Are contigent actions known before they happen? (To throw a wrench in Aquinas' machinery) If they are, that would undermine their contingency, if they aren't, well then that would undermine Fate and Providence.
Depends who's asking, doesn't it? The divine view and the mortal one aren't interchangeable.
Oh I know that, but the divine view of eternity, as I understand it, is that all time exists in a single moment, as if viewed from somewhere beyond time. The mortal perspective would then be transient within that "whiz-bang" (I'm reaching there) moment of time viewed from eternity. Yet while the temporal view shows things happening sequentially, the enternal view shows them all coexisting at once.
So, if that is the case, would foreknowledge of what will happen contradict the contingency of events, or does the very fact that history is contigent dismantle any theory of eternity?
The only thing I can say to that, I think, is that God the Father is beyond human understanding. His POV - to those who accept it - can be the only true one, and we're not pivy to it.
Where will the madness and deception end?
There are some pro-abortionists who, inspired by “up-to-date” clergymen, regularly argue their case that God is very much active in a woman’s choice for abortion (her contingency, so to speak) and that the biblical argument against it is flimsy, etc. etc. In fact, their pseudoscience now shows us that pregnancy does not take place at conception and an embryo is a “potential” life, not an “actual” life. Rather like pro-evolutionists, bolstered once again by the same kinds of clergymen, arguing from their latest erudite philosophy that God is not only ok with the descent of man by means of random mutation and natural selection, but that He takes great pride in His haphazard accomplishment of that feat.
Clearly, it takes more faith to believe in this tangled web of science, philosophy and revelation than it does to believe in the seven days of creation. But that’s probably just my unsophisticated approach.
Oh how it makes the heart flutter to imagine that we have caught a glimpse of the neo-mind of god. We humans do love our neo-this and neo-that. But we really must remove God a few more steps backward, out of the picture, in order to accommodate our philosophical naturalism. We just wouldn’t attract the intellectuals’ attention, or maintain credibility with the ‘thinkers’ of today, and they would never come to see that the Church is, after all, very much "with the times."
It’s really not about the descent of man, but rather the descent of God. And in order to accomplish this plunge the Church must be shamed, and shamed more and then pushed into a corner to make concessions which push it to the limit of fidelity to its own age old teachings. Many “progressive” Catholics will answer to God for this scandal I believe.
In quoting Thomas Aquinas in Dr. Mirus’ article, I think it is safe to say that Thomas’ words were taken completely out of context. If Thomas is to be quoted let’s remember that he said this in Summa Theologica: ST Q. 91, a. 2, “The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God.” So how does evolution, or random process, or divine contingency, which is a created process, and thereby a created power, harmonize with Thomas? And what about the first formation of the body as immediately from God? No, I imagine we’d have more than a doubting Thomas here.
Furthermore, the historical character of Genesis 2: 7 has been clearly and constantly upheld by the Holy Office. The natural sense of this verse indicates two distinct (but possibly simultaneous) divine actions; the formation from ‘dust’ of Adam’s body and the ‘breathing in’ of the life-giving soul. Within the Church there has been an unbroken consensus of the Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians on the interpretation of that text. How is this interpretation compatible with the thinking of the contingency strategists?
And are there Catholics wh
Just to finish my posting:
And are there Catholics who are going so far as to question the historicity of God’s miraculous formation of Eve from Adam’s side as he slept? During the historical period of controversy over this issue of Darwin’s evolution the Supreme Pontiff himself reasserted the truth of Eve from Adam as an "undoubted" part of "the Church’s permanent doctrine" (Encyclical Arcanum, February 10, 1880, §5).
Further along Dr. Jeff Mirus says: “There is, in fact, much to suggest that the God we know and love prefers to work indirectly, through a variety of instrumental causes, and with a degree of complexity which very often defies our observational abilities.”
That’s fine in cases where God hasn’t made it perfectly “observational” to us, which would exclude clear statements from Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. If either of these is incompatible with theories and speculation of the “randomness of God” I know which side I’ll be on.
What on earth does abortion have to do with the theory of evolution???
This has got to be one of the biggest non-sequitorial postings I've run ever run across.
Curt,
I think anyone is entitled to read any religious or anti-religious meanings into evolution they wish to. As long as those interpretations are recognized as not being part of the scientific theory.
As an atheist I'd be lying if I denied that I find some satisfaction in science being able to come up with a theory that can account for our existence without reliance on God. But I don't see that theory as providing evidnece that God does not exist.
And if I were a theist I think my reaction to evolution would be: "Wow! God is even more powerful than I imagined. He's brought about the creation of all the life around us through a method that still keeps Him hidden except to those who have faith in Him. He loves us so much that He doesn't want to force us to accept Him. Rather He allows us to come to Him freely through loving faith."
Take care.
Thanks Ahab, that is my reaction, too.
Curt, this is yet more disappointing. Rather than deal with any of my objections or reproofs you would simply give a nod of approval to the comments of a self professed atheist (nothing personal Ahab, but that is how you described yourself. I was one myself for 20 years or so). Is he qualified to speak for you on matters central to the Christian faith?
If Ahab were making a good argument himself in reply to my statements I could accept it, but his only argument is to surmise on the love and omnipotence of God and completely ignore the Church and biblical revelation. In doing so he entirely misses the essence and object of the Christian faith, and unsurprisingly seems blind to the focus of my concerns. This is to be expected since an atheist has not the benefit of the Spirit of God and Ahab is expressing himself the best way he knows how. But I have to wonder Curt whose side you are really on.
It's obvious from both of Ahab's responses to my comment that he has no idea what I am saying, but Curt you are Catholic. You have the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Church. Like it or not, God holds you accountable for a higher standard of truth than Ahab's.
"The only thing I can say to that, I think, is that God the Father is beyond human understanding. His POV - to those who accept it - can be the only true one, and we're not pivy to it."
Erm... this raises more problems than it solves. To begin, if we cannot understand the divine point of view, how can anyone make any conclusions about it at all. Thomas Aquinas, it seems, is unravelled in an attempt to dodge the question of Free Will in light of Providence.
Eric,
You are simply making the No True Scotsman fallacy.
At one time I was a practicing Catholic and as a practicing Catholic would not have agreed with your interpretation of faith and doctrine as it applies to the theory of evolution. The Universal Church is more open to differing positions than your original post implies.
Even if I were not Catholic, I would still be able to make accurate comments on the pracitice and faith of its members. I personally know some atheists who know more about Christian doctrine than many Christians.
By the way, the post I made to Curt was not a response to your original post. I did make one comment in a seperate post to your original post. And that was to point out the non sequitor you made in seeming to link abortion with evolution. As I asked in my post, what does one's moral position on abortion have to do with the theory of evolution?
Thanks for the clarification Ahab and I apologize for whatever comments I made that were misapplied.
It's also possible then that Curt's last comment was a response to your posting only and had nothing to do with my arguments. If that is the case then I apologize to Curt also for jumping the gun.
You said "Even if I were not Catholic, I would still be able to make accurate comments on the pracitice and faith of its members. I personally know some atheists who know more about Christian doctrine than many Christians." I do not deny this, but as I maintained, you obviously do not understand that my issue is fidelity to Church teaching. By your own admission you have rejected the Church and so you can hardly be a witness on the side of Church teaching or fidelity. That seems to be a concept many Catholics, even "practicing" ones, cannot grasp. I was arguing unapologetically from that point of view.
As far as the abortion "non seqitor" it seems to me that dissident Catholics, especially clergymen and theologians, have done more through their defiance of Church teaching to nullify the sanctity of life (and promote abortion)than anyone else. In fact, sin and corruption of truth takes place first within the Church and secular society eventually follows the lead and is given permission to embrace it and live it out.
I see the same thing happening with the evolution-ID-contingency etc. controversy. The corruption of age old teaching and the adoption of more "progressive" modernist thought (neo-Darwinism included) is promulgated by either good Catholics who are ignorant of the scope of orthodox Church teaching or bad Catholics who are outright defiant and subversive of that same teaching.
I have not been convinced by any writers yet of "the importance (if not the certainty) of neo-Darwinian theory" and believe me I have tried to see it from as liberal and progressive a perspective as possible. It just doesn't fit with the consistent and infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and I think I am bolstered in that belief by the absolute lack of any definitive or authoritative statement from the Church to support it. All I've seen are pathetic attempts to force some kind of statement from the Pope or anyone close to the top to accomodate this new "science".
Pseudo-science will give way to new pseudo-science but the truth of the Church will prevail.
Pete: "if we cannot understand the divine point of view, how can anyone make any conclusions about it at all." It's called faith and not science for a reason. You can use the word trust if that is more comfortable.
Ahab and Eric. My quick comment this morning was made as I ran out the door to work, and yes, it was directed to Ahab's post just prior to it.
Eric: I was under the impression that'd we'd had this discussion already. As I said then, JPII said that evolution was not forbidden and it was not incompatible with the faith *provided* that it was not used to assert a purely random Godless universe. At no point have I done that. Evolution is also not a required belief for a Catholic.
Re: Aquinas. Just because I think he's right on one point does not oblige me to accept all of his works. They don't stand and fall together.
Re: Genesis. Reading it as a myth is very far from saying that it is false. Jesus himself used parables to teach. Would those teachings be false if we were to find there was no historical prodigal son? Of course not. When you say "Within the Church there has been an unbroken consensus of the Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians on the interpretation of that text"; asserting it's truth is *not* the same thing as asserting its historicity.
I must say it feels odd being accused to being too liberal. I can't that happens a lot.
There goes the theory that I can write and spell.
Thanks for the response Curt. Check with you later on this subject when there's real science behind it. In the meanwhile, as you suggest, there is nothing forbidden about the topic, so happy contemplations.
"It's called faith and not science for a reason. You can use the word trust if that is more comfortable."
Faith is the tripping point. Those of us without it only have reason (not science), and using reason find faults in arguments that do not rely on it, i.e. arguments based on faith alone. This is, I think, where the division between Science and Religion comes into play. The Scientist believes what he can reasonably prove, the Devotee believes what he can take faith in.
Regardless of whether my own faith is right or wrong, *the philsopher* in me wants say "sleeper, awake" to people that say they are getting by without it (faith) in any shape or form. That used to be me and I was wrong for a very long time.
Commenting by HaloScan
