Having read the recent posts on creation and the age of the earth, I cannot but wonder whether the debate is finally an empty one. I would not stake my reputation on it, but I wonder whether the following might offer a way of getting beyond it. Could it be that God created, simultaneously and ex nihilo, everything in the cosmos fully complete and complex and, rather than giving it the mere appearance of age, gave it a genuine history, capable of being investigated scientifically? If so, then the timing of creation, from a human perspective at least, would not be a relevant consideration. To assume that God created the heaven and earth at the beginning of what we experience as history might not be the proper way of looking at it. He could just as easily have created it yesterday (from his perspective, not ours; see Psalm 90:4) and given everything, including us, not just the appearance of age, but real age. After all, God is the creator of temporality and is not bound by it as we are.
This would not, of course, resolve the issue of biological macro-evolution. As I see it, whether human beings and the higher primates (with apologies to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York) have a common descent should not be deemed a confessional matter but one to be surmised on the basis of the evidence. That said, it should be obvious that Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection is grossly insufficient to explain the sheer complexity of the human person, with his/her cultural-forming capacities, and the huge gap that exists between human beings on the one hand and the chimpanzees and bonobos with which we apparently share such a large proportion of our genetic code on the other. Any worldview unable to account for human uniqueness in God’s creation is faulty at a basic level.
February 25th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #1
“Could it be that God created, simultaneously and ex nihilo, everything in the cosmos fully complete and complex and, rather than giving it the mere appearance of age, gave it a genuine history, capable of being investigated scientifically?”
Anything is possible when Occam’s razor is dull :)
February 25th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #2
Dr. Koyzis declares–
Just so we’re clear about what “Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection” is, here’s the argument:
If there are variations within a population;
and if these variations are inherited;
and if one variant is more suited to some task than the others;
and if that task directly affects survival and therefore reproduction;
Then natural selection (selection by the environment) will result in evolutionary change.
So yes, “Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection” is insufficient to explain all the wonders of the human person.
Oh yes, yes. But “Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection” is not a worldview. The issue is this: is belief that natural selection is true (and just to underscore the scientific consensus on where this process leads, let’s toss in universal common descent) compatible with a Christian worldview? I think it is. I do not think our “human uniqueness” is compromised by our common biological ancestry with other organisms.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #3
Joel Hunter: “But “Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection” is not a worldview.”
It is certainly a key pillar to secular materialistic atheism.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:21 pm | #4
David Koyzis: “That said, it should be obvious that Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection is grossly insufficient to explain the sheer complexity of the human person … Any worldview unable to account for human uniqueness in God’s creation is faulty at a basic level.”
Yes, indeed.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #5
Adding to your idea is an a thought I’ve had: couldn’t God have used BOTH evolution AND special creation? For example, He could have made a literal Adam and Eve that were qualitatively different from the beings around them. A fantasy example of this is Aslan’s creation of Narnia. He makes animals and then calls forward only some to be rational beings.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #6
Irrelevant. “Human uniqueness” is a key pillar of atheistic existentialism. Doesn’t mean “human uniqueness” is false. It is pointless to kvetch about implications before we’ve agreed on matters of fact.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #7
Meh, can’t edit comments. My #6 is directed at TU…AD’s #3.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #8
“Could it be that God created, simultaneously and ex nihilo, everything in the cosmos fully complete and complex and, rather than giving it the mere appearance of age, gave it a genuine history, capable of being investigated scientifically? If so, then the timing of creation, from a human perspective at least, would not be a relevant consideration. To assume that God created the heaven and earth at the beginning of what we experience as history might not be the proper way of looking at it. He could just as easily have created it yesterday (from his perspective, not ours; see Psalm 90:4) and given everything, including us, not just the appearance of age, but real age. After all, God is the creator of temporality and is not bound by it as we are.”
Dear Mr. Koyzis: Why stop with this? Maybe God did create everything yesterday–I mean yesterday from “our” perspective–and implanted the memories of a past history within us and our artifacts. But the universe has only been around since 2:56 p.m. Central Standard Time yesterday. Thus there has been no evolution at all, and it’s not a problem.
I am not mocking what you are saying; I am asking, if we employ your proposed solution, where is the logical or evidential point of creation?
“Anything is possible when Occam’s razor is dull :)”
Dear Mr. Omelianchuk: Let me get in ahead of anyone else: ATHEIST!
February 25th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #9
Joel Hunter,
Not irrelevant at all.
Darwinism is a key pillar for the worldview of atheism.
You do know that… don’t you?
February 25th, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #10
“That said, it should be obvious that Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection is grossly insufficient to explain the sheer complexity of the human person, with his/her cultural-forming capacities, and the huge gap that exists between human beings on the one hand and the chimpanzees and bonobos with which we apparently share such a large proportion of our genetic code on the other. Any worldview unable to account for human uniqueness in God’s creation is faulty at a basic level.”
So far, I think everyone on this thread, including myself, agrees with this point in Mr. Koyzis’s original post. This raises a question I’d like to throw out: As I understand it, the more or less official Catholic position is that evolution as a feature of God’s creation can account for humanity’s physical descent, but that the rational soul, created in God’s image, is a supernatural endowment from God, not explainable by evolutionary processes. (I think this is similar to what Mr. Koyzis is saying here.)
So my question is simply: What do the rest of you think of this? Evolution can account for the physical aspects of humans, but not the rational soul?
February 25th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #11
Craig Payne: “So my question is simply: What do the rest of you think of this? Evolution can account for the physical aspects of humans, but not the rational soul?”
I think that micro-evolution accounts for adaption of humans.
But I definitely don’t think the primordial-goo-to-you macro-evolution explanation accounts for the physical aspects of humans. Not at all. This is destructive teaching.
February 25th, 2010 | 3:15 pm | #12
[...] Why I Am a Middle-Aged Young/Old-Earth Creationist, by David T. Koyzis [...]
February 25th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #13
Truth Unites… and Divides,
Yes, it is irrelevant.
Darwinism is also a key pillar for the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church, as I evidenced in the the post “Why I’m Neither a Creationist Nor an Evolutionist”
You do know that… don’t you?
February 25th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #14
R. Hampton,
I want to see whether Joel Hunter acknowledges that Darwinism is a key pillar for the worldview of atheism.
And I did see your postings claiming or evidencing that Darwinism is a key pillar for the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I do know that you did that.
February 25th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #15
“As I understand it, the more or less official Catholic position is that evolution as a feature of God’s creation can account for humanity’s physical descent, but that the rational soul, created in God’s image, is a supernatural endowment from God, not explainable by evolutionary processes. (I think this is similar to what Mr. Koyzis is saying here.)”
Not quite. The soul is not reason stuck inside a body. It is the total person taken in all of his/her multifaceted complexity. This includes the logical aspect, but it is hardly limited to that. We human beings function aesthetically, jurally, socially, economically, biologically, physically, &c., not just logically. This is why I reject the notion of a “rational soul,” which is excessively reductionistic.
However, I do believe that we are more than biological beings, which I think is the point that you, Craig, were trying to get at. What distinguishes us from the rest of biological creation is that we respond to God’s call in intentional ways. A big part of this has to do with cultural formation, by which we adapt our environment to ourselves.
I do not know whether human beings and apes have a common ancestor. I am agnostic on this point. Natural selection does exist, to be sure, and it can be observed in short-lived species where the generational turnover is quick. Yet I doubt it is possible to demonstrate the veracity of evolution across species boundaries because it cannot be replicated in a laboratory setting. This, as I understand it, is why evolution is described as a theory, i.e., it is a theoretical attempt to account for biological diversity. Unfortunately, it often comes across as an attempt to homogenize this diversity. This is where the worldview comes in.
However, the fact that human beings adapt their environment to themselves rather than the other way around seems to indicate that the darwinian mechanism loses much of its explanatory force when it comes to our own species. Admittedly, this takes me a bit far outside my own area of expertise, which is political science. Yet it is precisely in the latter field that the issue of worldviews has such huge consequences. Darwinism, as a worldview, is obviously not without consequences for how our societies develop and for how we relate to each other and the rest of creation as well.
February 25th, 2010 | 4:53 pm | #16
Evolution never saved anybody.
Just sayin’. Rock on, Dr. Koyzis.
February 25th, 2010 | 4:54 pm | #17
David T. Koyzis,
ID scientists Michael Behe & Stephen Meyer do not doubt that that evolution crosses species boundries . They only balk at the claim that every species is the result of the undirected (random) mechanisms of evolution.
Even Answers in Genesis, the infamous apologetics ministry, admits that Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it) in regards to the idea that “Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)”
February 25th, 2010 | 4:55 pm | #18
Anyway, I’m wondeirng which of the advocates for evolution wants to tell us that what Darwin proposed a century and a half ago is, word for word, what you believe to be true about evolution today.
That is: has science improved Darwin’s theory at all? If so, how?
February 25th, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #19
“However, the fact that human beings adapt their environment to themselves rather than the other way around seems to indicate that the darwinian mechanism loses much of its explanatory force when it comes to our own species.”
Well, but humans do adapt to their environments: skin pigmentation, body shapes, resistance to certain diseases, etc. The difference I think you are pointing to is that humans can also make free choices that influence their environments, rather than simply being acted upon by environment.
Dear Frank: “Evolution never saved anybody.” True; but the problem with these types of statements is that the rest of us don’t really know what is implied. It seems like the implication is that others on this thread think that evolution DOES save us. Am I reading too much into it?
And, to wind up: The original point of the thread was the young/old creation view. Was there a response in that regard to Post # 8?
February 25th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #20
Frank Turk,
Gravitation, Electro-Magnetism, et. al. never saved anybody either. Perhaps we should disregard these scientific theories as well?
In addressing this common, if unfortunate, impulse among Christians to disregard the revelations of Science, Pope John Paul II said: The Apostle [Paul] has in mind here people who “in this perversity of theirs hinder the truth” (Rom 1:18). Sin draws them away from giving glory due to God, whom every person is able to know. He is able to know God’s existence and even, to a certain extent, his essence, his perfections and his attributes. The invisible God becomes in a certain way “recognized through the things he has made.”
And yes, we know more about Evolution – genetics in particular – then did Charles Darwin. Then again, the same can be said of the theorized Gravitation first proposed by Isaac Newton. So what?
February 25th, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #21
Frank Turk never saved anybody.
February 25th, 2010 | 5:09 pm | #22
No, but his choice of graphics for his posts may well be close to killing a few people.
: )
February 25th, 2010 | 5:28 pm | #23
Dr Koyzis, have you done any research on social Darwinism? I read From Darwin to Hitler by Weikart last year, and it was … jaw-dropping.
February 25th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #24
One thing scientific evolution has helped produce is various medicines that prolong life. When you listen to some of the people who do research in this area, their interest is in doing so significantly, even indefinitely.
So essentially, it’s a quest for eternal life.
The thing is, they’re not going to find it that way.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:02 pm | #25
Adam Omelianchuk,
Social Darwinism has less to do with Evolutionary theory then Prosperity gospel has to do with the Bible. Why should we allow dangerous, dumb, and unjustified extrapolations taint the truth of their associated foundations?
February 25th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #26
Craig Payne wrote:
“Dear Mr. Koyzis: Why stop with this? Maybe God did create everything yesterday–I mean yesterday from “our” perspective–and implanted the memories of a past history within us and our artifacts. But the universe has only been around since 2:56 p.m. Central Standard Time yesterday. Thus there has been no evolution at all, and it’s not a problem.
“I am not mocking what you are saying; I am asking, if we employ your proposed solution, where is the logical or evidential point of creation?”
I am not really willing to call it a solution as such, because it may raise more difficulties than it resolves. I don’t understand what you mean by that last phrase. Perhaps that the initial moment of creation left a footprint that we might be able to discern scientifically? Yet I’m not sure this is true. Before God created time there was no “before,” right? Yet we have no other way to speak of creation other than in terms of created temporality.
If God created everything in a moment yesterday afternoon, his own intervention came from outside of time, so that first clause may not even be logically (or otherwise) coherent. From our vantage point it looks as if matter has always existed, and perhaps it has, if viewed from within the temporal framework we inhabit.
To be truthful, I’m not fully comfortable with the implications of all this. It sounds a bit reminiscent of the Latin Averroists who argued for their notorious two-fold truth, viz., that Aristotle was right that matter is eternal, but so is scripture that creation is ex nihilo. I’m simply throwing it out to see what sort of responses it elicits.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:26 pm | #27
Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0
February 25th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #28
Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?
This question is like: Can an Evangelical Christian (Teach and/or) Accept that the Bible has error(s)?
Or this: Can an Evangelical Christian (Teach and/or) Accept the Doctrine of Limited Atonement?
Or this: Can an Evangelical Christian (Teach and/or) Accept the Ordination of Active Gays to the Clergy?
——-
If you understand the pattern above, then the better question is to ask:
Does neo-darwinism as taught in secondary schools and colleges and universities around the world helpful to historic, biblical Christianity or destructive to it?
February 25th, 2010 | 6:56 pm | #29
For the Roman Catholic Church, “neo-Darwinism” (as taught…) is helpful to historic, biblical Christianity.
For many Conservative Evangelical Christians, “neo-Darwinism” (as taught…) is destructive to historic, biblical Christianity.
Thus we can conclude Darwinism isn’t a threat to Christianity in general, but to Conservative Evangelicalism in particular.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #30
Kirk,
R Hampton answers the question you pose.
Kirk: “Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?”
R Hampton: “For many Conservative Evangelical Christians, “neo-Darwinism” (as taught…) is destructive to historic, biblical Christianity.”
——–
Obviously, a *Liberal* Evangelical Christian can accept and/or advocate Evolution (or anything else).
February 25th, 2010 | 7:15 pm | #31
Obviously, a *Conservative* Catholic can accept and/or advocate Evolution.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:19 pm | #32
Dear David Koyzis: I think you are right; my question was too vague.
What I meant was, if we allow that God can “implant” memories, histories, apparent ages, and so on, then in principle there really is no way of saying that the universe is any particular age at all. It could be sixteen billion years, or 6,000, or two minutes, or two seconds. But given that “In the beginning [of time] God created the heavens and the earth,” I would argue that the universe is apparently a certain age because it actually is close to that age–even though (again, in principle) it could theoretically be any age at all. Maybe I am not really catching your position, but it just seems difficult to reconcile with God’s character; it seems to carry a deceptive quality with it.
As I said, I could be misunderstanding you.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:20 pm | #33
“Frank Turk never saved anybody.”
Heretic.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:20 pm | #34
R Hampton: “Darwinism is also a key pillar for the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church, as I evidenced in the the post “Why I’m Neither a Creationist Nor an Evolutionist”.
This fellow David MacDonald doesn’t agree with you. He writes on the post “Catholic Creationism and Evolution” the following:
“A Catholic is free to believe that God formed the human body out of the dust of the earth in an instantaneous action or by a series of steps. Any of these theories may be accepted by a Catholic until God reveals to us otherwise.”
Thus, evolution is not the key pillar to the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church as it is to Atheism.
P.S. I like this part of the post:
There are many scientific theories that attempt to prove that there was no such thing as one man and one woman at the beginning of humanity. They theorize that there were a group of people who were our first parents (polygenism) They claim that Adam and Eve are archetypes for humanity. When this evolutionary theory began to gain momentum in the 50′s, Pope Pious XII made a statement about it. Except that this opinion is false and cannot be legitimately held by Catholics. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:
“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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actual- ly committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
Polygenism runs into serious theological difficulties when we consider the implications of original sin and its transference through all of humanity. If there were a group of people in the beginning of time and only two of them made the mistake of eating apple. Then God’s judgment against humanity would be unjust, because not all human beings would have spawned off of the two who made the errors. And therefore Jesus’ role in redeeming the sin of Adam would be called into question. Some have tried to reconcile polygenism with original sin by involking the Catholic concept of “solidarity,” that they were so close that one person’s sin would be that of the entire community. I can’t buy that, and the Vatican has ignored that proposition. I think it runs into problems because it would override the free choice of others in the community. As it stands, polygenism cannot be taught safely.
We teach monogenism, that Adam and Eve were indeed our first parents. Catholic scientists and theologians are free to grapple with these difficult questions in their individual research. However, it would be considered wrong to teach it, because it has a moral impact on the faith and the nature of sin.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:26 pm | #35
R Hampton: “Obviously, a *Conservative* Catholic can accept and/or advocate Evolution.”
Yes, obviously.
But it is wrong to teach polygenism.
——-
Incidentally, what do atheistic evolutionists think of monogenism (if they’ve even heard of it)?
And fwiw, I’ve heard that atheistic evolutionists see theistic evolutionists as useful idiots.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #36
Regarding this debate, I would like to try and simplify the matter a bit. Here goes:
Humans are markedly different in kind from the rest of creation. We may call this rationality, the soul, the mind, the ability to make culture, or the immaterial self. I think everyone who’s posted has agreed with this statement.
Either this evolved or it was given by someone else. As it stands, no one has posted or written a compelling reason why it’s neither or both. Further, I don’t think it’s a false dichotomy. Is there really any other possibility? I don’t think so.
If Darwinism relies completely on the concept of change over time, then a Darwinian view of humanity must be accepted. The immaterial self evolved into being. That’s why many posting here are calling Darwinism a worldview.
Because this scenario seems implausible and unlikely, especially as compared to theistic worldviews (over and against even theistic evolution), I opt to dismiss Darwinism on these grounds alone, and find them in contradiction with views that find human uniqueness as a given quality by someone else.
We can certainly convolute the discussion, but it really is that simple at its core.
February 25th, 2010 | 7:49 pm | #37
There are not just theological problems with polygenism; my understanding is that there are also scientific problems. Hasn’t modern genetics itself postulated the existence of a common ancestor (or ancestress) at some point in the distant past?
February 25th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #38
The Roman Catholic Church believes that what made Adam and Eve different from all other living humans was ensoulment.
Put it this way, Neanderthals were clearly human – though of a different genetic lineage – but we will never know if they were spiritually human (imago deo). Regardless, at some moment in time God intervened in the lives of two human individuals and gave them the gift of a soul. From that moment on, Humanity was no longer an “animal” (to use common parlance). So in terms of Evolution, Adam and Eve were born to parents with essentially the same biology. But in terms of Revelation, only Adam and Eve were born of God.
The distinction between a simple living being and a spiritual being that is capax Dei, points to the existence of the intellective soul of a free transcendent subject. Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought.
Pope Benedict XVI
February 25th, 2010 | 9:14 pm | #39
Such a belief marks the Roman Catholic Church, in this teaching, as decidedly not catholic.
February 25th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #40
R. Hampton:
“The distinction between a simple living being and a spiritual being that is capax Dei, points to the existence of the intellective soul of a free transcendent subject. Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that ‘every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought.”
I am not at all keen on this formulation, as it fails to do justice to the embodiment of the human person. We are not some “soulish” substance infused by God into a corporeal body. One might find this notion in Plato, but certainly not in the undisputed canon of the Bible.
We are indeed “produced” by our parents — or rather reproduced. Observation of the generations tells us that young Joe resembles his father in so many ways, and not just biological. Mannerisms, colloquialisms, dress, body language — all and much more point to Joe’s paternity. A doctrine of Joe’s “soul” being infused directly by God as distinct from the normal reproductive activity of his parents conflicts with ordinary experience.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Roman Catholic position. I genuinely hope this is the case.
February 25th, 2010 | 9:57 pm | #41
No, you are close to it, except for the Platonic element. The position is actually not dualistic in the Platonic sense of the soul and body being two different substances. Rather, the human being is one substance, a unified self of soul and body, and is thus both created by God and pro-created by two parents. But the physical act of procreation cannot produce a non-physical self, which must therefore come from God.
Not to switch subjects abruptly, but if one thinks about it one can see that this is also the reason for the development of the Catholic position on abortion: both soul and body are a united substance at the beginning of human development. In other words, a human is there from conception.
February 25th, 2010 | 9:59 pm | #42
“Either this evolved or it was given by someone else. As it stands, no one has posted or written a compelling reason why it’s neither or both.”
The reasons given in my previous post are an argument for the Catholic position, that the non-physical soul does not undergo the physical process of evolution, but is directly infused by the life-giving God.
February 25th, 2010 | 10:31 pm | #43
David MacDonald: ““A Catholic is free to believe that God formed the human body out of the dust of the earth in an instantaneous action or by a series of steps. Any of these theories may be accepted by a Catholic until God reveals to us otherwise.”
Here’s a rather interesting post that probes the diversity of interpretations/theories that Catholics may espouse (excerpted and edited):
“The primary reason that Catholics believe God provided the Roman Catholic Church as an infallible authority is for unity. For the Catholic, the Magisterial authority made up of the Pope and the congregation of bishops along with the Pope serve to keep the peace and unity. In each contemporary situation, if there are issues of doctrine or morals that are causing division, the Magisterium is able to step in and make clear and binding statements of truth concerning the particular issue.
From the standpoint of the Catholic, the Magisterium holds the sole right to interpret the “deposit of faith.” Since the Magisterium, headed by the Pope, has been handed this deposit of faith and authority, they alone can interpret Scripture with fidelity. In other words, if there is an issue about the interpretation of Scripture, private interpretation is not an option. While Catholics can read Scripture, they are not allowed to interpret it independently.
Without question the issue that has caused more division in the church over the last century, Catholic or Protestant, is the issue of evolution. While this is a scientific issue, it is also interpretive. How do we understand the early chapters of Genesis? Did God create the earth in six literal days or did He use an evolutionary process taking billions of years?
Either way, this issue is as divisive as any issue in the history of the church. The lines have been drawn. The questions is, can Rome come in and fulfill its primary purpose? Can the Magisterium draw from the deposit of faith and interpret the Scripture so that this matter is settled, bringing unity to this religious anarchy among those who claim Christ?
In 1996 Pope John Paul II did step in. This is what he had to say:
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [Humani Generis], new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis.”
“More than a hypothesis?” Is that it? Is that supposed to bring unity to the Church? With all the authority of his seat, with keys in hand, and shod with the authoritative hermeneutic of peace, the Pope clears the air by saying that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” I want my money back!
OK, enough tongue in cheek. Do you see the basic problem here? The Roman Catholic Church is not doing is job. Why? Why can’t the Pope clear the interpretive air and let us know, infallabily and and finally, how we are to read this text and how to shape our theology? Why can’t the Roman Catholic Church bring unity here?
Here are the options as I see it:
1. The Pope does not know how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis.
2. The Pope does know how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis, he just does not think it is important enough to dogmatically speak upon.
3. The Pope is on a need to know basis only, and this is something He does not need to know.
4. The Pope does not know; he only knows issues that are essential to the Christian faith. How one interprets the Genesis narrative is not essential.
5. The Pope does not know; this is an issue of science, not faith.
6. The Pope does not know; the emperor has no clothes.
This supposed deposit of faith and authority do not apply to the really hard issues that can be tested since this could expose the Pope as fallible. Rome does not want another Galileo incident where the Catholic Church gets a black-eye and then has to bend backward to cover it up. Understandable.
I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Theologically speaking there is no historic or Biblical warrant for such a belief. Pragmatically speaking, it would be great. However, practically speaking, as we can see with regard to Genesis, the claim for Papal infallibility is sterile.
—–
Read it all at Dear Pope, What Is Up With Genesis?
February 26th, 2010 | 1:22 am | #44
David,
What you are proposing implies that God created a false history of events that never happened but nevertheless gives us every reason through general revelation to think that they did. I mean, he even goes to the trouble of making sure that the distribution of elements and the background radiation look exactly like they came from a big bang explosion as described by general relativity. Many of these predictions are so incredibly precise that in order to get the numbers right you would have to be getting at the actual reality of it.
Unless God sets everything up to look as if it were so when it was actually not. Which makes him a liar. Why this line of thinking continues to be palatable when most YECs are dropping it continues to amaze me.
February 26th, 2010 | 8:54 am | #45
Craig Payne:
“The position is actually not dualistic in the Platonic sense of the soul and body being two different substances. Rather, the human being is one substance, a unified self of soul and body, and is thus both created by God and pro-created by two parents. But the physical act of procreation cannot produce a non-physical self, which must therefore come from God.”
Craig, thanks for the clarification. Yet this is still problematic, even if it’s not precisely platonic. Procreation is more than a physical act, in that it inevitably produces a creature that is fully human in every sense of that word. The physical is foundational for many of what might be called the later aspects. One cannot think without the biological substratum of brain cells. Mind rests on brain; it is not other than brain.
Similarly, our ability to have faith is an ordinary created capacity which we inherit from our parents and which, along with every other capacity, is given us by God. The spiritual side of man is not so much nonphysical as post-physical. It includes the physical, biological, logical, &c., but it is not limited to these.
The Pope’s articulation of this is still too dualistic. This would be a better formulation from the standpoint of human integrality:
The human person in every aspect of his/her humanity is the product of human procreation and is simultaneously the direct creation of God.
February 26th, 2010 | 9:00 am | #46
John Z:
“What you are proposing implies that God created a false history of events that never happened but nevertheless gives us every reason through general revelation to think that they did. I mean, he even goes to the trouble of making sure that the distribution of elements and the background radiation look exactly like they came from a big bang explosion as described by general relativity. Many of these predictions are so incredibly precise that in order to get the numbers right you would have to be getting at the actual reality of it.
“Unless God sets everything up to look as if it were so when it was actually not. Which makes him a liar. Why this line of thinking continues to be palatable when most YECs are dropping it continues to amaze me.”
I don’t know any other way to explain what I am getting at, but I am certainly not suggesting what you say above. God has not created a false history. He has created a real history from outside of the temporal succession of events as we experience it. This implies that it would be impossible for us to pinpoint a particular time, as we understand time, that creation occurred.
Again I’m not totally persuaded by my own proposal here, and it may be faulty in all sorts of ways, but not in the way you indicate above. God is not a liar.
February 26th, 2010 | 10:31 am | #47
Dear David Koyzis: I actually agree with the problems you have mentioned; my explanation was sort of the “stripped-down” version. But the relationship between the physical body and its animating principle, the soul, is tangled and complex. For example, you already pointed out that not only physical traits, but character traits, descend from parents to children. However, the relationship goes both ways: The spiritual traits could not be manifested without their corresponding embodiment; the embodiment would mean little without the corresponding spiritual traits. They are a unity, which also means that in most Catholic philosophy the state of humans after physical death and before the resurrection of the body, is something of a puzzle. (My opinion is that it is left as something of a puzzle by the Bible, as well.)
Life itself, however, must ultimately come from God, even though He allows humans to “pro-create” as part of His creation. The animating principle or soul which provides the “form” to the bodily “matter” comes from God. If it were not so, it seems the life of the child would be on loan from the parents, not from God.
I might not be explaining this very well, but I think I might drop this, since it appears to be way off the point of your original post. Thank you for the discussion. P.S. Speaking of popes, you might appreciate better the “theology of the body” writings of JP2. His views, I think, seem to be closer to what you are saying.
February 26th, 2010 | 10:39 am | #48
Dear TUAD: Regarding the Magisterium, I agree that “private interpretation” is wrong and forbidden by the Bible itself. However, many people do not know that the Magisterium has spoken “magisterially” on only a very, very few passages of Scripture. Sorry to disappoint (although I’m pretty sure that most of the posters on this blog don’t really care one way or the other!).
Regarding most of the Bible, differing interpretations are allowable. This is especially true in areas where scientific advances or other types of advances in knowledge could materially affect one’s interpretation–such as in the case of the origin of the universe.
Really, holding differing interpretations of Genesis 1-2 is not at all a denial of the inspiration or authority of God’s Word.
February 26th, 2010 | 10:44 am | #49
P.S. You may want to study up a bit more on what the Catholic Church does and does not say about papal infallibility. That is, if you are genuinely interested.
February 26th, 2010 | 10:53 am | #50
“Speaking of popes, you might appreciate better the ‘theology of the body’ writings of JP2. His views, I think, seem to be closer to what you are saying.”
Thanks, Craig, for this conversation. I don’t know the late Pope’s writings on this topic, but from what I’ve heard of it, I suspect you may be correct. I also agree with your assessment of the “puzzle” in scripture concerning what happens between death and resurrection.
February 26th, 2010 | 11:46 am | #51
R Hampton,
I just asked a a question. I didn’t make a comment about biology. Chill out.
February 26th, 2010 | 12:02 pm | #52
Craig Payne: “Really, holding differing interpretations of Genesis 1-2 is not at all a denial of the inspiration or authority of God’s Word.”
That’s not what the article “Dear Pope, What is Up with Genesis?” is saying.
In case you haven’t read it, let me expand the list of 6 possible options to include the author’s reasoning:
1. The Pope does not know how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. He does not know what “day” means. He does not know if there are gaps in the genealogy. He does not know if the narrative is literal or figurative. He does not know if the snake talked.
But if this is the case doesn’t his authority to interpret the Scripture become irrelevant since he and the rest of the Magisterium don’t know the answer to the most divisive theological issue of the last century?
2. The Pope does know how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis, he just does not think it is important enough to dogmatically speak upon.
But if this is the case, what is important enough to speak upon? The assumption of Mary? The immaculate conception of Mary? Eating meat on Friday? Those things need Papal intervention, but this issue doesn’t?
3. The Pope is on a need to know basis only, and this is something He does not need to know.
But I don’t think the Pope is allowed to watch Top Gun. This actually cannot work since it is not new revelation that the Pope and the Magisterium receives, but protection in his dogmatic pronouncements. Whether through ordinary means (ecumenical councils) or extraordinary means (Papal bulls), the issue can be dealt with or the organization is sterile when it comes to bringing about doctrinal unity when it is most important.
4. The Pope does not know; he only knows issues that are essential to the Christian faith. How one interprets the Genesis narrative is not essential.
But isn’t unity the issue? Isn’t unity essential? This issue is causing disunity in doctrine. If the Pope cannot solve this, what good is the claim that the Magisterium steps in and answers contemporary theological issues to bring about unity? As well, is the assumption of Mary really essential. Sure, if you are Catholic post-facto it is, but is the controversy over Mary’s assumption really more divisive than the origins debate?
5. The Pope does not know; this is an issue of science, not faith.
This is simply not true. While I would agree that this is a non-essential issue that should not cause division to the degree that it is, the point is that it is causing massive division. The issue can be solved among Christians if we knew how to interpret the Scriptures. The Pope would simply need to tell us if the word “day” in Genesis 1 is figurative or literal. If he did, it would solve a lot of problems. Further, if he would tell us if Adam and Eve are literal figures or figurative, we would solve even more. In short, there are many interpretive decisions that people are making and these decisions are causing division.
6. The Pope does not know; the emperor has no clothes.
This supposed deposit of faith and authority do not apply to the really hard issues that can be tested since this could expose the Pope as fallible. Rome does not want another Galileo incident where the Catholic Church gets a black-eye and then has to bend backward to cover it up. Understandable.
To sum up my argument this Reformation day: I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Theologically speaking there is no historic or Biblical warrant for such a belief. Pragmatically speaking, it would be great. However, practically speaking, as we can see with regard to Genesis, the claim for Papal infallibility is sterile.
February 26th, 2010 | 12:39 pm | #53
“But isn’t unity the issue? Isn’t unity essential? This issue is causing disunity in doctrine.”
Dear TUAD: But this is the point of my “differing interpretations” remark: This issue does not need to cause disunity. Differing interpretations are allowable; and as Augustine pointed out a long time ago in his commentary on Genesis, no one knows exactly which interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is the exactly correct one. This fact doesn’t really need to cause disunity unless it is allowed to do so.
The point about the Pope: Why is this a problem? As mentioned, even those who believe whole-heartedly in papal infallibility believe that it is exercised very, very rarely. If the Pope doesn’t spout off on every issue, including those which have not been revealed to the Church, he’s a fraud?
Instead of going back into pre-history, let’s go into the future: If the Pope doesn’t let us know the exact timing of the Second Coming, he’s a fraud. Or, maybe he could let us know if other planets have intelligent life, and where they are? Otherwise, he’s a fraud. Etc. As I said, I think what the Catholic Church teaches about papal infallibility is quite a bit different from this caricature.
And of course there is this issue: Suppose the Pope did pronounce infallibly upon the issue of Creation and its timing: You wouldn’t believe him anyway! So why should we get our bowels all twisted over this?
Really, what we should do is hold hands and ask Mary for her intercessions with Christ. Then all of us would calm down a bit. :)
February 26th, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #54
By the way, the Catechism does refer to Adam and Eve as real people, and even, if I remember correctly without looking it up, says that this belief is binding upon Catholics.
February 26th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #55
I’m sympathetic with Professor Koyzis proposition. Remember we’re not talking about anything false or merely apparent. This is because God is so much greater than us. Many objections, or conundrums, which we would have were we dealing with a finite power, do not apply.
A metaphor I often use in Bible classes goes like this. Take a novel that is placed in an historical setting, say, Gone With the Wind. The time surrounds the Civil War, say six years. If its author, Margaret Mitchell, were to say that she wrote it over a period of five months, it wouldn’t make sense to object by saying that it must have been six years in the making.
Of course Gone With the Wind is a fiction, but Margaret Mitchell is only a human being. God calls forth reality even from nothing. God writes our universe from without our universe.
An other factor to consider. Our understanding of even this universe at its most fundamental level meager and under daily reappraisal. Just think of the transition from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics, to the theories of relativity. Remember the paradox of twin brothers? One travels at near light speed and ages one year. He returns from his journey to find that his brother is now an old man. This is no mere hypothesis; the underlining facts have been experimentally verified thoroughly. Yet, imagine the difficulty in explaining it to Aristotle.
If (yes, big if) the current theories of a universe with 11 dimensions (at least one of which is time) are correct, how would that affect our discussion about the age of the cosmos, and the manner in which God created and sustains it, and how we are to exegete Genesis 1 and 2?
February 26th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #56
Craig Payne,
I find some of your statements to be incoherent. To wit:
#1: “Regarding the Magisterium, I agree that “private interpretation” is wrong and forbidden by the Bible itself.”
#2: “Differing interpretations are allowable”
So which is it?
Are differing private interpretations allowable or not in the Roman Catholic Church?
February 26th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #57
Craig Payne,
I.e., Would you agree that there are differing private interpretations of Genesis among Catholics? And would you also agree that the Magisterium permits these differing private interpretations among Catholics?
Yes and Yes?
February 26th, 2010 | 1:47 pm | #58
Adam Omelianchuk,
The question you asked is especially loaded, thanks in part to the film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
Some months after its release, the Discovery Institute – headquarters for the Intelligent Design movement – compiled this list of (then) recently published articles concerning The Historical Connection from Darwin to Hitler. As you alluded to by way of the question, a common sentiment expressed within is that:
What is often called “Social Darwinism” is just the practical application of ideas Darwin himself formulated.
…and…
Today’s Darwinists are not Nazis and not all Darwinists agree with Dawkins, Wilson, Ruse, Singer, or Watson. However, some of the ideas being promoted today by prominent Darwinists in the name of Darwinism have an eerily similar ring to the ideologies that eroded respect for human life in the pre-Nazi era.
…the purpose of which is to discredit the Science of Evolutionary theory, hence my analogy to Prosperity gospel and the Bible.
February 26th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #59
Really, holding differing interpretations of Genesis 1-2 is not at all a denial of the inspiration or authority of God’s Word
Some interpretations of Genesis deny Natural Revelation, which is also the true, authoritative Word of God.
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures – their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures” perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.15
45 Man is made to live in communion with God in whom he finds happiness: When I am completely united to you, there will be no more sorrow or trials; entirely full of you, my life will be complete (St. Augustine, Conf. 10, 28, 39: PL 32, 795}.
46 When he listens to the message of creation and to the voice of conscience, man can arrive at certainty about the existence of God, the cause and the end of everything.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026)
February 26th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #60
We should remember that Protestant rejection of Natural Revelation & Natural Law is a modern phenomena, mostly because of Karl Barth. From Protestants and Natural Law, J. Daryl Charles,
FirstThings (December 2006):
…Few have argued more vehemently for a rejection of natural-law thinking than Karl Barth, whose examination of intellectual trends in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, particularly in his book Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, led him to conclude that modern society had embraced an “idealized” and “humanized” understanding of “nature.” This romantic construal of nature, coupled with an increasing secularization of culture, as Barth saw it, blended easily into the core assumptions of Enlightenment thinking and a new humanism. What the spirit of the age demanded of Christianity was a “reasonable” religion, over against the dogma of a revealed, miraculous Christianity.
This emptying of the theistic core created, in Barth’s view, an entirely different religion that had departed from the Christianity revealed through Christ and Scripture. The preoccupation with “nature” and “reason” prepared the way for a secularized humanism that empties Christian faith of its substance, undermines the absolute lordship of Christ, and facilitates the emergence of a “natural theology” that supplants Christocentric faith…
…Because much of the bias against natural-law thinking is rooted in theological conviction, religiously grounded objections to natural law must be taken seriously. But the belief, however widespread, that natural-law thinking is insufficiently Christocentric and therefore detracts from divine grace is misguided. Nothing of the sort was believed by the early Church Fathers, the medieval fathers, or the Protestant Reformers. Indeed, Scripture presumes natural law as a realm of “common grace” that is accessible to all people by virtue of creation-hence, in St. Paul’s terms, all are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
February 26th, 2010 | 3:33 pm | #61
“Craig Payne,
I.e., Would you agree that there are differing private interpretations of Genesis among Catholics? And would you also agree that the Magisterium permits these differing private interpretations among Catholics?
Yes and Yes?”
Dear TUAD: No and no. The term “private interpretation” refers to the belief that every individual Christian may legitimately hold his or her own views of Scripture without regard to the teachings of the Church. It is a specific term found in the Bible, and its exercise the Catholic Church (in accordance with the Bible itself) maintains is wrong. However, I would imagine other Christians outside of the CC have no problem with it: every man his own Pope, and so on.
However, in areas which have not been officially pronounced upon, there is some latitude, and fellow Christian should maintain charity regarding interpretations they think of as wrong. So I would accept your way of expressing it as long as the technical term “private interpretation” (a theological term) is changed: Yes, Catholics have different interpretations of the Creation story, and yes, since the Magisterium hasn’t pronounced that any one interpretation is the “official” one, it is permissible. If this is what you are asking, fine with me.
February 26th, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #62
“What I meant was, if we allow that God can “implant” memories, histories, apparent ages, and so on, then in principle there really is no way of saying that the universe is any particular age at all. It could be sixteen billion years, or 6,000, or two minutes, or two seconds.” — Craig Payne
Einstein’s theory of relativity has already issued the concept of any particular age of the universe as moot. Objects that travel at the speed of light do not travel through time at all. As a result, a photon created during the Big Bang will have “perceived” _NO_ time having passed since the BB to “our” present. From the photon’s relative view, the “apparent age” of the universe is 0. Thus, whenever you speak of any “apparent age” you are already required to specify a relative view.
So, one can always feel free to try to figure out how old the Earth and universe are from any particular view (most commonly we use the one humans on Earth experience since we’re the one’s doing the observations), but one cannot call that view an “objective” age of the Earth or universe. This means that saying the universe is 6000 years old is only true under certain relative frameworks, and saying it’s 17 billion years old is only true under other relative frameworks, irrespective of any other data. The fact is, until you cross the boundaries generated by the limitations of the speed of light–and I should note I’m too unconcerned about this topic to waste brain power on the math to see where that limitation would be–_BOTH_ concepts of the “apparent age” of the universe are right. That is, one could say the universe is _SIMULTANEOUSLY_ 6000 years old and 17 billion years old, depending on your relative view.
Naturally, this will satisfy no-one, as everyone wishes their own relative view to be The One True View(TM) even though it’s become obvious that our everyday view of time is as genuine as a $3 bill.
February 26th, 2010 | 6:01 pm | #63
Sum1,
Due to your limited understanding, you have to leaped to a fanciful conclusion that has no real grounding in Science. There is not a Physicist that I am aware of who would conclude that the universe could – in any possible physical sense – be 6,000 years old.
You would be better off arguing that – in the realm outside this Universe (the supernatural) – time is meaningless. To God, a day and 17 billion years are no different.
February 26th, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #64
Truth Unites… and Divides,
If you really want to get into the meat of Catholic theology, then you must read the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful…
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
February 26th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #65
“If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Catholics can engage in “private interpretation” but they can’t subscribe to the doctrine of “private interpretation.” Is that right?”
Yeesh.
The specific reference is 2 Peter 1:20; some other passages also correspond to its intent, such as Jesus opening the minds of His apostles to understand the Scriptures rightly. The other request is too much trouble to look up right now. Good night, all!
February 27th, 2010 | 3:22 am | #66
Craig Payne: “So I would accept your way of expressing it as long as the technical term “private interpretation” (a theological term) is changed: Yes, Catholics have different interpretations of the Creation story…”.
Why must this “technical” term “private interpretation” be changed when you said that Catholics do indeed have different interpretations of the Creation story?
Doesn’t private interpretations really just cash out to mean different interpretations?
Or if it doesn’t, then why doesn’t my earlier question truly capture the nuance that you’re trying to show: “If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Catholics can engage in “private interpretation” but they can’t subscribe to the doctrine of “private interpretation.” Is that right?”
February 27th, 2010 | 9:52 am | #67
Sorry; I thought you were just being smart-alecky. My apologies.
Well, I still wouldn’t use the term “private interpretation,” even in quote marks. To a Catholic, this would mean what I said earlier: interpreting the Bible without reference to the teachings of the Church. Even in situations where latitude is allowable, there is still that reference point: “Okay, in this particular passage, different interpretations are allowable by the Church.” I wouldn’t call that a “private” interpretation, since it is still based on what the Church has previously said.
Sorry if I didn’t make that very clear before.
February 27th, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #68
R Hampton:
You seem to be putting other people’s words in my mouth. You assume I am attacking evolutionary biology (like others you have quoted) by asking a professor of political science what he thought of social Darwinism. Specifically, I was hoping he would comment on what his views were in light of his other writings about ideology collapsing into idolatry.
This seems to be prompted by your outrage towards Weikart and the DI. Yet, I think you dismiss Weikart’s work by way of guilt of association, as if his work with the DI and Expelled somehow falsified his detailed history of a political ideology taking shape from analogies drawn from evolutionary biology. From this (faulty) premise you then go on to attack me by trying to say that I am making an absurd comparison as illustrated by your prosperity gospel analogy. Don’t you think that is at least a little reactionary?
I have a question for you: have you even read Weikart’s book? If not, then as a defender of evolution and a devout Roman Catholic, you really should. It will be very informative to your view of faith and science and help you to protect the integrity of both–not by denying one or the other–but by seeing how the human heart responds to their data.
See my review of it here: http://ochuk.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/from-darwin-to-hitler/
February 28th, 2010 | 2:28 am | #69
Craig Payne: “Well, I still wouldn’t use the term “private interpretation,” even in quote marks. To a Catholic, this would mean what I said earlier: interpreting the Bible without reference to the teachings of the Church. Even in situations where latitude is allowable, there is still that reference point: “Okay, in this particular passage, different interpretations are allowable by the Church.” I wouldn’t call that a “private” interpretation, since it is still based on what the Church has previously said.”
Craig, I “think” I see the distinction you’re making. What you’re saying is that Catholics can make different (private) interpretations on Biblical passages as long as the Magisterium allows or permits different (private) interpretations on the Biblical passages in question.
And given what you said earlier in the thread, “However, many people do not know that the Magisterium has spoken “magisterially” on only a very, very few passages of Scripture,” it provides Catholics the wherewithal to practice private interpretation without technically calling it private interpretation since they check (if they check at all) whether the Magisterium as magisterially interpreted a passage.
Given this situation, two things come to mind rather quickly:
(1) The Catholic criticism about Protestants practicing private interpretation rings hollow since they practice private interpretation as well (when the Magisterium permits multiple interpretations on a passage (which is often)).
(2) For Catholics who expectantly look to the Magisterium for a definitive interpretation (as the author of the article “Dear Pope, What’s Up With Genesis?” points out), they will be frequently disappointed.
February 28th, 2010 | 8:41 am | #70
Perhaps Craig can tell me whether I’m correct here, but I wonder whether it would make sense, from a Catholic perspective, to recognize a papal document as authoritative but not necessarily infallible. Presbyterians who acknowledge the authoritative character of the Westminster standards would nevertheless never hold them to be infallible, as that would be a quality reserved for scripture itself. Even if popes have pronounced infallibly on very few doctrinal issues, they have produced all sorts of documents, e.g., encyclicals, possessing authoritative status. Perhaps this addresses TUAD’s concern above.
February 28th, 2010 | 11:21 am | #71
David Koyzis: “I wonder whether it would make sense, from a Catholic perspective, to recognize a papal document as authoritative but not necessarily infallible. … Even if popes have pronounced infallibly on very few doctrinal issues, they have produced all sorts of documents, e.g., encyclicals, possessing authoritative status. Perhaps this addresses TUAD’s concern above.”
Hi David,
This happens already. Not to go too far astray, but I know that there are liberal Catholics who are pressing for women’s ordination since no pope has spoken ex cathedra forbidding it. And I’m aware of conservative Catholics who think that the whole issue of women’s ordination should finally be put to rest by the Pope speaking ex cathedra forbidding it.
I.e. Infallibly pronouncements are seen as authoritatively binding. Non-infallible communication are not (at least by some liberal Catholics). Thus, they continue to see some sliver of light that women’s ordination may occur.
So while you may say that it addresses “my concern” it certainly opens the door for liberal Catholics on other fronts.
February 28th, 2010 | 2:01 pm | #72
Dear David Koyzis: Yes, what you propose is definitely the case. Remember a year or so ago, when Benedict XVI even published a book under the name Joseph Ratzinger? He was stressing the fact that this book was not authoritative, but was simply him thinking as a theologian.
Dear TUAD: Yes, you are right that Catholics might be disappointed at the fact that the Pope does not speak often in such as way as to settle disputes in some areas. But (not to be blasphemous in any way) couldn’t we say the same thing about the Holy Spirit Himself in the Church? If He is in charge, as we all agree He is, why so many divisions? Either we are missing God’s will in a big way, or maybe God just is not revealing His will in an unmistakable way on some (many?) issues.
I really don’t know. Our current situation is mysterious to me.
March 1st, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #73
Forgive me for posting without reading all 72 previous comments, but the position in the post seems to be straightforwardly contradictory: The world was created a short time ago, and it has a real history going back for millions of years. I wonder what “real history” is supposed to mean here? You say it’s different from the mere appearance of history, but I have no clue – and I suspect I am not the only one – what the difference is supposed to be. Remember, you’ve already stipulated that God created the world at a closer point in the past than the stretches of time included in that “real history.” I accept that God is the master of temporality, but I don’t see how anyone can rationally accept that God can make the world a) have a real history, and b) not have a real history. That’s not mastery, its incoherence. God is the master of all, but I don’t think that means we need to give up on the principle of non-contradiction.
I hope I’m just misunderstanding you here, but the emphasis on real history as opposed to appearance makes me think that I’m not.
March 1st, 2010 | 4:26 pm | #74
Joe Z, see comment # 46 above.
March 1st, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #75
Thank you. I think re-reading the original post was more helpful than #46, as it turns out. If I understand the suggestion, then there just isn’t one unique moment of creation – the act of creation is not the kind of thing that is within the temporal series of moments. Something like that? I think I can get on board with that – I had thought you were saying that in fact God acted, say, ten years ago, and at that time conferred a “real history” on the world He created.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact