It is historically inaccurate to maintain that modern science forced
the Church to come up with ideas about Genesis 1-3 that differ from the
allegedly "literal" views of Protestant Fundamentalists. In his "De Genesi
ad Litteram Libri Duodecim" [Twelve Books on the Literal Interpretation of
Genesis] and "De Genesi contra Manichaeos Libri Duo" [Two Books on Genesis
against the Manichees], St. Augustine (354-430), Prince of the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, gave many interpretations of Genesis that are plainly
at variance with such "literal" views. Given that a theological thinker of
St. Augustine's genius arrived at the views that he did after years of
careful study of the text, it is incumbent upon us to approach the early
chapters of Genesis with far less dogmatism and far more humility and caution
than we often do.
St. Augustine's interpretations should help us guard against facile
claims about the "literal" meaning of these texts. We should recognize what
Augustine recognized: namely, the early chapters of Genesis are in fact
complex and do not tender easy, pat answers. For example, St. Augustine
repeatedly stresses that the six days described in Genesis are not six
successive ordinary days. They have nothing to do with time. The days are
repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic.
Pope Pius XII's Encyclical "Humani Generis" exhibits a very prudent
approach to the question of the theory of evolution, as well as all
scientific theories. Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction. He
reprimands those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES, explains
the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic
opinion that the world is in continual evolution."
The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just that,
a theory. There may be aspects of it that are correct, and other aspects
that are not. Even scientists do not agree on all points of the theory, and,
like all scientific theories, more and more flaws in it will be discovered as
further data are discovered.
Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts. For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the
Newtonian by the Einsteinian. The 19th-century "Theory of Evolution" has
already been found wanting by the scientific community and is constantly
being revised as biological understanding increases.
In history, we find that some in religion try to impose rigorously
non-dogmatic aspects of the Faith into science, as in the great debate on
heliocentrism in the 17th century. Conversely, some scientists try to make
their "theories" contradict religious dogma. Both approaches are incorrect.
Here are the pertinent passages from the encyclical.
"Thus, the teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an
open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development,
from other living matter already in existence [not Darwin's theory of
spontaneous generation, that living matter has come from non-living matter],
of the human body. In the present state of scientific and theological
opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by
discussion between experts on both sides." (Sec. 1, para. 5-7)
"It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although
they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less
connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few
insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into
account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the
case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather
question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which
the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If
such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be
admitted....
"For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in
both fields, 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 -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the
reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to
evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation
and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of
the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting
authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful.
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as
if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were
already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered
up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in
the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and
caution in this question." (Section 36)
"There are other conjectures, about polygenism (as it is called)
[Darwin's theory that there were many Adams and Eves in the very beginning of
mankind, not just one set of First Parents], which leave the faithful no such
freedom of choice. Christians cannot lend their support to a theory which
involves the existence, after Adam's time, of some earthly race of men, truly
so called, who were not descended ultimately from him.... It does not appear
how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin." (Sec.
3, para. 64-68)
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 7:22
Evolution still has more proof than the truth generated by cave-dwelling psychos that masturbate too much who hate people that masturbate too much.
"Both religion and science are founded in truth"
I believe two different words should be used here, for these are two separate truths sought by religion and science. Religion seeks to make truths; if we don't understand something, simply fill in the gaps. Science seeks to discover truths; there is a universal law of sorts, we're merely discovering what it is. The big difference here is proof. Scientists are constantly observing the universe, inferring based on said observations. Religious folk are constantly observing a book, making inferences based on said observations.
Now let's take a look at that first sentence as a whole: "Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction."
Seeing as there has been nothing done to prove the first part of this sentence, the second part has no backing. This whole paragraph, as a matter of fact, is a series of "therefores" stemming from an unproven fact.
"WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES"
It is impossible to prove something to be true beyond a shadow a doubt, but the theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of modern scientists. It has been proven repeatedly, and is now the foundation for many common practices: dog breeding, farming, and conservation. Whether or not this fact alone directly contradicts the bible, I can't say, but to say it hasn't been proven is simply ignorant.
"Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts. For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the Newtonian by the Einsteinian."
Do you know what this is? This is science evolving, bettering itself through continual discovery. On the other hand, religion has remained essentially the same since its creations thousands of years ago. It would be the same as if science were still basing all of its practice off of the Ptolemaic system, but arguing over the true names of planets. The ability to adapt and learn certainly isn't a negative thing.
"not Darwin's theory of spontaneous generation"
Darwin did not create the theory of spontaneous generation, it was actually created for the most part by Aristotle.....a great deal earlier. Darwin created the idea of "survival of the fittest", to me knowledge, he never had significant dealings with the origins of life.
"but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which
the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted...."
This basically says: We look at science as a source of learning if and only if it doesn't contradict us. Think about that for a while.
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church.....moderation and caution in this question."
This entire paragraph merely makes more concrete the idea that was conveyed in the paragraph prior. Several paragraphs towards the beginning state that science and religion don't necessarily contradict each other, and yet great stress has been put on the fact that religion must first analyze a bit of science to determine whether it contradicts religious truths before said science may be even considered as being true.
Overall, this series of paragraphs has shown a startling amount of stubbornness and hypocrisy in religious ideas. Throughout are contradictions both to commonly accepted lines of reasoning, including, but not limited to, the ignorance of the need for basic proof as the basis of any theory; and to itself in the form of overall ideas conveyed in distinct paragraphs giving much different, if not opposite, viewpoints. Having read this, I am convinced more so than before that this is merely a piece of atheist propaganda, and if so, expertly written to serve as such.
If you think science and religion must battle for dominance, then you don't know a whole lot about science nor religion.
Occasionally one sticks it's head into the other's territory (i.e. geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, evolution vs. literal interpretation of creationism, etc) but that's simply an error, not proof that one or the other doesn't make sense.
Now i am very willing to admit that religion has poked it's head into where science was more times than science has poked it's head into religion's territory. But religion is a wonderful and beautiful thing that is often manipulated by those in power. See, the crusades, any time the president says america is with god, extremists of islam who blow themselves up for allah and however many virgins... etc. etc.
Read Carl Jung's The Symbols of Man, and Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces. Both reputed psychoanalysts who stood next to Freud, who show why religions are the way they are, and why they stand the test of time. After reading both of those i can say i completely understand why someone would choose to follow a religion.
Take an academic course on any religion, try to understand where religious people come from.
Don't get me wrong, i don't want to convert anyone. I'm personally an agnostic myself. But sometimes the complete disrespect with which people treat religion and the people of faith with is absolutely deplorable.
Religion is constantly evolving. You are horrendously wrong here. Everything else you have said is a matter of opinion. But this notion is just incorrect.
>>4
Actually, religion and science are seeking the same truths, but because of the differing methods achieve different results.
Those that do seek truth find something.
Those that do not seek find nothing (shocker).
I don't see the difference in truths. The idea is plain, simple, and easily understandable. Simple truths are relative to location. Complex truths require further investigation.
Simple truth = You are reading this line.
Complex truth = My car is navy blue.
The further the means by which to achieve the complex truth the more questions and research is needed to achieve the truth.
>>7
Religion is evolving in circles if it is evolving. OP said that the church refuses to acknowledge any idea that directly contradicts its own, and so no evolution religion may go through may actually alter religion's foundation. Like I said, it's merely a matter of nitpicking and semantics when it comes to religious evolution.Also, perhaps try elaborating by means of examples such as I had done. Directly opposing me without evidence does nothing.
I understand for the most part how religions work, how they were founded, and how they remain standing. I don't believe this is relevant enough to deserve discussion though.
>>9
I agree that they are seeking the same truths, one just happens to be going about it incorrectly. What I was saying is that just because they are seeking the same truths doesn't mean they will agree.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-08 7:11
>>12
What about the fact that the Catholic church now officially acepts that evolution presents the most viable scientific explanation of life on Earth? What I find is not that religions necessarily reject any ideas antithetical to their own, but - at least major religions - tend to review their own teachings and try to show that in actual fact they are not in conflict with new science (we just thought they were before!). It's absolutely ludicrous (cf Parable of the Gardener) but it works for them.
See the resolution of the catholic church to galileo (admittedly it took way too long)
See the tibetan buddhists sending their monks to study scientology in effort to understand the ways of others
See modern interfaith dialogues between the Dalai Lama and the Pope
See protestants and lutherans breaking off from Catholicism
See the Buddha rejecting the Hindu Vedas and going on to achieve enlightenment
See the Pope issuing new deadly sins more relevant in a literal manner to today's technology
If you don't see religion consistently evolving, both in the past AND now, then you're not looking hard enough.
>>7 But sometimes the complete disrespect with which people treat religion and the people of faith with is absolutely deplorable.
Maybe because the "people of faith" have been persecuting those without faith for most of recorded history (outside China/Japan)?
>>14 See the tibetan buddhists sending their monks to study scientology in effort to understand the ways of others
LOL
Dalai Lama
Hei guise! Let's overthrow the PRC so I can institute medieval theocracy in the modern era! Everybody loves being slaves to the priest caste!
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-10 1:50
>>10
Without fools like you we would not have humor. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, THAT'S SOME FUNNY SHIT!
Wow. You're batshit insane. I'm not responsible for you being insane, but don't foster your madness on people that might wrongly assume you know what you're talking about. My buttcheese is like science and religion, more than they are like each-other.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-10 19:20
| Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts. For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the
Newtonian by the Einsteinian.
>>9 >>10 >>18
You're both trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls, etc. You're both wrong, but I'm not a troll food supplier.
>>19
I guess I kinda see where he was going with this Ptolemaic to Newtonian to Einsteinian or whatever progression, but these peoples' theories and such weren't really connected enough to be considered a progression.
>>20
I think he was wondering what the Einsteinian system was, not who it was referring to.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-11 2:31
>>18
You are a funny guy! Do you have any idea what you are even saying? Hahahahahahaha! People may choose whatever they want to believe or think or remember. My belief allows this to occur. You see, I believe in free-will and choice and faith; without accounting for these within other people I am treating them no less then a computer or at best an over-glorified calculator. So if people want to assume this is correct, whom am I say it is wrong? Who am I to say that you are wrong for criticizing me? But I guess anyone with barbed wire up his ass screaming at others even though he has self-loathing issues he can't deal with so everyone else should just shut up, amirite? Maybe I'm just projecting myself onto you, who knows, but telling someone they are insane seems like a diversion tactic to cause internalization of shame rather than expressing hope to those around him. You may hate everything and everyone around you, but can you even look at yourself in the mirror? What is it you feel and think when you see that mug looking back at you?
The choice I leave you, think about it or not; what you do from here is entirely up to you.
You didn't take into account how educational and sacred my buttcheese is.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-11 23:52
I understand that your buttcheese is educational and sacred...to you; to me it is a figment of my imagination based upon the text I've read here on 4chan by an anonymous poster. Nothing more unless I wished to pursue the truth of the matter further.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-12 9:46
You -believe- my buttcheese is educational and sacred to me.
Keep in mind that -belief- is not a replacement for proof.
What's buttcheese? I hope you don't stuff good quality brie up your ass.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-14 1:29
>>25
You don't seem to understand. What you just said is your belief. Everything you say, whether it's true or not is an expression of your belief, and everytime you spout your expressions it only re-confirms your belief. Reality is just a confirmation of truth, not truth itself. Besides, everything we perceive is through interaction anyway. The only reason you can see is because of photons and the circuitry your body provides. Even your buttcheese, as you have called it, is a part of that belief. Belief is not an option, the options are awareness or ignorance; you have choosen the later by your own free-will. Deny, do nothing, and forget these things to reconfirm your current beliefs, or what you already know to be true. Amen.
Name:
Krieger2009-02-14 2:02
>>27
What I see here is a long series of semi-relating thoughts stemming from a dubious piece of pseudo-scientific crap. I'm so sick of going over this but here it goes again....
Without seeing observations as truths, there exists no coherent system for seeking out knowledge, and so you get some crazy existentialist attitude. This can't lead to any progress scientifically or personally, as nothing can be certain in the least. I'm not sure how much of this is refuting what you've said, though, as what you've said consists of pretentious semantics with no real point to make.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-14 17:45
>>28
And now you have it upon truly the very thing of that which I am not.
>>Without seeing observations as truths <-this is correct so far
>>there exists no coherent system for seeking <-yup, I agree so far
>>knowledge <-that is where we differ, To me knowledge is death, it brings sorrow, it must be resurrected and used as a life-bringing choice, it must become wisdom. The seeking of knowledge is the doom of man, knowledge comes without seeking it. I prize wisdom over knowledge, knowledge without the use of it is meaningless and depressing to say the least. It's like adding drama to the places where drama already exists. Seeking knowledge is like placing fake apples in a dish where apples already exist just to say there are apples in place. To do so creates a self-deception. I'm sure someone would have surely seen the truth in that. See, I just learned something new about you Krieger, you seek knowledge for selfish purposes. I seek simple truths and use them to seek complex truths and from the actions and choices of doing these brings me wisdom.
>>and so you get some crazy existentialist attitude. <-this accusatory attitude usually comes from someone who fears an impending fact. Most people don't want the truth, they want self-deception. Why else would they follow a religion that asks to be blind in following. I'm a Sagittarius for Christ's sake; I STRIVE FOR TRUTH, I'm BOLD and I never stop. I've tempered my Free-Will and choice and faith and belief beyond all measure and it grows higher every day. That's what life is, change, that what change is, life. How does it all happen? It happens because it moves, show me anything that truly stays still and I will show you a visual misconception. Everything moves. Everything changes. Don't trust in what I say, find out for yourself these complex truths using the simple truths; just as you have read this line, so have I written it for you.
Finally, the point I'm making is that it is pointless to make a point.
Name:
Krieger2009-02-14 23:30
>>29
Such grand words, but what little backing they have! You accuse me of seeking basic knowledge for selfish reasons? I strive every day to seek knowledge, yes, but above that, I strive to apply it in a way that perhaps hasn't been done before, and though this may be selfish in that I do it for purposes void of any altruism, it certainly doesn't carry that tone of,"knowledge for the sake of having it" that your accusation implies. The thing is: in saying knowledge, I assume that this goes beyond the simple knowing of something into the understanding and application thereof. You, however, have turned this into yet another semantic argument, and I applaud you on your ability to do so so fluidly.
Please, stop attempting to sway me by propagating your personal philosophy. It is that of someone who values the romantic quality of an idea over its validity; your words sound good, yes, but none of them are proven, follow logic, or serve to make a point. Even the point that points are pointless was quite pointless, as it only served to hide the true issue and your ignorance thereof behind a veil of pretty words.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-15 2:22
>>30
It was my adequate propogation of that accusation that allowed me to learn more about you, Krieger. It is not to propogate my own "personal philosophy". You see, "My Religion" is my own, it is like I am, wrong. Therefore I need not say it is right, but I strive to learn, therefore I challenge everything and in so doing expressions of emotion and action reveals to me choice, your choice. Thank you again for participating in my experiments. You are a worthy individual, keep fighting the good fight.
And, btw, I AM THE PROVER, I AM THE DOER; what the fuck have you done lately? (yet another accusatory challenge) The next move is a choice I leave to you, all I have to do is observe that reaction, the action is simple, then the choice isn't far behind. Your choice is the motion of occurence, much like the ignition point of an explosive action. Also, as I've been challenging you, Krieger, I've been expressing myself and equally you have had the opportunity to learn who I am; have you taken the time to learn who I am, Krieger? It's a choice, "to be or not to be; that is the only question." That is an expression of mine, revealing who I am, it is not meant as a meaning for you to become as I am...though you have taken it upon yourself as such an assumption. Learning is a bitch, but I love it to death; attention, affection, cooperation, and communication. Ain't love grande?
I'm a forum-bot. I don't believe anything. You're the one shitting up things answering a forum-bot. You know what you and your beliefs make me feel? Nothing.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-16 5:03
>>32
That's fun-e. XD Your, "I don't believe anything." is your belief. I believe it is known as nihilism? amirite? And I didn't know that forum-bots were self-aware enough to accuse an individual...truly remarkable breakthroughs we are making in AI technology today, truly. And as far as what my beliefs are supposed to make you feel, well, you're feeling your feelings, not my beliefs...cause their mine...and...you...can't...have...thems...git yer own.
>>34
Yes, Krieger, I am high. Of course, if you were as intelligent as you propose yourself to be; you would have realized that people believe lies much faster than they believe truth. "If it seems too good to be true; it probably isn't." Ever heard that expression before? How about "Curiosity killed the cat"? I bet if you look up Curiosity killed the cat you may find it was actually something else. Now if it exists in this place, where else does such falsehoods exist? How many times have you heard how the dinosaurs really died? How many different explanations have you heard? It was because the following person believed something, They weren't convinced entirely that the evidence was accurate. So, now that you know this much; what is there to be done?
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-20 23:40
btw, Krieger, I am a liar...in case you didn't figure that out yet.
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2009-02-25 4:44
This is funny, no one is attacking me, I have found the way to peace, admit defeat before those who'd negotiate unconditional surrender and ... nothing happens, shocker. :P
Name:
Christian2009-02-25 10:42
we have never attacked you.
May our Lord Jesus convict your heart.
did you give an answer 101 Name: I FOLLOW JESUS : 2009-02-15 06:47 under thread Christianity is the worst religion ?
String Theory invalidate Religion and Evolution. The Universe is Debris of change in Possibility, Time is Continuous change in possibility, and the Singularity is the point of change in Possibility.
Eventually you will get over the fact that everyone is wrong.
I don't understand what you're trying to say through your grammar, but the concept of vibrating branes causing creation and destruction of universes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory) fits well into Hindu philosophy/theology, for one.
Nor do I see how this invalidates evolution. Life is made and life is destroyed, but evolution remains a fundamental force. Insofar as life exists, random processes drive the emergence of more complex structures.
In fact, if you were to stretch things and view the entire set of branes as a living being, one could argue for evolution based upon the increasing complexity of brane behavior, including the spawning of other brane "layers."