So the answer would be "we don't know and we don't care when man
became Man, but original sin still happened anyway, we're sure of
that"?
It's not terribly satisfying. It essentially eliminates all discussion
about the issue by fiat, and asserts it's own validity without an
actual rationalization (well, other than ignoring argumentation).
There isn't any inherent justisce in making one person or persons
somehow spiritually gifted and having their friends and relatives
excluded by some arbitrary designation put in place by God.
rappoccio
> rappoccio wrote:
> > On May 24, 5:27 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > but sin is neither an historical nor a scientific concept.
>
> > If sin was created by humans, it's a historical and psychological
> > concept. If the basis of sin is based on historical events, the basis
> > itself is historical (I guess that goes without saying).
>
> sin is not an event like the destruction of israel in 580 BC or the
> bombing of pearl harbor. it is an idea and ideas can have historical
> consequences.
We're discussing *original* sin (historical basis). As I've mentioned,
if sin itself was created by humans then it has a human history (I
fail to see how this is controversial).
>
>
>
> > > > > as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
> > > > > ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
> > > > > 'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.
>
> > > you're ignoring variations in populations which includes mental
> > > processes.
>
> > No, I'm not at all. The point is, there isn't some magic "switch" that
> > turns on mental processes, but a gradual "awareness" that would have
> > evolved over generations. It's not like one day one person suddenly
> > came into realization that "he was surrounded by fricken idiots" and
> > was self-aware it was much more gradual. So where do you set the
> > "switch point"? It's arbitrary.
>
> ?? again you're ignoring the fact that god would, presumably, know
> when the 'magic switch' was thrown.
>
> you saying he's too stupid to know that?
There isn't a magic switch. We already know that. Unless God is indeed
too stupid and doesn't understand the biology God supposedly created,
then God knows that too.
rappoccio
> rappoccio wrote:
>
> > The Church's official position (i.e. from the last encyclical I know
> > of) is that there was ONE Adam and Eve.
>
> really? from:
>
> http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
You mean the part that says
"Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and
the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this
context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of
two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early
human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is
question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the
children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the
faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after
Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their
origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents
of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled
that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the
teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin
which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in
which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his
own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not
written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The
Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took
place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the
certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the
original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). "
So, last official statement is that Adam and Eve were the first two
humans from whom the rest of us all descended. Later theologians have
argued that even if they were really representative of a group of
people, they still thrust the world into "sin", making humanity
"fall", and we're all still paying the price . And I've argued that
from a biological standpoint that is totally nonsensical. This
implies that a cognizent, sentient being that was self-aware and
capable of abstraction would NOT be considered human, but their child
somehow IS considered human (by God). This is the only logical
conclusion.
>
> Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official
> position on whether various life forms developed over the course of
> time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so
> under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation
> must be ascribed to him.
>
> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
> It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous
> biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special
> creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
> authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
> present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
> discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
> in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
> from pre-existent and living matter-[but] the Catholic faith obliges
> us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
> Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
> developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
> the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
> inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
And when did this happen, specifically? What time in evolutionary
would this have occurred?
Oh, you're going with "I don't know and I don't care but I'm right
anyway", I guess. No argument there then.
>
> so you wanna ring up the pope and tell him he's wrong??
If he'd actually take my phone call, I'd be glad to.
>
> Recently people have argued
>
> > that even if there were many then Adam is a "symbol", but they all
> > still committed original sin (for which we're all still being
> > punished). As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human
> > history to place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here, you're
> > not human, and after here, you are", unless God is comfortable with
> > completely arbitrary designations.
>
> ?? i'm always glad for god that he has you folks around. he's kinda
> stupid, dumb, not too bright and you're always willing to help him
> out.
No, not really, we just say some humans are sometimes stupid, dumb,
not too bright, and yes, we're always willing to help them out.
> of course, most folks think that god would be smart enough to
> understand when evolution produced the first humans...
Smart folks would know that no designation is biologically possible,
and if God is smart too, God would know that (assuming God exists). So
what's more likely (even assuming God exists): that humans have
misinterpreted God's will based on a myth thought up by goatherders
5000 years ago, or that God arbitrarily designates "humans after this
person, and non-humans before"?
I'm going with the former. You're free to make fun of people that ask
questions (showing your own ignorance) and assert the latter.
rappoccio
It's incompatible because there is no discernable difference between
your "A" hominids and "B" hominids above. They would have both been
able to form all the same mental processes. Like I've said, the only
way to distinguish them is arbitrarily.
I don't think that if God exists, God would be okay with that. Many
here have taken the tact of "I don't know and I don't care but I'm
right anyway", which terminates argument and simply asserts validity
without argumentation, much less evidence. But just realize that it
would mean that God is fine with arbitrary designations about who gets
into heaven and who doesn't.
rappoccio
Let's just put this part up to "Genesis is inconsistent" because in
one place it says "God created man (Adam)" who committed a sin which
cast the world into a state of "fallen from grace", and then somehow
there are other people elsewhere that they can go and procreate with.
Don't you think those people would have been pretty ticked off that
the two morons who screwed up their sweet deal in life were coming and
looking for a place to live?
TomS
<1180101338.9...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
[...snip...]
>Let's just put this part up to "Genesis is inconsistent" because in
>one place it says "God created man (Adam)" who committed a sin which
>cast the world into a state of "fallen from grace", and then somehow
>there are other people elsewhere that they can go and procreate with.
>Don't you think those people would have been pretty ticked off that
>the two morons who screwed up their sweet deal in life were coming and
>looking for a place to live?
>
I don't know what point you want to discuss.
At first, it was that evolutionary biology was inconsistent with
acceptance of the Adam-and-Eve story.
Then it was about whether traditional Christian belief was in the creation
of fixed species.
Now, you seem to be bringing up a question of the plausibility of the
Adam-and-Eve story for modern sensibilities of story-telling.
I will concede that it can be amusing to retell a traditional story in
an anachronistic genre. Mark Twain's "Diaries of Adam and Eve", of
course.
VoiceOfReason
@*%&(@^%) Google Groups!!!
Re-sending this reply -- hopefully it's not redundant -- again.
On May 24, 3:03 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 1:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 10:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> > Non sequitur. If spiritual awareness actually evolved, there had to
> > be a first mutation that took place in one individual. And don't
> > automatically assume that spiritual awareness is closely linked to
> > intelligence. There may be no connection between them.
>
> I should actually have been more careful and say that the *capability*
> of being spiritually aware behaves as I've shown above.
That is a HUGE assumption on your part. The capability of being
spiritually aware could have developed in any manner of ways.
> The actual
> "spiritual awareness" is not defined by genetic information, but
> *memetic* information rather. Eventually, individuals that were
> *capable* of ancestor worship or nature god hypothesis actually got
> around to doing so (and this has nothing to do with whether or not
> they were homo sapiens sapiens or some other hominid). This is only
> dependent on the culture of their social group, not on their DNA
> makeup.
Again, this a a collection of assumptions. Maybe it worked that way,
and maybe it didn't. If you're thinking of anything like a scientific
basis, you need to start thinking of a properly formed hypothesis,
predictions, observations, yadda yadda etc. Otherwise, all you have
is a list of unsupported assumptions that have no more merit than
anybody else's unsupported assumptions.
> > > > As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
> > > > really an apples/oranges thing.
>
> > > Sure it does. We can certainly examine what makes people think there
> > > is something spiritual in the first place. Clearly there is no
> > > evidence for it.
>
> > Of course not. Why would you *expect* to find direct evidence for
> > it?
>
> If something actually is purported to play such an intricate role in
> the formation of our universe, you don't think it's odd that not a
> trace of it can be found? The fact that people believe in it anyway is
> a very interesting (and scientific) question. The supernatural was
> *originally* used for ancestor worship, and to explain ordinary
> phenomena that were totally misunderstood by early cultures (rain,
> thunder, earthquakes, the sun, etc). As those ordinary phenomena
> became more and more understood, the supernatural simply changed face.
> There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our
> understanding, or have just postulated that God and/or the
> supernatural exist anyway, even without any evidence to support the
> claim. Very fascinating.
You didn't answer the question. If a spiritual world (realm,
dimension, etc) existed, why would you *expect* to find direct
evidence for it?
<...>
> > Obviously, spirituality means different things to different people/
> > religions/etc. It's not based on a single, monolithic idea. Perhaps
> > the problem is that you're trying to distill all things spiritual into
> > one little nugget. I doubt that's possible.
>
> I'm placing them all into the category of "metaphysics", that is,
> things that cannot be proven true or false and don't have any
> demonstrable and repeatable affect on our world.
Pardon?? Maybe you didn't mean that the way it sounded, but... why
would you be expecting to find evidence for "things that cannot be
proven true or false and don't have any demonstrable and repeatable
affect on our world"? From that, it sounds like you're making demands
for evidence that you know can't be found.
Or was that not what you meant?
> > > And before you say it, let's not confuse spirituality with humanism.
>
> > Okay. *shrug* And your point would be..................?
>
> It was mostly a joke, but one based in reality. Many people jump in
> with "the world is beautiful therefore the supernatural exists,
> morality can't exist without divine retribution, if you don't believe
> in God you can't love, etc etc" as proof that the supernatural exists.
> You should see the arguments that some theists bring up. Did you
> happen to catch Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, by any chance? Tweedle-
> dee and Tweedle-dum. They are absolutely absymally delusional, and I
> think they took a look at the "Top 5 Worst Arguments Made By Theists"
> and said "hey, gee, these look like a great idea".
Oooookay, well relax, I do not fit into that particular group of
illuminutties.
<...>
> > > > Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?
>
> > > The existence of a "first man or men" that disobeyed God who single-
> > > handedly caused the world to "fall from grace" and for who's sins, all
> > > of humanity must pay the price and suffer.
>
> > How do you propose to "observe" this? Note that, if you search for
> > something and don't find it, that's not an "observable fact."
>
> The fact that we show that it's not a defined concept given current
> observational evidence makes it an observable fact.
Damn man, you could break a chicken's neck with the circularity of
that. The "observable fact" is that it's not an observable fact?
> I could say "the
> first black US President told you that you could go to college for
> free" but since we observe that there have been no black US presidents
> means that the fact that he said you could go to college for free is
> also false (or technically, irrelevant).
Wow, total disconnect there. The first is an example of the lack of
observable evidence. The second is just a false statement. Totally
different concepts.
<...>
> > > Then tell me why original sin should exist, if no "Adam" existed?
>
> > As we have not determined that "an Adam" never existed, the point is
> > moot.
>
> The very concept is undefined and nonsensical. Something that is
> nonsensical cannot exist. Such as a being that can create a rock so
> big it cannot lift it. It's nonsense. It's just an ill-defined
> concept.
That it is nonsensical *to you* does not make it false. Given what
you've said above, I'm not surprised you find it nonsensical, with the
way you've approached it.
-- If a spiritual world exists, you seem to expect to find direct
evidence for it, yet you do not explain *why* you expect to find
evidence for it.
-- You are expecting (or not expecting?) to find evidence for
something for which no evidence can exist?
I'm not surprised that you're confused... I'd be surprised if you
*weren't* confused.
> So I'll ask it again: Tell me why original sin should exist, if no
> "Adam" existed.
Hey, you're the one that Gerrymandered this mess... *you* answer the
question.
<...>
> > > > > Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
> > > > > (and by and large all have been falsified).
>
> > > > I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
> > > > they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
> > > > assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
> > > > creation a few thousand years ago?
>
> > > It's a prediction about God's nature, which was FALSIFIED.
>
> > With all due respect to your caps, please list a few of these
> > predictions that were "falsified?"
>
> I guess the huge list in the following paragraph wasn't enough for
> you? I'll list them again.
NAK... listed below are statements concerning the nature of the earth/
universe, not the nature of God. Different concept.
> 1) 6 day creationism that occurred 10,000 years ago.
> 2) The fact that the first thing in the universe that was created was
> light, then the earth, then the stars, etc.
> 3) That the world was covered in a global flood.
> 4) That the world stopped on it's axis a few thousand years ago.
> 5) That human beings were made from dust and ribcages.
> 6) That someone eating an apple caused carnivores to exist.
> 7) That human beings walked with dinosaurs.
>
> Laugh all you want. There are plenty of people around that still
> believe in these things. You can either recognize that they exist and
> are a problem, or ignore the problem and claim they're not "really"
> Christian or whatever. If you're not one of them, I applaud you and am
> very glad you can actually get past a fourth-grade reading level
> (unlike the vast swaths of the US population that can't).
Speaking of a fourth grade reading level, you are aware of course that
the above are not Catholic dogma? Wasn't that the original target of
this dart-throwing exercise?
> > Also please indicate which major
> > faith(s) made these predictions?
>
> In this case, various sects of Christianity.
If you want to be taken seriously, do serious research. Saying
"various sects of Christianity" isn't any different than saying that
you pulled it out of your ass.
> > > Don't think
> > > for a second that people didn't at one time (and in some cases, still
> > > do) think the universe was created in 6 days in the order specified in
> > > Genesis, that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe,
> > > that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the
> > > world stopped spinning around it's axis at one point, that the world
> > > was covered in a global flood, etc. Theists (particularly Christians)
> > > did NOT think these concepts were wrong until we PROVED they were
> > > wrong (falsified). In fact, religionists actively struggled AGAINST
> > > scientific progress because it disagreed with their notions (and they
> > > STILL do).
>
> > You realize, of course, that we are no longer living in the Middle
> > Ages? Things have changed a bit since then, both in religion and
> > science.
>
> Some people haven't noticed. Or are you blind to that fact? Have you
> seen a US evangelical church? Do you realize that 44% of the US
> population still believes evolution is false?
Do you realize this has -0- to do with the purported topic of this
thread?
> > > So let's not put on overly rosy glasses about what happens
> > > when the beliefs of a theist are proven to be false. Many will
> > > continue to hold on to beliefs that are falsified because they will
> > > not accept them to be disproven.
>
> > True, but again, don't lump all religions into the same basket. The
> > title of the thread is about Catholic belief, but much of what you've
> > said has nothing to do with Catholicism.
>
> You asked me for things that religions have stated that have been
> disproven. I gave you a list of things that science has disproven, and
> some religions changed their minds. You don't see how this answers
> your question?
The only thing you've shown is your ability to throw random darts in
random directions with no more apparent aim other than to say "theists
are poopieheads." You could have said that in one sentence and saved
yourself a lot of typing time.
> Do you want to actually ask the question "What does Catholicism
> *currently* believe that science has disproven?" Well, for starters,
> that evolution isn't a proven science (it is)
Correction -- evolution is not a *proven* science. It is supported by
a preponderance of evidence.
> and that intelligent
> design might still be true (it isn't). But aside from that, finally
> and thankfully, not much. But let's see, remind me how long it took
> the Church to admit that the earth goes around the sun and Galileo was
> right? Yes. Several hundred years (JPII finally got around to it in
> the mid-1990's).
Obviously, what you *don't* know about the RCC could fill volumes.
Catholic schools teach evolution, from the elementary to the
university level. They have done so at least since the 1960's.
If you want to criticize something, make at least *some* attempt to
understand it. Right now, you come off sounding like some boob who
has a bug up his ass concerning the RCC, without knowing what they
really believe. That's like shining a spotlight on "Ignorance breeds
bigotry."
> The fact that the Catholics happen to have changed
> their stance on their previous uninformed claims about the world
> around us is exactly what I've been talking about.... they RECOGNIZE
> that their claims were wrong, and (thankfully) changed their minds
> (what that says about a religion supposedly inspired by God is your
> own interpretation). So like I said... very often science disproves
> claims of religion. What they do with their beliefs after they're
> shown to be wrong is their own business. Some religions change
> doctrine (or "suggestions", or whatever you want to call what they
> tell all their adherents to follow). Not all religions do the same. A
> huge number do not, in fact.
>
>
>
> > > Sure, some will accept actual
> > > verifiable scientific fact as showing that aspects of their faith are
> > > wrong. Good. That's a good thing. I applaude them for their
> > > sensibility and efforts. However, when THEOLOGY is based on a
> > > falsifiable assertion, and the assertion is falsified, at BEST you can
> > > perform some unconvincing theological acrobatics to wriggle out of the
> > > rock that was thrown on it, but usually they fail.
>
> > Our knowledge of the world changes. Science changes with it. So do
> > religions. And you think this is a problem because .........?
>
> I think this is a problem because some do not (which you appear to be
> totally oblivious to). I guess that point isn't getting through to
> you.
The chicken just dove for cover...
> > > For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
> > > sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
> > > wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
> > > would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
> > > actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?
>
> > Mysterious are the ways of Apollo. :-)
>
> Translation: metaphysical. Unprovable. Not affecting our universe.
And this is a problem for you because ...........?
> > > Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
> > > that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
> > > new species?
>
> > If I remember correctly, such evidence was first presented around 150
> > years ago, give or take. Most religions managed to have survived the
> > event.
>
> Some of them recognized the fact. However, many of them ignore it, and
> survive by preying off the weak minded and undereducated.
Careful with that broad brush, you might get some on you.
> > > It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
> > > personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
> > > examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
> > > belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
> > > assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
> > > evolution),
>
> > Really? How does incorporating newly discovered facts into a theology
> > "weaken" it?
>
> It makes it a weaker *ASSUMPTION*. A weak assumption is a good thing
> in a logical argument, in case you hadn't been aware. Weak assumptions
> include "I exist", "the universe exists", "you're not all figments of
> my imagination", "all of reality exist as we observe but I think God
> did it anyway". Strong assumptions include "I can prove that God
> exists because the moon is pretty", "I assume God made the sun out of
> swiss cheese", "I assume that I'll make a million dollars next week",
> "God made human beings out of dust from the earth and ribcages", etc.
>
> Savvy?
So, it makes religion weaker because you choose to believe so? That
might work for you, but...
> > Incorporating newly discovered facts into *science*
> > doesn't weaken it -- why do you think it would weaken a religion? Is
> > that a case of wishful thinking?
>
> No, just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
And you dodge the question with a ad-hom smokescreen. That says it
all.
Maintaining that incorporating knowledge into science strengthens the
science, but that incorporating the *same* knowledge into religion
weakens the religion, is absurd, unless you can support your
reasoning. You have not done so.
<...>
> > Well, let's start with the Catholics. (Remember them? That's who the
> > thread is about...)
>
> Not all Catholics believe in evolution. The church doesn't tell them
> they have to. It says they're "free to believe it and not be
> excommunicated", basically.
Wrong, as explained above.
> > To that add the Episcopal Church, the
> > Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and I'm sure quite a few
> > others. Oh, and here's a sprinkling of around 10,000 or so Christian
> > Clergy who feel the same way:http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
>
> And from:
>
> >Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
That's the nice thing about statistics: you can make them say anything
you want. I wish I could meet all these creationist Catholics. Where
are they hiding?
That's the problem with a McKnowledge source like Wikipedia. It's
very unreliable. That they have such a mediocre handle on how
statistics and polls work says a lot.
> I'll let these facts speak for themselves. I'll highlight one : 46% of
> Americans believe in strict creationism (the young earth kind, i.e.
> 10,000 years ago and 6 days). If that doesn't terrify you, you're not
> paying attention.
And 70 percent of the American public can't find New Jersey on a map.
Yes, poor education and ignorance are a problem in America.
Do you propose to fight ignorance with ignorance?
> > > I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
> > > to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.
>
> > And you seem to be consumed by your own prejudices. Pity, that.
>
> Not my own prejudice. My own experience. I live in a country that
> routinely has to fight against idiots who think that evolution didn't
> actually occur (that's the whole point of why this website exists).
(Psst -- this isn't a Web site. It's a Usenet newsgroup.)
> Fighting against irrational claims is a necessary part of modern
> science, unfortunately.
Actually, the business of science is science.
> I wish people were educated enough to simply
> be happy with metaphysical statements about God, but NOOOOO, they need
> to screw up science education to prove they're right too.
Which also had diddly to do with the (purported) topic of this thread.
> Like I said,
> you didn't see the "Cameron-Comfort" interview on ABC recently, did
> you? How do you explain their HUGE popular support otherwise?
Dude, try to focus. Complain about one thing at a time. Learning
something about what your trying to criticize would be a good first
step.
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
<...>
Pssst - Hey Mac, do you have a link or two handy to some of the above
discussions on the 'net? I'd like to read up on them. (I already
have links to Humani Generis and "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth")
TIA
Noelie S. Alito
> In article
> <1180028110.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>"chris.linthompso
> n...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 10:38 pm, macaddicted <macaddic...@ca.REMOVETHISrr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
>>> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
>>> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references
>>> he
>
>> Get better soon. Let Wilkins wait.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>
> It's more guilt on my part. Wilkins is always helpful and has given me
> some tips in the past. I want to return the favor but just haven't
> been able to get to it yet.
>
In that case, we'll keep deploying the standard slings and arrows to
keep him occupied. (OK, we'd do that anyway.)
Noelie
--
King Arthur vs. Lord Darth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90E0cy7pCFg
Vend
I don't think theists have a problem with this. In fact, I think that
Catholic theology states that God's existence can't be proved and must
be accepted by faith.
The statement that "B" hominids had a soul capable of sinning while
"A" hominids hadn't, is unfalsifiable thus unscientifical, but it's
not inherently incompatible with scientific knoledge.
> I don't think that if God exists, God would be okay with that. Many
> here have taken the tact of "I don't know and I don't care but I'm
> right anyway", which terminates argument and simply asserts validity
> without argumentation, much less evidence.
This is called "faith", and theists are perfectly happy with it. If
you want to challenge faith then it's ok, but it has very little to do
with compatibility with theory of evolution.
> But just realize that it
> would mean that God is fine with arbitrary designations about who gets
> into heaven and who doesn't.
According to Christianity, God has set so many arbitrary things
(ranging from the laws of physics to the commandament to perform
certain rituals once every seven days) that this would hardly bother
him.
Walter Bushell
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179973301....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 24 May, 02:29, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 23 May, 23:59, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > wrote [to rappaccio]:
> > > > > I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a
> > > > > Redemption, and
> > > > > operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically
> > > > > absurd -
> > > > > you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> > > > > absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited
> > > > > upon
> > > > > the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid
> > > > > before
> > > > > forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you
> > > > > were
> > > > > going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know
> > > > > from
> > > > > biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
> > >
> > > > You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
> > > > on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
> > > > theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
> > > > would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
> > >
> > > > If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> > > > be biologically heritable?
> > >
> > > No more odd than that guilt should be heritable. Which is to say, it is
> > > friggin' bonkers.
> >
> > Well, isn't that the biological case here? If you want to have a
> > 'first guilt holder', then don't look to biology for a distinguishing
> > characteristic worthy of such a heavy burden. That's an answer on
> > behalf of biology, isn't it? I still don't see what more you could
> > expect rapproccio to have said.
> >
> > > > What possible theological point would
> > > > there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> > > > visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> > > > in the high street never entered by the fathers?
> > >
> > > The truly odd thing about the Judaeo-Christian notion of heritable guilt
> > > is that it only makes sense in a materialist-evolutionist world-view.
> > > Because if you really want to punish (and the Tit-for-tat analysis
> > > convinces
> > > me that punishment is sometimes what you ought to want to do) then if
> > > you can't apply enough punishment from the perpetrator himself, you
> > > really ought to apply it to the offspring.
> >
> > This is an entirely different matter - the biological basis for common
> > morality (as opposed to the RCC's rather desperate morality). It may
> > indeed be advantageous to visit the sins down the germ line, and it
> > may indeed be that there is nothing more to right and wrong than what
> > is most advantageous. However, it is part of the common usage of
> > moral language that right is not the same as advantageous, or at least
> > not the same as advantageous to the individual making the choice. It
> > is the biological basis of this more altruistic morality that needs
> > explaining.
> >
> > So yes, it may in some sense be a public service/altruism if you
> > prosecute a family vendetta down the generations. Our natural
> > inclination is to hate the sinner and not the sin. The naturalistic
> > underpinning of that inclination is that there is no point in
> > intervening over a one-off offence (if it is too late to stop it),
>
> The logic of deterrence suggests that there is every reason to intervene
> (or rather, punish) even one-off offenses. It is, after all, the one-off
> offenders whom you wish to deter.
>
> > but
> > if we think such offences arise chronically from an individual's
> > 'nature', then there is every point in intervening. So as you say,
> > our inclination to visit sanctions down the generations might be
> > caused by the heritability of certain behaviours.
>
> No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am suggesting that the purpose
> of punishment is deterrence, and that the deterrence is more fearsome
> and effective if you know that your sins will result in punishment of your
> progeny.
>
> > I question whether
> > we even have such an inclination in the first place, though. I never
> > feel it. I could quite believe you are just trying to rationalise
> > something that never existed outside the tortured meta-ethics of a
> > certain religious tradition.
> >
> > > After all, evolutionary theory
> > > leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our
> > > offspring,
> > > so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the
> > > perpetrator.
> > >
> > > And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
> > > other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
> > > our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.
> >
> > I answered this above, but I will add that my attitude towards my
> > enemies' descendants is governed by my expectation of their attitude
> > towards me. So there is a game-theoretical instability here.
>
> There is indeed. But my suggestion was not that you slay your enemy's
> children to remove bad genes or bad attitudes and thus to make the world
> a better place. You kill the kids so that every neutral observer draws the
> conclusion that you are one mean mutha' and that it would be very unwise to
> mess with you.
And you don't even have to punish the right person for that message to
be sent.
VoiceOfReason
Another thought... I get the impression some people think that
Catholics sit around on their hands waiting for pronouncements from
*The Powers That Be* before they do or think anything. NAK. I think
much of the intent of the encyclicals is to provide a "course
correction" (so to speak) to topics of current interest. For example,
Catholics didn't sit around in rapt anticipation until 1950 waiting to
see if the were "allowed" to study evolution. They were studying all
the while. The encyclical just provided parameters for how the dogma
was to be reconciled with the science.
Unfortunately, sometimes the guidance is a little behind the times
(for sufficiently astronomical values of "a little"). If memory
serves, birth control existed long before the church made any comment
on it, which of course resulted in some consternation when it was
stamped as Thou Shalt Not.
FWIW
rappoccio
> "On 25 May 2007 06:55:39 -0700, in article
> [...snip...]
>
> >Let's just put this part up to "Genesis is inconsistent" because in
> >one place it says "God created man (Adam)" who committed a sin which
> >cast the world into a state of "fallen from grace", and then somehow
> >there are other people elsewhere that they can go and procreate with.
> >Don't you think those people would have been pretty ticked off that
> >the two morons who screwed up their sweet deal in life were coming and
> >looking for a place to live?
>
> I don't know what point you want to discuss.
>
> At first, it was that evolutionary biology was inconsistent with
> acceptance of the Adam-and-Eve story.
>
> Then it was about whether traditional Christian belief was in the creation
> of fixed species.
>
> Now, you seem to be bringing up a question of the plausibility of the
> Adam-and-Eve story for modern sensibilities of story-telling.
"Modern sensibilities" meaning "we don't like things that are
inconsistent logically and/or wrong?" This is another argument-ender
by fiat. When inconsistencies are pointed out in the source material
for theology, the defender will just state that it really happened the
way they wanted it to have happened, but the details that make it
inconsistent are irrelevant, whether or not those details are actually
acted on in any case.
That's basically the point of this thread. The point is, the teaching
of original sin is NOT naturally consistent with a just God that is
rational by any human standards, based on observable facts of
evolution. The ONLY thing left to do is to proclaim "God's mystery"
and end the argument, because there are no good answers to the
questions that I have raised here, other than "Gee, who are YOU to
question God, huh?" or "God is smarter than us and can figure out a
way to make an inconsistency consistent somehow", or "God works in
ways that aren't logical to us". So basically there's no point in
rationally arguing the situation, when the other team isn't willing to
play by the same rules throughout the argument. They try to rationally
defend their beliefs until their arguments are shown to be
inconsistent or contradictory to rationality, and then they abandon
the rational argument and abdicate themselves from the rules of
debate. So I guess I'm basically wasting my time to get people to
actually think about the consequences of what they claim.
Silly me.
TomS
<1180106830....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."
In other words, you don't want to talk about evolution.
Sorry for interrupting.
rappoccio
> "On 25 May 2007 08:27:10 -0700, in article
Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about, and used it to
reduce original sin to a logical impossibility given observed fact. If
you abdicate yourself from the discussion by simply asserting that
it's still true because God is illogical, well, there's no point in
arguing about God logically in the first place, is there? So I guess
your stance must be that theology is basically pointless since it
tries to logically discern what a (presumably) illogical being would
do.
I would take a different tact, and say that since we think God must
actually be logical (if God exists), the only logical conclusion is
that original sin is a fallacy.
Silly me. So sorry for asking questions about the party line.
macaddicted
<1180099770....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
I know the Church is unwilling at this point to cede that point.
>
>
>> > Recently people have argued that even if there were many then
>> Adam > is a "symbol", but they all still committed original sin (for
>> which > we're all still being punished).
>>
>> Original sin is best understood as an attempt to understand why
>> there is a separation between man and God.
> So it *wasn't* a sin actually committed by a person or persons?
The Church would say yes. But the admittion by the Church that there
may be validity to evolution calls that into question. It is something
the Church is currently struggling with.
>
>> > As I've also argued, there is no "natural" place in human
>> history to > place this arbitrary distinction of "Before here,
>> you're not human, > and after here, you are", unless God is
>> comfortable
>> > with completely arbitrary designations.
>>
>> You're asking a theology student if God is comfortable with
>> arbitrary definitions?
>> I would tend to agree that physiologically that it would be
>> difficult to point to a particular moment and say "That's where
>> humanity began," the arguments over the physiology of man and his
>> roots are being left more and more to science. If you read the
>> portion of JPII's 1996 address he speaks of the "ontological
>> disconnect" between biology and theology concerning how man became
>> Man. There remains a great distance between Dennett and the Church
>> on that subject.
> So the answer would be "we don't know and we don't care when
> manbecame Man, but original sin still happened anyway, we're sure of
> that"?
Again the question is in flux. Monogenism simplifies things somewhat
but how exactly you work that into evolution is still being debated.
>
> It's not terribly satisfying. It essentially eliminates all
> discussion about the issue by fiat, and asserts it's own validity
> without an actual rationalization (well, other than ignoring
> argumentation). There isn't any inherent justisce in making one
> person or persons somehow spiritually gifted and having their friends
> and relativesexcluded by some arbitrary designation put in place by
> God.
>
All I can give you right now is speculation, as that is all I have to
work with. The Church has said spectacularly little about evolution
officially.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and
>> explain >> > them carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>>
>> >> Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems
>> lately >> than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day.
>> Wilkins is >> still sitting around waiting for me to pull together
>> the references >> he requested and I haven't been able to get to
>> them yet. My thesis >> director called today to see if I had died,
>> seeing as I haven't had >> the time to respond to his emails either.
>> Do a google groups search >> for my sig in this group and you will
>> see many posts where I discuss >> some of the topics you have
>> brought up, mostly in response to posts >> by Pagano
>> > Well I hope you're feeling better.
>>
I get by. Mostly it is just frustrating.
macaddicted
<1180103747.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>VoiceOfReason
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> alreadyhave links to Humani Generis and "Truth Cannot Contradict
> Truth")
>
> TIA
>
>
>
IIRC original sin is defined in the Fourth Lateran Council (1545).
Providentissimus Deus is from Leo XIII (1893?), Divino Afflante
Spiritu from Pius XII (1940?). All should be available at Vatican.va
or ewtn.com as they are council documents . If you are going to study
it in depth you are going to need some reference to Denzinger's
compilation of official Church documents. Neuner and Dupuis' _The
Christian Faith_ is (in some cases grudgingly) used by most Catholic
post-grad courses dealing with systematic theology. Not everything is
necessarily "official" but most of it is indicative of the movements
that was happening in theology.