As a fellow Catholic , I can tell you that your comments are yoir opnions but the opinions are not educated ones. Consequently, they were properly derided.
Let me use an example. I have opinions on theology. Those opinions may conflict with the opinions of a Schonborn or a Ratzinger, for example. I'm entitled to my uneducated opinion, but I'd need about 16 more years of theology education before I'd be qualified to assert an opinion on theology that is well-founded. I know my limitation in this area.
We all are experts on one subject or another. If you heard soemone voice theuir very undeducated opinion on Martin Luther, and it turns out that person hasn't read Scripture, history, or "On the Freeedom of a Christian" and then hold forth inaccurately on the true meaning of Luther, you could correctly dismiss that person as an uneducated know it all.
As a person informed on the subject of your post, i can tell you your opinions are simplistic and udeducated in the same maner as my hypthetcial devotee of Luther's would be. I can go into much more detail if you are truly interested in answers to your questions.
And if I opined on brian surgery and its alternatives, I'd be in that same position of earnestly holding forth on an uneducated foundation, as well.
Fortunately, lack of knowledge is not permanent and curable.
You need to learn a lot more about biology before you are can even begin to offer an informed opinion. Your post presents not a single original opinion and re-asseerts erroneous simplistic poisitons rebutted throughly hundreds of times before.
That explains the uniform derision to your post. Imainge how many times we Catholcis have had to rebut charges that we "worship Mary." After the 10,000th time, it gets old and our responses may be curt.
I'm going to ask you to examine your conscience here. Consider that you are essentially telling well trained Ph.D's in biology the biological equivalent of "Catholics worship Mary."
You cannot be surprised when they call you impolite versions of "unimformed."
Combox for:
My Own "Expelled" Experience (Intelligent Design and Profoundly Closed Minds)
[5 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...ntelligent.html
Right, UC,
Rather than deal with an ignoramus like me, why don't you go ahead and refute the assertions of Michael Behe, and explain for me and my readers how the complex activities in the cell that he describes evolved?
I'd be EXTREMELY interested to see that . . .
Intelligent design is a childish belief in magic. The uneducated hicks who believe in intelligent design magic deserve to be ridiculed.
Michael Behe is a fake scientist who supports intelligent design magic. See the transcript of the Dover trial. Every idiotic claim Behe made was proven wrong.
The producers of the anti-science propaganda movie Expelled are professional liars. For more information google "Expelled Exposed".
Biological evolution is a scientific fact supported by massive evidence from many branches of science. Evolution does not require any intelligent design magic. The development of new species is guided by natural selection and other natural mechanisms of evolution. A sky fairy who hides in the clouds didn't have anything to do with it.
The only people who have a problem with biological evolution are religious extremists. These flat-earthers are causing great harm to Christianity. Intelligent young people do not want to have anything to do with an anti-science religion.
"Rather than deal with an ignoramus like me, why don't you go ahead and refute the assertions of Michael Behe, and explain for me and my readers how the complex activities in the cell that he describes evolved?"
Dave Armstrong, like I said in my previous comment, you can look at the transcript of the Dover trial. Miller and other scientists made Behe look like the fool he is. Behe was at the Dover trial so he knows all his ideas have been refuted. Behe continues to make the same claims because he's a professional liar. Behe knows he's a liar and he laughs at his gullible customers.
Perhaps you would like to provide evidence for intelligent design magic. Of course there is no evidence for magic. That's why only childish uneducated flat-earthers believe in it.
I suggest you should grow up and educate yourself. You should stop being a coward and face facts. The human species was not magically created by a sky fairy to be separate from the rest of nature. All species, including the human ape species, developed from other animals.
Most likely you won't educate yourself. You like being ignorant because you don't want to give up your childish everything-is-magic fantasy world. Nobody cares what nonsense you believe in. Just keep your breathtaking stupidity in your church and out of our schools.
That's a very harsh comment Dave.
Again, you haven't demonstrated any sense of humility in a field in which you have no expertise.
I made this offer above, "I can go into much more detail if you are truly interested in answers to your questions."
Are you actually truly interested? Your reply seems sarcastic and suggests you aren't really interested. But let's see.
So, I'll start by refuting Behe here,
http://www.millerandlevine.com/k...n2/
article.html
You should know that Kenenth Miller is a practicing Catholic and the co-author of the most widely used biology textbook used in high school science classes.
But there are VOLUMES of additional literature refuting Behe at every turn.
Here's Behe's own testimony at the Kitzmiller trial:
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. {Behe} That is correct, yes.
Behe also admitted in 2000 that his definition of "irreducible complexity" the cornerstone of his argument, is unworkable:
"The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work."
He has not repaired that defect as of today's date, 8 years later.
That will do for starters in refuting Behe.
You can rehabilitate Behe by providing the workable definition of irreducible complexity that Behe has yet to do and providing a few biological examples of such irrducible complexity.
I think I adequately met your challenge. Behe has been pretty well refuted by the above.
With respect to Expelled... Where is Behe now? Tenured facualty at Lehigh. Fired for his ID publications? Nope. Why wasn't he discussed in the movie?
Why wasn't Ken Miller, Catholic evolutionist, and author of the standard high school biology textbook mentioned in the movie?
Neither man fits the movie's premise.
Are you actually truly interested?
I'm interested in dialogue, not being lectured in a condescending fashion. Thanks for the offer, though. Perhaps others are interested in a lecture.
A sky fairy who hides in the clouds didn't have anything to do with it.
Wow, it's jackasses like BobC that'll turn me into a six * 24-hour day creationist.
He's sure a poster boy for what the movie was critiquing, ain't he? It's a godsend for this thread! LOL
"I'm interested in dialogue, not being lectured in a condescending fashion..."
Then start dialoging.
You posed quesitons, I provided answers. I thought you were actually interested in answers to your questions, and the answers wern't short. Perhaps they appeared as lectures. Do you recognize your fellow Catholics might know a little something about biology and might be able to share that knowledge with you?
You asked for refutations of Behe.
I offered refutations of Behe, which you did not address.
Here's Ken Miller from the link I provided:
"[T]he doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step beyond the claim of ignorance. It was fashioned in order to provide a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn't have evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now that a simpler, functional system [the nearly identical but simplerType Three Secretory Appratus] has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed."
Is Miller correct or not?
Do you want more refutations of Behe, or was the above sufficient?
It's the attitude, my friend. This is not dialogue. Dialogue presupposes some measure of respect for one's opponent. You started with insults and now you are going back to that. Not interested. You may know all kinds of things. You may be a veritable font of wisdom. But if you present what you know in this manner then what good is that (1 Cor 13:2)?
If you think the way I was reacted to in that ridiculous exchange was perfectly justified, then there is no way that anything can come of you and I interacting.
My parents were taught evolution in their pre Vatican II catholic schools. I don't know of any catholic prelate who has publicly supported Intelligent Design (as opposed to the mundane idea that the universe is intelligently design).
Benedict supports higher critical approaches to Genesis (he believes much of it is post-exilic). JP II supported evolution.
One of the reasons I left the catholic church was because it supported evolutiion.
Oh my gosh, Jeb. What an utterly dumb reason to leave the Catholic Church. Belief in the theory of evolution is not required of the faithful, and certain atheistic formulations of the theory are expressly forbidden.
Jeb,
I don't see the inconsistency with evolution as a way in which God is creating the world and the biblical text. Though both JPII and BXVI maintain that evolution is compatable with a Catholic understanding of the scriptures, that doesn't mean that they personally have taught evolution vs. other things. The point is that truth is truth no matter where it comes from, biology or theology. There should not be a conflict as God is the source of all truth.
When there is a conflict, then we need to ask, is our interpretation of the text in line with reality, or is the biology wrong. Most of the time with scientists, the error is in the presentation of truth that they have no business remarking on. I point to the post above about "sky fairies in the clouds" is a perfect example. God is not a concept that can be falsified or experimented on....thus, biology can't comment on it.
I don't know enough of the biology or even ID to form a reasoned opinion, but if the evolutionary theory does not limit God's creative action in producing humanity and the human soul, then I have no a priori difficulty with it.
Materialistic evolutionary theory does that, Charles. That is the real; battle: materialism vs. a theistic worldview: whether creationist or theistic evolution or ID/evolution. It is when they try to dogmatically exclude God that I have a problem. God could have created with evolution; of course. I have no problem with that possibility at all.
IOW, the controversy shouldn't be over HOW God created, but WHETHER He did so. He could have used any number of methods, but He did create, and He created the laws of nature and gave them a power that science cannot totally explain: can't even come close.
The fundamental problem with so many of these contemporary apologists of scientism is their total and utter lack of humility. This causes them to do a disservice to science.
Having once been a member of their ranks, I can understand their mindset. In their arrogant intellectual superiority complex, they believe that the only "pure" and worthy academic endeavor is the natural sciences, and that any other field of human knowledge, whether it be history, philosophy, theology, economics, or the arts , have little or no value. They believe that science has the answers to all questions. And if science doesn't have the answer to a particular question, that question is not even worth discussing. In fact, even discussing such a question can "taint" you in the eyes of the academic elite.
Their single greatest defect is their total deficiency in philosophical literacy. (And I plead ignorant here too). What they fail to understand is that the question of origins, whether of life or the universe, is as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. Science can only tell us how things appear.
For instance, the universe appears old, having its origin in a "big bang," but how can we know for certain, if no one was there to observe it in its infancy? It could have come into existence in an already mature state. Science has absolutely no way of distinguishing. This is a philosophical/theological question. And both options are equally magnificent, stupendous and outrageous.
Is the "big bang" the great uncaused cause, or is it some transcendent being apart from time and space? Science is utterly unable to answer. And should the truth lie in something greater, is it an impersonal "force" or is He a personal God with a purpose in his designs? Science is out of its depths.
A theory of common descent of species appears quite plausible, but does science establish a purely atheistic interpretation of the random mutations and progress of evolution? No, it does not. Science cannot say whether apparent randomness is just unexplained complexity or rational agency. There is still room for the providence of God and free will in the uncertainty principle, because there is no way to tell whether a particular behaviour of matter (and I'm thinking here of subatomic particles) was the result of random chance, unexplained complexity, or some rational agency (God or human soul). The probability distributions describing the behaviours of such particles could remain unchanged in either case.
And now I'm in over my head, and lost my train of thought.
The point is these are not scientific questions, but philosophical/theological questions. Science cannot give answers here. But what the scientists have done is banish any philosophical discussions from our school system, so we have a generation of philosophical illiterates (myself included) hopelessly ill-equipped to see the big picture. We can't see the forest for t
We can't see the forest for the trees. And all of us have been ill-served by this narrow, inadequate, and incomplete education.
And by banishing all discussion, the science fundamentalists have essentially staked out what is their own particular philosophical position, wrapped it in the mantle of science, and thrust it onto everyone else. And the rudeness with which they do it is frankly disgusting.
Have I made any sense at all, or have I completely lost it?
"Now that a simpler, functional system [the nearly identical but simplerType Three Secretory Appratus] has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed."
So we explain away the appearance of intelligent design in nature by pointing out that one structure is composed of other structures that appear to be intelligently designed. . . .
I've always found it amusing the way some people insist that we can explain the orderliness and complexity and immensity, or simply the existence, of nature without reference to the divine wisdom. So they show us an infinite regress of "explanations," never getting around to any real answers. Where did human life come from? It evolved from earlier, non-human life. Where did non-human life come from? It evolved from the first single-celled organism. Where did the first cell come from? It kind of came together all by itself, atoms and molecules combined and recombining until life was spontaneously generated from non-living matter without any sort of involvement from a non-material intelligence. Where did the atoms come from? They just sort of popped into existence after the Big Bang without any sort of involvement from a non-material intelligence. Where did matter and material existence come from? Er, uh, um . . . it has always existed, or, well, we don't know yet, but someday we'll be able to explain how it is that anything exists at all, and we won't ever have to admit that an uncreated eternal intelligence had anything to do with it.
Well, anyway, whatever the truth or lack of truth of the ID hypothesis (which I think is undeveloped and incomplete), it remains the case that I have yet to find a single critic or opponent of ID who doesn't lie about and distort and misrepresent ID. One of their favorite tactics is to falsely claim it is "creationism," even though those who have proposed this hypothesis believe in biological evolution. They're also almost invariably arrogant, condescending, and insulting (as we've again seen here). I'd be more likely to take them seriously if their favorite weapons of debate weren't the ad hominem, the well-poisoning, the Straw Man, and the red herring.
God could have created with evolution; of course. I have no problem with that possibility at all.
I have also never had any problem at all with that possibility. In fact, to me it seems the most elegant of the options available to God, but I suppose that is just personal taste. I've never understood the antipathy toward theistic evolution of so many Christian apologists. However, I have come to respect their positions as intellectually reasonable, and am certainly intellectually open to these other possibilities now, whereas once I was more closed-minded. And when the ID/Creationist people take on these Darwinian bigots you can guess which side I'm rooting for (and coming to agree with more and more).
ID theory ought to be given a chance to develop, and then rise and fall on its own merits or lack thereof. And if it is wrong, it can only help flesh out evolution theory, and strengthen the foundations of our scientific knowledge--a good thing.
Dave,
I've had an idea bouncing around in my head for years and I'd like to hear what you might think of it.
It seems to me that God may have used the process of evolution (or left the appearance of evolution) as his method of choice for creation in order that the signature of his hand could remain somewhat veiled in his work. That is, so that a human observer could be left with the intellectual possibility of doubt (of God The Creator's existence). The purpose being so that faith could remain a theological virtue (in this world).
I know that St. Paul speaks of man's ability to come to the knowledge of God from his observance of nature, and that Vatican I also speaks of "proofs" of God's existence. The CCC discusses this in paragraphs 31-38.
But if knowledge of God was an absolute certainty, rather than just a moral certainty, would faith still be a virtue? (Is paragraph 36 speaking of an absolute certainty or a moral certainty?)
Could evolution have been used by God to leave the possibility of doubt, so that faith would be necessary?
Have I said anything heretical here?
(I have no background in theology, philosophy or apologetics. Just Catholic high school "I'm okay, your okay, condoms are okay" edumacation.)
I think it's clever and within the realm of possibility. Nothing heretical! I don't find it to be plausible, though, because it is too speculative.
In my apologetic philosophy, nothing can be absolutely proven, anyway, so faith is always required, in any event.
OTOH, I accept Alvin Plantinga's notion of properly basic beliefs that are pre-rational. Men can always find a way to deny any truth, because the will gets in there, and sin, and faulty premises and thinking.
And speaking of "proofs" that a materialistic view of the world, whether it be deterministic or stochastic (right word?), is inadequate for explaining our reality...do these count?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
http://youtube.com/watch?
v=wKhH2...feature=related
http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wiki...on_of_Peter.jpg
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible.../
psalms_23.html
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c...h?
v=cXXm696UbKY
http://primes.utm.edu/lists/smal.../small/
1000.txt
I want to see Expelled. Unfortunately it isn't out in Canada yet. I hope they find some distributer soon.
Catholics may not be required to believe in evolution, but it is certainly the favored opinion. And with contemporary catholicism, leaders in the church advocate higher critical approaches to the book of Genesis.
The issue is the accuracy and authority of the Bible. The opening chaptes of Genesis are, contrary to catholic exegetes, a historically accurate portrayal of how God created the universe. I see no more reason to interpret them nonliterally than to interpret that infancy narratives nonliterally (which catholic exegetes generally do as well).
Accurate portrayal of how God created the universe, definitely. "Historically" accurate? Well, I suppose if we define "historically" loosely enough, one might be able to say that.
Jeb, do you really think that the events related in Gen. 2:7-25 all happened within the space of four or five hours on a Friday afternoon?
Hi Jeb, don't you think you are painting Catholics with an overly broad brush? After all, it is Protestant exegetes who invented higher criticism. How about some examples to back up your statement of self-expression?
Regardless of what you believe, think, wish or guess the "favored opinion" of Catholic exegetes may be as to creation, the Catholic Church requires us to believe that God is the Creator. Frankly, it is my personal opinion that none of the so-called "scientific" theories are actually correct because each of them are flawed in one respect or another mainly due to the fact that scientists intentionally disregard a potential piece of evidence to take into account-the possibility of a Prime Mover.
And as far as the infancy narratives go,in 48 years of being Catholic I am not aware of any of my parish priests ever giving a sermon at any time that the account of Jesus' birth is fictional. And since I have been an altar boy, a lector, and a choir member, I have usually gone to two or three Masses each Christmas but perhaps you have some knowledge of one or two of the billion or so Catholics who think otherwise.
I would go a step further and suggest that it would be a bit hard for a Catholic than it would be for a Protestant to ever deny the literal account of Jesus' birth in light of the Marian doctrines that the Church has declared to be matters de fide. The whole point of the Marian doctrines are to defend both the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. It seems to me that Protestants who deny many of the Marian doctrines taught by the Catholic Church are more predisposed to chuck first couple of chapter of Matthew and Luke than Catholics. Perhaps you would like to share the names of these so-called Catholic exegetes who do not believe in the infancy narratives so that we can address their arguments as opposed to your truncated conclusory statement.
Father Stanley Jaki (PhD Physics) wrote an essay "The Limits of a Limitless Science". It is relevent to this thread.
Yep, Fr. Jaki has some great material about science and faith. I love people like that, who have doctorates in two different areas.
BillyHW:
But what the scientists have done is banish any philosophical discussions from our school system, so we have a generation of philosophical illiterates (myself included) hopelessly ill-equipped to see the big picture.
That was my experience as well. I feel as if my best education came after my formal education, and it left me stunned at how much more productive my education could have been had I known then what I know now.
But if knowledge of God was an absolute certainty, rather than just a moral certainty, would faith still be a virtue?
We can know as an absolute rational certainty that God exists by the existence of created things. But this does not provide a great deal of knowledge about God Himself, particularly the fact that He is triune and that He was incarnated for our sake. It is probably best to say that we know about God, but we don't really know God. To know God rather than merely to know about about God requires faith formed in charity. I would also note that theological faith is possible even for demons, so one must have faith formed in charity to actually understand God rather than simply to know things about Him.
Jeb:
I see no more reason to interpret them nonliterally than to interpret that infancy narratives nonliterally (which catholic exegetes generally do as well).
I haven't encountered any Catholic exegetes who interpret them non-literally. I have encountered Catholic exegetes who interpret them non-historically, but that isn't the same thing. It would seem to be the same with Genesis. There is certainly a literal sense, but a literal sense is not always the same thing as a historical sense if the passage wasn't meant to be a historical documentation of some event. It's meant to teach something, but it is important to understand that the author might not have had the same intent in writing the passage that you would expect.
I see no more reason to interpret them nonliterally than to interpret that infancy narratives nonliterally...
Just an aside to this thread, sorry but I couldn't resist.
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
"Whever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."
"This is my Body"
Betcha don't translate these versus literally eh, Jeb?
Betcha don't translate these versus literally eh, Jeb?
But they do translate the whole "ransom" concept, which is clearly a metaphor, literally. Go figure.
hehe, Peter hit the nail on the head
Contrary to what some Roman Catholics believe, it has never been the protestant position that all verses in the Bible should be taken literally (some dispensationalists claim this, but that's a different issue).
There are good reasons not to take "flesh" and "body" literally in these passages (for example, it would violate the bible's prohibition against canibalism) but there are no good reasons to interpret Genesis 1-11 or the infancy narratives in a non-historical manner.
Jeb,
You said:"(for example, it would violate the bible's prohibition against canibalism)"
Just a small point here. And, this is critical to the discussion on this issue. Cannibalism is eating the flesh of a dead person. Christ is not dead. He is risen. So, there's no violation of the biblical prohibition.
In Christ's Love,
Pat
there are no good reasons to interpret Genesis 1-11 or the infancy narratives in a non-historical manner.
That's interesting, because I have seen a number of Bible scholars disagree with that opinion. Apart from bare opinion, do you have any reason for that belief? Perhaps it would be better first to make clear why you consider Scripture authoritative in any sense, and then explain why you consider that sense binding and authoritative, and then maybe why you believe there is no good reason to think that these passages were not intended historically. I think that would be a helpful articulation of your position.
Jeb said: There are good reasons not to take "flesh" and "body" literally in these passages (for example, it would violate the bible's prohibition against canibalism)
It's interesting that you bring up the "cannibalism" objection -- because that's exactly what Christ's hearers thought He meant. He didn't respond to their objection by saying, "That's not what I meant, folks," but instead reiterated his statement using even stronger and more graphic language. So the "literal" interpretation of 'eat my flesh, drink my blood" makes better sense in context.
but there are no good reasons to interpret Genesis 1-11 or the infancy narratives in a non-historical manner.
I agree with you on the Infancy Narratives -- the Church unhesitatingly upholds their historicity. But in Gen. 1-2 there are some pretty good reasons to believe it's not simple history that is being related -- as I pointed out above, interpreting the days of creation week as literal 24-hour days makes it difficult to reconcile the story in Gen. 2. Even the Jews before Christ were aware of that difficulty, which accounts for the ingenious (and unconvincing) modifications and interpretations of the Gen. 2 story found in the Book of Jubilees.
There are good reasons not to take "flesh" and "body" literally in these passages
Jesus would reply to you, Jeb:
"Does this offend you?"
The words Christ spoke are Spirit and life. I person can not believe what Christ is teaching here if the Spirit is not given them to believe. All the exegais in the word will not help you if you are not given the gift of faith to accept this teaching that is too hard for many to endure.
This movie really brought all manner of creatures out of the woodwork. Whatever the merits of ID, it's an endless source of entertainment watching anti-ID'rs act like keystone cops chasing the ID burglar.
Jordanes,
You are wrong about the church upholding the historicity of the infancy narratives. Catholic exegetes such as Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and John Meier deny the historicity of large parts of the infancy narratives. Their books on this subject have the imprimatuer. Brown and Fitzmyer were put on the Pontifical Biblical Commission by the pope.
Jeb said: You are wrong about the church upholding the historicity of the infancy narratives. Catholic exegetes such as Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and John Meier deny the historicity of large parts of the infancy narratives.
Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and John Meier are not the Catholic Church, nor do they speak for the Catholic Church. Show me a single magisterial document that has ever questioned or denied the historicity of the Infancy Narratives.
Their books on this subject have the imprimatuer. (sic)
So what? When a book written by a Catholic receives an imprimatur, that means a bishop or Catholic ordinary has given permission for it to be printed. (That's what "imprimatur" means -- "let it be printed.") It does NOT mean that the Church agrees with everything asserted in the book, or that everything asserted in the book is true or is in accord with the Catholic faith.
You're probably thinking of the "nihil obstat," not the "imprimatur" (or imprimi potest). A nihil obstat is granted if a Catholic ordinary or his delegated censor has examined a book and comes to the conclusion that nothing in the book is contrary to the Catholic faith. That conclusion, however, is not infallible, and imprimaturs and nihil obstats are sometimes (though not often) rescinded when it is later discovered that the nihil obstat was granted in error. (By the way, some of Brown's and Fitzmyer's works have the imprimatur and nihil obstat because, as I recall, Brown and Fitzmyer granted them to each other's works. In such a situation, an imprimatur and a nihil obstat is meaningless window dressing.)
Bottom line: a non-magisterial book written by a Catholic does not become a binding act of magisterial teaching simply because it bears an imprimatur or nihil obstat. If you want to know what the Church believes about the Infancy Narrative, you find out what the Church says, not what personal opinions a private theologian or exegete might express in a book. For that, you may read documents such as Vatican II's Dei Verbum, Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus, Pius XII's Humani Generis, the PBC's scriptural decrees from the early 1900s, and the PBC's 1964 decree on the Gospels. If Brown or Fitzmeyer et al. say anything that does not accord with what is found in those documents, then Brown and Fitzmyer are wrong.
Brown and Fitzmyer were put on the Pontifical Biblical Commission by the pope.
So what? The post-Vatican II PBC is not an arm of the Magisterium. Only the pre-Vatican II PBC ever issued magisterial documents. Brown and Fitzmyer were put on the PBC because of their academic and intellectual gifts, not because the Church agreed with and endorsed all that they said in their publications.
Hi Jeb, As a I understand it, those gentleman's opnions have been grossly misstated. I have read (or at least tried to) some of Brown's work and have seen quotes from stuff of Meier and Fitzmeyer cited to as well.
None of these gentlemen, all who happen to be priests btw, deny the veracity of the infancy narratives. What they argue (or at least from my feeble grasp of their hermeneutics) is that because Matt and Luke do not parallel each other as they do elsewhere, they question one's
ability to use Scripture to prove the accuracy of the accounts. The question that they try to answer is whether the accounts are included in Scripture because they are true (historically accurate) or because they emphasis a theological truth in the guise of history.
They view the creation of the canon as a historical process, looking at consistencies in the different manuscripts, the languages that they were written in, culture of the times, etc. to try to prove which version is the most accurate and correct of all the many ones out there.
Thus, none of these gentlemen claim that the narratives of Jesus' conception and birth to be untrue; just that some of the things revealed on those Scriptures to be less provable from separate or parallel historical sources than others.
Then again, I do not know what your beef is-they are merely using Protestant-created hermeneutics to study Scriptures.
Jordanes,
Brown's book on the IN have the Nihil Obstat.
Are you a priest, have you written a book that has the Nihil Obstat, or been appointed to the PBC? I assume that the Pope and the bishops who supported Brown are more authorative spokesman for catholic doctrine then you are.
I assume that the Pope and the bishops who supported Brown are more authorative spokesman for catholic doctrine then you are.
Jeb Protestant | 05.08.08 - 6:21 am |
You assume ... Now go and read the relevant church documents you were shown and you will find who is the better spokesman.
Are you a priest, have you written a book that has the Nihil Obstat, or been appointed to the PBC? I assume that the Pope and the bishops who supported Brown are more authorative spokesman for catholic doctrine then you are.
You should take Martin's advice on this one, Jeb.
Peter
Let me think
The Cell contains more information then all complete set of a Encyclopaedia.
The Cell can replicate is self in a few hours.
A Cell is more complicated than any computer or machince built by man.
A Cell is like a automated factory that is extremely complex.
My "favorite" defender of evolutionism at all costs has to be John Derbyshire, who posts at http://www.nationalreview.com/ . In my less charitable moments, I laugh at him. In my more charitable moments, I pity him.
He won't even recognize that Intelligent Design is distinct from creationism, probably because he thinks that "creationism" is espoused by backward, Bible-thumping buffoons.
If you want evidence of how the Tower of Evolutionism is collapsing, read his absurd attacks against any evidence that does not support his viewpoint.
Could 10 trillion monkeys each on his own piano play Johann Sebastian Bach after 10 trillion years?
Complexity
Classical music generally requires high musical skills to play such as sight reading, ability to coordinate with other players and experience in playing the composer's music. Classical works often display musical complexity through the composer's use of development, modulation (changing of keys), variation rather than exact repetition, musical phrases that are not of even length, counterpoint, polyphony and sophisticated harmony. Larger-scale classical works (such as symphonies, concertos, operas and oratorios) are built up from a hierarchy of smaller units: namely phrases, periods, sections, and movements. Musical analysis often seeks to distinguish and explain these structural levels.
And I dont know how a monkey could get a complex musical instrument to begin with...lol
Peter Kreeft once said since there was Bach there must be a God.
Brown's book on the IN have the Nihil Obstat.
As they say in court, "Asked and answered." Move on, counselor. If you have any more arguments to make or witnesses to call, then do so. The "imprimatur/nihil obstat" argument has already been rebutted.
Are you a priest, have you written a book that has the Nihil Obstat, or been appointed to the PBC?
No. But I have read what the Church teaches about the historicity of the Infancy Narratives, which is how I know you're wrong about what the Church teaches.
I assume that the Pope and the bishops who supported Brown are more authorative spokesman for catholic doctrine then you are.
Of course they're more authoritative, silly. Why do you think I have asked you to read what they wrote?
And "supporting Brown" is not a binding act of the Magisterium, so it tells us nothing about what the Church teaches about the Infancy Narratives. Now, how about you find one magisterial document that questions or denies the historicity of the Infancy Narratives? If you're right that the Church doesn't beleve in their historicity, then you should be able to find at least one.
Jordanes,
I never said that the official position of the RC church was that IN are non historical. I said that contemporary Catholic exegetes take this position. Thus, today's catholic is free to believe that the Magi, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, the shepherds and the like are non historical without contradicting the catholic faith. (Conversly, he is not obligated to take these positions.)
Do you believe the position of Brown, Fitzmyer and Meier are contrary to the Catholic faith?
Jeb said: I never said that the official position of the RC church was that IN are non historical. I said that contemporary Catholic exegetes take this position.
No, you said, "You are wrong about the church upholding the historicity of the infancy narratives. Catholic exegetes such as Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and John Meier deny the historicity of large parts of the infancy narratives."
In other words, you denied that the official teaching of the Church is that the Infancy Narratives are historically accurate, and to support your assertion, you alleged that certain Catholic exegetes whose books have imprimaturs deny the historicity of the Infancy Narratives.
Having been shown that the Church does officially uphold their historicity regardless of what certain exegetes may or may not have written, you now protest that you never said it was the official position of the Church that the Infancy Narratives are non-historical. Well, whatever you meant to say, the fact remains that, contrary to what you said, I was right about the Church upholding the historicity of the Infancy Narratives.
Thus, today's catholic is free to believe that the Magi, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, the shepherds and the like are non historical without contradicting the catholic faith.
He is "free" to do those things in the sense that he isn't going to get hauled before an inquisition, tortured, excommunicated, and/or burned at the stake if he does so. But he can't reject the things narrated in the Infancy Narratives without contradicting the official position of the Church.
Do you believe the positions of Brown, Fitzmyer and Meier are contrary to the Catholic faith?
I'm not at all sure you know what their positions are or were, but to the extent that they suggest or assert that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, that the shepherd and Magi and angels didn't visit, etc., yes, they would be running up against the Catholic faith. Brown, for one, was a pretty careful and nuanced scholar, though, and he was good at coming about as close to heresy (or appearing to come about as close to heresy) as possible without actually crossing the line. Unfortunately his approach to exegesis and biblical criticism, while attempting to integrate historico-criticism with the Catholic faith, tended to have the overall effect of weakening or destroying the historical grounding of the faith, effectively leaving a sort of fideism. But he still was a talented exegete and much of his intellectual output was a boon for the Church.
Jordanes:
1. Would you please point me to a catholic document that says the church considers the infancy narratives to be historical and that the opposite position is not legitimate.
2. If Raymond Brown was heterodox (or close to it) why did two popes put him on the PBC?
Would you please point me to a catholic document that says the church considers the infancy narratives to be historical and that the opposite position is not legitimate.
Dei Verbum 19 (Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Scripture and Tradition): "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."
Dei Filius (Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith): "In matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense . . ."
Also, the Syllabus of Errors condemned the assertion that "the prophecies and miracles set forth and narrated in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets."
Now, since Vatican II's Dei Verbum shows that the Church upholds the historicity of the Infancy Narratives, and since Vatican I says no Catholic is permitted to reject what the Church has held and holds about the Infancy Narratives, it therefore follows that it is not legitimate for a Catholic exegete to hold that the Infancy Narratives are not of a historical character. Any exegete who does so is contradicting the Catholic faith, even if his book has a nihil obstat.
If Raymond Brown was heterodox (or close to it) why did two popes put him on the PBC?
I don't know, but there are several guesses we can make. Maybe it's because they didn't think he was heterodox, or maybe it's because they themselves held certain heterodox opinions about Scripture (although we know beyond all doubt that Paul VI and John Paul II maintained that the Infancy Narratives are historical -- John Paul II even said that the Blessed Virgin was most likely St. Luke's source for the Infancy Narrative of that Gospel). Or maybe he wasn't heterodox, just close to it. Since Vatican II, the Popes have shown themselves very loath to discipline wayward theologians and exegetes, opting for alternative measures instead. This is just speculation, but giving a problematic but gifted exegete a post on a purely advisory and toothless board of Bible scholars could have been a way to keep Raymond Brown in the bosom of the Church and strengthening his faith. And it may have worked -- as I recall, Brown's last work, an unfinished commentary on the Gospel of St. John published posthumously, makes the surprising and daring suggestion that St. John's Gospel is older than the Synoptics and incorporates mo
Would you please point me to a catholic document that says the church considers the infancy narratives to be historical and that the opposite position is not legitimate.
Dei Verbum 19 (Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Scripture and Tradition): "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."
Dei Filius (Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith): "In matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense . . ."
Also, the Syllabus of Errors condemned the assertion that "the prophecies and miracles set forth and narrated in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets."
Now, since Vatican II's Dei Verbum shows that the Church upholds the historicity of the Infancy Narratives, and since Vatican I says no Catholic is permitted to reject what the Church has held and holds about the Infancy Narratives, it therefore follows that it is not legitimate for a Catholic exegete to hold that the Infancy Narratives are not of a historical character. Any exegete who does so is contradicting the Catholic faith, even if his book has a nihil obstat.
If Raymond Brown was heterodox (or close to it) why did two popes put him on the PBC?
I don't know, but there are several guesses we can make. Maybe it's because they didn't think he was heterodox, or maybe it's because they themselves held certain heterodox opinions about Scripture (although we know beyond all doubt that Paul VI and John Paul II maintained that the Infancy Narratives are historical -- John Paul II even said that the Blessed Virgin was most likely St. Luke's source for the Infancy Narrative of that Gospel). Or maybe he wasn't heterodox, just close to it. Since Vatican II, the Popes have shown themselves very loath to discipline wayward theologians and exegetes, opting for alternative measures instead. This is just speculation, but giving a problematic but gifted exegete a post on a purely advisory and toothless board of Bible scholars could have been a way to keep Raymond Brown in the bosom of the Church and strengthening his faith. And it may have worked -- as I recall, Brown's last work, an unfinished commentary on the Gospel of St. John published posthumously, makes the surprising and daring suggestion that St. John's Gospel is older than the Synoptics and incorporates mo
And it may have worked -- as I recall, Brown's last work, an unfinished commentary on the Gospel of St. John published posthumously, makes the surprising and daring suggestion that St. John's Gospel is older than the Synoptics and incorporates more direct and immediate information about the life and teaches of Jesus than the Synoptics. Have you considered the possibility that Father Brown, for all the problems I have with his scholarship, did not deny the historicity of the Gospels?
Jordanes,
1. The documents you mention only say that the Gospels are "historical" (which even Brown believed in a some sense). They do not say that the infancy narratives are historical and that said historicity is a matter of faith.
2. You still don't have a good reason why two popes put Brown on the PBC. If Brown were the exception, maybe your explanation would hold weight, but they put other liberals such as Fitzmyer and Senior on the PBC. Who are the PBC's conservatives? In addition, Cardinal Ratzinger said that magesterium had "full confidence" in the PBC. Why would he say that if it is full or semi-heretics?
3. The Brown edited Jerome and New Jerome Bible Commentares had favorable introductions by Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Martin respectively. Didn't they know what they were endorsing? I believe they know Catholic doctrine better than you do.
This about the New Jerome Bible Commentary --
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRI...TUR/
DESTBIB.TXT
Jeb said: The documents you mention only say that the Gospels are "historical" (which even Brown believed in a some sense).
If you are now saying that Father Brown believed the Infancy Narratives were historical, then what's the problem? You now admit that he wasn't heterodox, which means the Popes had no reason not to appoint him to the PBC.
They do not say that the infancy narratives are historical and that said historicity is a matter of faith.
Last time I checked, the Infancy Narratives were a part of the Gospels. Since the Gospels in their entirety are historical, it follows that all that they contain is historical too. Therefore the Infancy Narratives are historical. (This is such elementary logic that the fact that it escaped you is pretty alarming. It means you're either not qualified to talk about this subject, or else you're intentionally making yourself stupid.) And since Dei Verbum is a Dogmatic Constitution of an Oecumenical Council -- just about the highest level of authority a church document can have -- that means we're dealing with something that pertains to the faith.
You also failed to account for the very strong words of Vatican I that I quoted. As Vatican II said, the Church has always held and continues to hold that the Infancy Narratives are historical, and Vatican I says no one is permitted to contradict what the Church has held and continues to hold regarding the interpretation and sense of Scripture. Consequently, denial of the historicity of the Infancy Narratives is out-of-bounds for faithful Catholics.
You still don't have a good reason why two popes put Brown on the PBC.
Why do I need one, when you apparently don't have a good reason why two Popes SHOULDN'T have put Father Brown on the PBC?
Look, Jeb, it has already been established that one does not ascertain Catholic beliefs by looking at who the Pope appoints to toothless commissions. You asked for documetation of what the Church's teachings are regarding the historicity of the Infancy Narratives, and I have provided it. (Of course you could have looked up those documents yourself, as I'd already told you about them. I get the impression that you're not interested in educating yourself about what the Church believes, but have your mind made up regardless of what anybody tells you. Indeed, you've brought up this subject at various Catholic weblogs before, and each time you're told the same things and pointed to the same documents. One can't help but conclude you're not pursuing this subject sincerely and honestly.)
Who are the PBC's conservatives?
I don't know. Except for a few names, I don't know who the members of the PBC are. I only know that the Pope isn't in the habit of appointing numbskulls and nincompoops to his advisory pontifical commissions.
In addition, Cardinal Ratzinger said that magesterium had "full confidence" in the PBC. Why would he say that if it i
In addition, Cardinal Ratzinger said that magesterium had "full confidence" in the PBC. Why would he say that if it is full of semi-heretics?
Maybe because he doesn't think it is full of semi-heretics, or maybe because it isn't full of semi-heretics, or maybe because he knows that only the best Catholic exegetes are ever appointed to the PBC, such that the Holy See can have confidence that their opinions and advice are always well-considered, even if fallible or even sometimes erroneous.
The Brown edited Jerome and New Jerome Bible Commentares had favorable introductions by Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Martin respectively. Didn't they know what they were endorsing?
Maybe they did. However, I'm not sure that you know what they were endorsing.
I believe they know Catholic doctrine better than you do.
I imagine they did. However, it's clear at least that, while they may have known Catholic doctrine better than I do, still I know Catholic doctrine better than you do.
By the way, thanks for the link to the article on the Jerome Commentary. Yes, that's what I was referring to above -- they essentially gave themselves their imprimaturs and nihil obstats, meaning the imprimatur and nihil obstat on the Jerome and New Jerome commentaries are meaningless. Therefore no one can have any confidence at all that the contents of those commentaries is in agreement with the Catholic faith. Now, that's a pretty serious offense and a major problem, but it's doesn't mean the Church denies the historicity of the Infancy Narratives. It does suggest that some of the commentary editors may have doubted or denied their historicity, however -- which, again, would be a big problem, but still would not show that the Church denies the historicity of the Infancy Narratives (since exegetes are not the Church). Perhaps some recent Popes exercised poor judgment in their PBC appointments, which, again, is a problem -- but again does not show that the Church denies the historicy of the Infancy Narratives. None of the arguments you have adduced prove that, because, as I have demonstrated, the Church unhesitatingly uholds their historicity, even if certain Catholic exegetes more than hesitate about that subject.
Jeb, Without going and reading everyone of these guys' books, and from the few snippets I have read, including your link, it would appear that these gentlemen (Brown, etc.) did not say categorically that the Infancy narratives are not historically accurate, but rather the narratives were not written from a historical perspective or to preserve a historical account of events. Thus, they should not looked at merely as history when they contain deeper truths. They assert that the Infancy narratives were written to prove or demonstrate theological proofs that Jesus is the Messiah~a point I think you and I both agree on.
Now if their views did contradict Church teaching and a nihil obstat or imprimatur were given, it would prove nothing more than the fact that the person in authority who issued it did not do his job to make sure that their writings did not violate Church teaching as opposed to endorsing their views as matters de fide. The nihil obstat and imprimaturs are merely indications to the faithful that the document in question does not violate Church teaching, not that it is the Church's teaching.
Here's Ken Miller from the link I provided:
"[T]he doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step beyond the claim of ignorance. It was fashioned in order to provide a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn't have evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now that a simpler, functional system [the nearly identical but simplerType Three Secretory Appratus] has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence" that the flagellum was designed."
Is Miller correct or not?
Miller is incorrect.
http://www.scienceagainstevoluti....org/
v12i6n.htm
Commenting by HaloScan
