A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
1355

I have always thought that Dawkins’ use of the word, 'meme’, was an unfortunate choice, since it was easy to associate it with ‘mimicry’. Many birds are capable of excellent mimicry but still lack the thought processes and communication skills that qualify them for existence in what Teilhard called the Noosphere–the sphere that followed the Biosphere–the sphere that only we humans occupy. Thus I prefer to use the term, Noogene to indicate that Ideas as well as the DNA evolve. but of course it has not supplanted Dawkins’ meme.

I agree 100% with Teilhard, as well as @mitchellmckain, in a worldview in which the history of the Universe is condensed as: BigBang->Cosmosphere->Biosphere->Noosphere–a sequence which strongly suggests overall Purpose–not just random chance. It remained for Jesus to teach us that God was the foundation of all life and love and that we should call Him: Father.
Al Leo

1356

I am reminded of Thomas Kuhn’s redirection and popularization of the term “paradigm” in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” This is a book and set of ideas which I have criticized greatly for fueling an unjustified distrust of the work of science. His argument is wrong when it comes to the hard sciences, for in all the so called “revolutions” taken from the hard sciences, the first test of any new theory is agreement with the old theory in the regimes where it is known to be accurate. Furthermore, no revolution can erase any of the accumulated evidence, it can only extend the range of evidence to a wider range of the parameters (or to greater precision).

The point I am making here is that however much I may have contempt for this particular work of Kuhn, it doesn’t mean that I am going to jump on and ridicule anyone using the term “paradigm” in the same way. It remains a useful term and idea even if I disagree with Kuhn’s liberal application of the idea to all of science. After all, it remains a rather accurate description of the softer sciences, which does indeed seem to blow every which way with newest popular paradigm.

I don’t see any need for that either and find it bizarre to think that even Dawkins was suggesting such a thing. I am well aware that his purpose was one of ridicule, comparing religion to that of a virus in support of a rather common accusation made by many atheists (including Mao Tse-Tung) that religion is a disease. But Dawkins’ comparison is clearly pointing to commonality between gene and meme in regards to the transmission of information.

Ah…! Yes there is definitely a faction in the philosophical community which argues there is no such thing as meaning. This is an idea which I immediately dismissed as meaningless long before I became a Christian. But I can see how this faction would use Dawkin’s terminology. It is not how I use it, obviously. But I can see how that might put you off this terminology.

Communication and competition of ideas in the world forum is a reason why. If all you are interested in is your own community’s fortification of justifications for their own dogma, then that is another matter.

1357

Hi Gregory,

It has been many years since I read McLuhan and if memory serves, his concern was on technology extending our senses with a bit on how we may be manipulated with technologically advances media (correct me if I do not remember all of it).

I think language and symbol are important to understanding ourselves, and thus we consider our material/biological makeup, and also our cognitive attributes. So while I do not mind what some atheists have to say on these matters, I reject those who are anti-theists and instead I take interest in atheists who profess an absence of belief in a god.

My point is directed at linking a basic understanding of spiritual matters with the image divine. This means that when someone first hears about God from a believer, his response has a spiritual component - but with sin, that response is in error (as Paul points out). I think if we follow this line of reasoning we soon see that Darwinian/Dawkin outlooks become irrelevant to the subject of these discussions.

1358

Hello GJDS,

Glad to connect with you again here!

“if memory serves, his concern was on technology extending our senses with a bit on how we may be manipulated with technologically advances media (correct me if I do not remember all of it)”

Yes, “media” understood in a broad sense. Here’s a taste from McLuhan, also meant to introduce Antoine. Note these are focused predominantly on his “extension” thinking:

“Media are means of extending and enlarging our organic sense lives into our environment.” (1961)

“My main theme is the extension of the nervous system in the electric age, and thus, the complete break with five thousand years of mechanical technology. This I state over and over again. I do not say whether it is a good or bad thing. To do so would be meaningless and arrogant.” (Letter to Robert Fulford, 1964)

“There is little possibility of answering such questions about the extensions of man without considering them all together. Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex.”(1964)

“Myth is the instant vision of a complex process that ordinarily extends over a long period. Myth is contraction or implosion of any process, and the instant speed of electricity confers the mythic dimension of ordinary industrial and social action today.” (1964)

“The use of any kind of medium or extension of man alters the patterns of interdependence among people, as it alters the ratio among our senses.” (1964)

“That which had been the first great extension of our central nervous system—the mass media of the spoken word—was soon wedded to the second great extension of the central nervous system—electric technology.” (1964)

The book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) lays it all out across a range of “media”.

“All of man’s artefacts – whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tool, or clothing, or computers – are extensions of the physical human body or the mind. Man the tool-making animal has long been engaged in extending one or another of his [sic] sense organs in such a manner as to disturb all of his [sic] other senses and faculties.” (1988, posthum)

“All of our technologies extend our innate abilities to act, perceive, think, and remember. Since this is all we can do, this is what we ask technology to help us with. In brief, we make all our technologies in our image. They imitate us.” … “Any particular technology imitates the structure of the mode of action, perception, thought, or memory that it extends.” - Marshall’s son Eric McLuhan ( The Human Equation, 2010)

Frankly, I’ve moved away from McLuhan’s work on & off the last couple of years. His work lacked an overall “system” or “covering theory”, aside from his Catholic faith. His “explorations” and “probes” about media are nevertheless still as resonant today as they were 35-75 years ago, at least as I read them.

“I reject those who are anti-theists and instead I take interest in atheists who profess an absence of belief in a god.”

That makes sense. I have also found those “atheists” who are actually curious, rather than just wanting an argument about “religion” to be more engaging and interesting in discussion. Sincerity in why one is engaging in discussion itself goes a long way, and helps a lot when sifting through the rubbish in creationism, evolutionism, & IDism along the way. A lot of grace and mercy needed in the conversation where people almost take pride in getting their feelings hurt by intellectual ideas about natural and human history.

“linking a basic understanding of spiritual matters with the image divine.”

Seems like a valid point for you to make.

"when someone first hears about God from a believer, his response has a spiritual component … we soon see that Darwinian/Dawkin outlooks become irrelevant to the subject of these discussions.”

Yes, this is where, for me at least, McLuhan’s language of the 21st century, of the electronic-information era, of media, culture and technology, is far more effective and on-point than the language of biology and geology that centres on “evolution.” It “resonates” with people because they live it, instead of just trying to “theorize” about it, like much of “evolutionary psychology” tries to do.

As you may know, when I discovered “extension” thinking, it was through McLuhan, not through Dawkins’ “long reach of the gene”, which he called “the extended phenotype” and his most important scientific work. The “extended phenotype” is more important than “memetics” because it is based on Dawkins’ knowledge and experienxes of/in natural science, not just a fantasy throwaway conceptualization in a foreign field. McLuhan (1911-1980) enabled a return to the deeper historical understanding of “extension” (his dissertation reading at Cambridge was amazing!), not just as Descartes philosophized it (res extensa vs. res cogitans) in the “modern era”, but in a way that could (and still can) be practically understandable to anyone and everyone … in the (“postmodern”) electronic-information era. I do hope more people can return to McLuhan’s fascinating corpus, perhaps through the field of “media ecology” for those toeing the greener line of social philosophy and praxis around the world these days.

1359

First of all, I frankly admit that Gregory has introduced some sectors of thought of which I have previously been completely unaware: extension metaphysics by such as Descartes, extended phenotype by Dawkins, and McLuhan carrying this over to the effects of media. It is an interesting perspective, but I don’t see anything terribly profound about it. Actually it worries me because it has a flavor of thinking that reminds me a little of paranoid schizophrenia and the notion of the psychopath in the other thread that animals are manipulating him. Perhaps I can clarify my worry with some questions: should something really be called manipulation if it is really beyond anyone’s ability to control? Should we be imagining such ephemeral control which could be no more than this psychopath imagining that he can control the weather?

With that said, this is certainly a way of thinking that I have employed to some degree before in a very limited way – the idea that reason and science is an extension of our senses to perceive so much more of the universe on many different scales. I spoke of this by way of explaining Einstein’s famous comparison of science and religion (“religion without science is blind”).

In conclusion, I can ask whether this fashion of thought come and gone in the 1960s is a proper judge of new ideas six decades later? Though perhaps when one is obsessed with the manipulation of extended consciousness in the media, one sees it as ones duty to poo poo any way of thinking that doesn’t fit into an approved ideology.

1360

An alternative interpretation is that ‘mankind’ is defined by Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word of God. In other words, we are human not because we descend from Adam, but because we share a body like Jesus’ body. Accordingly, ‘mankind’ was not only “created” in the image of God, but will always remain the image of God.

Jesus is named “the last Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:45. This can be better understood in the light of 1 Corinthians 12:13: “We were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body”. By doing God’s will “I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24), and thus what is lacking to the body of Christ. In the end humanity and with it the whole cosmos will become the body of Christ: “the firstborn over all creation” in Col 1:15f, is also “the last Adam”, the “last mankind”. Then, God’s incarnation and man’s divinization will be complete, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).

You are right in the sense that the same term ‘living nefesh ’ (‘living creature’) in the immediate context of Genesis refers clearly and repeatedly to non-human animals: these and Adam are made from the dust of the ground, and are each a ‘living nefesh ’. As Gordon Wenham states: “It is not man’s possession of ‘the breath of life’ or his status as a ‘living creature’ that differentiates him from the animals”. By contrast Genesis never says that animals are made “in the image of God”. An important aspect of Genesis 9:3-9 is the statement that humans have a special dignity with relation to animals because “God has made humankind in the image of God”.

I absolutely agree with you that the “image of God” originates from the fact that God created mankind for the purpose we become children of God, and thereby entirely (also the body) like God. But how can a body become like God? Only if previously God becomes a body! Thus, the Word became flesh in order humans can become God. Animals were not created to become like God by freely doing God’s will, but to support the flourishing of humanity on earth.

And so your interpretation and my interpretation dovetail into one another: We are the image of God because we are the image of Jesus Christ for the purpose of entering “a childhood relationship” with God the Father. And it is because God became a human being that humans have a special dignity and are called to respect each other, guiding their lives by morality and law. Humans are allowed to use animals as resources for food and work, but not to exploit animals at will. We have rather to treat animals and other resources with respect, and taking account the needs of all the human generations to come.

Me too, I believe “it is both”.

As far as our bodies go, we ARE animals, but we are also in the image of God (as St. Irenaeus magnificently argues) because God in Jesus Christ assumed a human body.

As far as our “human minds” go, for them alone, they do not found “a radical difference”. I paraphrase what you state in another thread:

Indeed, it is not our mental capabilities what make us radically different from animals or machines and in the image of God, but the fact that “God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

The statement that “God made mankind in the image of God” is intimately related to the statement “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14): it is like a first announcement of God’s incarnation.

Are you trying to get rid of my explanation by claiming I presuppose God acts in a “magical” way? So far your claim is a non sequitur . Could you please explain what you mean by “magical”, and the reason why you think my explanation presupposes God acting “magically”?

Our capacity to make choices is certainly part of our essence. But animals make choices too. So choices as such do not make us more valuable than animals.

I don’t understand why assuming that human dignity derives from the fact that God’s Son became man and was born of a woman “brings theism down and atheism would make more sense”.

It would be useful if you could present more in detail the arguments of the atheists you refer to. Otherwise we cannot engage in a serious discussion.

This said, I thank you again for all the thought provoking contributions.

1361

This is a formula for superficial external form or shape prejudice which I reject completely. We are human because of an inheritance from God and the shape doesn’t matter at all. God does not have a body or shape and so the notion that we are created in a likeness to such a shape is just nonsense. The understanding that we are descended from Adam is firmly entrenched in the Bible. What we learn from science simply causes us to reject the notion that this is a genetic inheritance. The meaning of calling Jesus the second or last Adam is crystal clear that He is to be the source of a new inheritance for our rebirth into a humanity without sin of the first Adam, conformed to the image of Christ who is without sin (Romans 8:29).

It cannot. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” God is spirit. So Paul explains that a spiritual body grows from the physical like a tree from a seed for our resurrection. And God is infinite so becoming like God takes an eternity. This is the substance of eternal life – being the children of God forever, where there is no end to what God has to give to us and no end to what we can receive from Him.

That is completely different from what I said. I said intelligence and reasoning is not what makes us different. The whole point I am making is that intelligence and reasoning is not the essence of the human mind and not what makes us different than the animals. Language is the difference – the only difference from the animals. Language is the substance of the human mind. It is the memetic life of the mind which makes us radically different from them, giving us a second inheritance which does not come from them and biological evolution.

Magical thinking is when you invent causal connections where there is no connection at all, like between the “abracadabra” and the rabbit coming out of the hat. There is no causal connection. The word is actually for the purpose of distracting us. It also derives from our experience of infancy, where we cry out and more capable beings respond to our discomfort to make us feel better. But obvious there is no more capable beings for God to cry out to. He accomplishes things because He has the knowledge of how something can be accomplished. That is the difference from the omnipotence of a dreamer over his dream and the omnipotence of God. Dreams don’t have to make sense. It is the logical coherence that makes things real.

The reason is because you claim a change in homo sapiens all over the world with no other explanation that “Goddidit.” It is the same as the explanation of creationists for so many things – there is no “how” but only God’s mysterious magical powers. By contrast I give a tangible causal connection: what God taught to A&E is spread throughout the species from Genesis 11. Again there is no need to alter the story of the Bible but only to clarify that genetics which is not spoken of in Bible is not the means by which humanity spreads over the Earth.

Yes. All life has consciousness and makes choices. But that does not make them all the same. Life, consciousness, and free will are all highly quantitative. This is after all a spectrum extending from non-living matter. The life, consciousness, and free will of the human mind is on a whole different level, (at least potentially) thousands of times greater than that of the animals. This is can be demonstrated by comparing the time scale of human development with evolutionary development – thousands of years compared to millions of years.

Human dignity, rights and such is the focus of your thinking not mine. Your need to elevate humanity in this way so much over the animals only underlines my feeling that you devalue animals and nature too much.

The problem of evil is a serious challenge to theistic belief, and the solution I have found to this by which I can credit theism and Christianity is the change in our understanding of the nature of life inherent in evolution as a self-organizing process rather than something magically inserted by a divine watchmaker. It makes a logical break between God’s omnipotence and a responsibility for what is, because if life is part of God’s intention, then this means God is giving over some of the responsibility to living creatures. But to make this work, it has to apply to all the consequences of evil, such as the need for salvation and judgement – that our surviving essence comes not from God but from ourselves in our own choices.

  1. This applies to myself before I became a theist, because I constructed a system of morality from the principles of psychology without any need for a belief in God, let alone some God given difference between man and animals.
  2. Do a google search on “Sam Harris on morality.” It will give you plenty.
  3. Do a google search on “Richard Dawkins on morality.” It will give you plenty also.
1362

My contention revolves on knowledge that is due to human endeavour and how we may obtain knowledge of God or gods. While I comprehend extension of human capabilities via artefacts and creative endeavour, my view is that knowledge of God occurs through unique experiences and requires a spiritual dimension to human reality (extension would be of secondary importance) – it is within this dimension that the essence of the discussion here would make sense.

Since we declare ourselves as Christians, our discussion requires input from theology. Classical theology discusses the essence of God and attribution of simplicity and impassibility. For this discussion, it is enough to point out the difficulties confronting notions relating the knowledge of God with human comprehension. For example, the central theme of Christianity is that God gave his only begotten son to die an agonising death, for a world that is separated from God because of sin. Yet our knowledge of God is that he is all powerful, holy, and just. Considered in this manner, it follows the central theme in Christianity is contradictory, in that belief in an all-powerful being would include a God who would willingly allow his son to die, at the hands of sinners, who hate God’s son because of their perversity. This example illustrates the problem arising from conceptualised knowledge of God. Reason would dictate that a father with sufficient power would intervene and save his son from the actions of perverse people, and human experience shows that this is the case. But what of God? Is he less than human? Through this example, we may see the problem arising from the notion that God may be described by human attributes. It may cause us to question beliefs of the divine that we acquire by experiences and intellectual endeavour. The paradox becomes especially serious when it occurs because human attributes are equated with Godly attributes from concepts of ethics provided by philosophy.

Concerning God and the creation, natural philosophy proposed two views: (1) God acted as He willed to gift the Universe and is actively engaged in the creation, and (2) God established immutable laws which are etched on all things, and He ensures these are maintained in the creation. Both views are interesting but debates currently focus on the notion of laws of nature, which may become entangled with the Law of God. For now, it is enough to state that the fact of God as Creator establishes a reality concerning the Universe. The Faith teaches that God created all from nothing and he sustains all things ( creatio ex nihilo ). The Universe includes matter, energy, space and time; all are knowable to human beings (intelligibility of the Universe). God is not subject to anything in His creation, and it is a gift. However, it is important to note that God is Sacred and Holy, while human beings are not. It is this separation between the holy and the sinful that underpins all discussions regarding human knowledge, including that of the creation. The heavens declare the Glory of God; they do not chatter theorems and equations. The capacity of human beings to know and conceive ideas related to the Universe is a unique aspect that is re-enforced by the discovery of universal constants. This indicates uniqueness to humans. Knowledge of God is revealed. The love of God is beyond our intellectual comprehension and is shown by the Holy Spirit.

1363

“knowledge of God occurs through unique experiences and requires a spiritual dimension to human reality (extension would be of secondary importance) – it is within this dimension that the essence of the discussion here would make sense.”

The danger with that path is gnosticism. That is partly why I do not use “knowledge” as the centre of my measurements.

Besides, not sure if you were aware of this or not, GJDS, “extension” does not exclude a “spiritual” reading. In fact, it has been written about not only by “moderns”, but also by the Church Fathers/Founders. Those two are what McLuhan has helped put together; “extension” is freed from materialist trappings, as happened since the Cartesian cut, with “extensa” refering to matter, and “cogitans” to thinking. Now outdated.

“our discussion requires input from theology. Classical theology discusses the essence of God and attribution of simplicity and impassibility.”

Yes, indeed.

“the central theme in Christianity is contradictory”

Well, how about “paradoxical” instead of “contradictory”?

“we may see the problem arising from the notion that God may be described by human attributes. It may cause us to question beliefs of the divine that we acquire by experiences and intellectual endeavour. The paradox becomes especially serious when it occurs because human attributes are equated with Godly attributes from concepts of ethics provided by philosophy.”

Yes, this is one reason to stay away from so-called “ID theory” qua “theory”. It depends on thinking as “little designers” and flattens the meaning of “Creator” to “Designer”. The IDM is built on a mistaken analogy → it commits “univocal predication” of “Designer” (God) by “designed” (humans). It is also an “occasionalist” ideology, which serves to change the “perception” of “Divine Action” by the person who holds it. Thus, “everywhere design” is the hallmark of the IDM, while the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews & Baha’is can reject this ideology as well-meaning nonsense.

What does the so-called “Intelligent Design” eXtend from/to? This is a question that IDists have so far refused to answer. Does it make sense to you why this is the case, GJDS?

“Concerning God and the creation, natural philosophy proposed two views: (1) God acted as He willed to gift the Universe and is actively engaged in the creation, and (2) God established immutable laws which are etched on all things, and He ensures these are maintained in the creation.”

I hold a slightly different reading, though this does not mean or aim to invalidate those 2 points. Instead, let me bring along side them, the distinction in medieval Europe between 3 notions: 1) Occasionalism, 2) Conservationism, and 3) Concurrentism.

I believe you mean that we are both, and my guess is likewise @AntoineSuarez too here, out of the 3 options, concurrentists. Would you or Antoine wish to argue this label? If you would wish to discuss it first before answering, please be welcome. IDists are occasionalists (this was implicitly admitted by a key figure in the IDM). I don’t know about others here because of the many branches of Protestantism, and because this thinking arose in Catholic Christian Europe. This site is run by and participated in largely by people from USA, mainly evangelical Protestants, while you, Antoine and I are all not Protestants, and not from the USA. Thus, there are some “translation” issues involved.

“debates currently focus on the notion of laws of nature, which may become entangled with the Law of God.”

Could you please provide references or links so that I may look at these debates you are paying attention to?

“The Faith teaches that God created all from nothing and he sustains all things ( creatio ex nihilo ). … God is not subject to anything in His creation, and it is a gift.”

Yes.

“separation between the holy and the sinful that underpins all discussions regarding human knowledge, including that of the creation. The heavens declare the Glory of God; they do not chatter theorems and equations.”

Yes. Amen.

“This indicates uniqueness to humans.”

Yes, which is why there is so much difficulty parsing claims about the “evolution” of “spiritual humanity” created imago Dei . The Catholic language on this (as Antoine notes above, accepting a “direct creative act”) is rather clear, certainly more so in the past 70 years since Humani Generis. It’s the “multiple competing hypotheses” usually raised by Protestant natural scientists and “novelty oriented” evangelical theologians (e.g. Christians who reject a real, historical Adam and Eve), that has raised all of the noise in the conversation.

Returning to the deeper historical understanding of the Church by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in light of their mode of perception, usually helps Protestants in conversation to realize “human uniqueness” was not an invention of the Enlightenment (or Darwin?!), but rather a result of the Genesis (hi)story. I would hope our discussion here would help to further reveal that and thus glorify God in the process.

1 Like
1364

Thanks Gregory for your comments. I feel too we are engaging in a very promising exchange.

Yes, with the remark that by “mixture of science and theology” I mean that Scripture and evolutionary science dovetail into one another:

Science prompt us to ask questions that bring Scripture to grow ( cum legentibus crescit ): The answers unveil contents that so far went unnoticed by us.

Scripture, since Genesis, highlights “human uniqueness” and thereby that “we should not live by Darwinian principles […] despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live” (as Richard Dawkins magnificently states). Thus, Scripture gives a purpose to evolution while evolutionary science does not. Scripture has an explanation for how evolution turned out the way it did in terms of human evolution.

I think the idea I try to convey is rather a simple one:

  1. I endorse the (rather traditional) view (and I guess you too) that God created “Adam and Eve” by endowing a couple of adult Homo sapiens creatures with capability of freely loving God (which includes “knowledge of good and evil” and accountability toward God and humanity). This “supra-empirical” endowment was the beginning of “humankind in the image of God”. In the case of “Adam and Eve” this initial endowment included also the so called state of “original righteousness” with capability to master the Darwinian mechanisms (selfish tendencies, death, illness, etc.).

  2. In the light of evolutionary data, I accept that at the moment God creates “Adam and Eve” the overall population of Homo sapiens on earth is 5-10 million.

  3. From 1&2 above, I derive that by the end of the flood (at the moment referred to in Genesis 9:3-6) all the millions of adult Homo sapiens scattered through the planet received from God the same basic endowment as Adam and Eve received, although lacking the state of “original righteousness”, i.e.: the same endowment we get today at the very moment of our conception.

Right. However, if you acknowledge that “your right not to be killed” derives from the fact that you are in the image of God, then you have coherently to acknowledge that the embryo from whom you originate by cell division deserves the same right, and therefore is endowed with the image of God.

Your comments on Dunbar in this respect are extremely interesting and deserve a detailed discussion. To avoid going lengthy here, I will come back to them in a separate post.

Right. I consider the content of Genesis 9:3-6 the archetype of the morality and law God engraves into the collective conscious and unconscious mind of all human peoples (John 1:9), universal divine revelation echoing that written in Genesis 1-11 by divine inspiration. Thus I accept what you say: It is a result of “revelation” that Homo sapiens became “human kind in the image of God” in the form of “Garden-era and post-Garden-era human beings”. However, the light of the scientific data enable us to read more in depth into Genesis 9:3-6, and discover that this event may have happened between 12,000-5,300 BP.

And yet, there is a crucial difference between the view I am proposing and that of Ken Kemp: According to me, marriage happened ALWAYS between human beings in the image of God. People in the image of God never got married with creatures that were not in the image of God. This is not the case in Kemp’s explanation.

In the paper quoted by @gbrooks9 in the Original Post of this thread, I refer to Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) concerning the declaration of Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis .

As early as 1964, in his Münster-Lectures, Ratzinger comments that in this Encyclical the exclusion of “polygenism” is formulated very carefully under the condition that there is no way of reconciling “such an opinion” with the teaching of the Church regarding original sin. If this condition is not fulfilled, then doors remain open: “With this text a door is in principle quite clearly opened”; what is important for the Church is not the claim of the hominization in one couple but the claim that all human beings became guilty in their original state; “monogenism is assumed only in function of this theological statement”, Ratzinger says.

Notice also that the “Decree concerning original sin” of the Council of Trent (the only dogmatic declaration to date) does not state “that all humanity is descended from a single couple of genetic ancestors”.

Inspired by Ratzinger, in my paper (quoted by @gbrooks9 in the OP of this thread) I propose an explanation in accord with the teaching of St. Paul and the Council of Trent, without assuming genealogical descent from a single couple.

My interpretation of the Genesis episode of the “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2-4) fits in with this, and shows how evolutionary science help us to unravel one of the most enigmatic passages in the Bible!

1365

My point is the opposite in that knowledge of God comes through revelation and not human sources.

My understanding is base on comments on technology and its application - most of what I say may be read within Gregory of Nyssa the making of man.

You may elaborate.

I do not support ID notions. I have come across the three terms you mentioned and have not adopted any of these, mainly because I have been interested in seeking harmony between sound science and Christian doctrine. You may expand your comments on concurrentists for further discussion.

Laws of science debates seem to be ubiquitous while the Law of God as intrinsic to human spirituality and Christian life seems to be viewed within an evolutionary/sociological context, and I reject this, be it inferred or stated explicitly. I have formed this opinion from a wide range of sources and not specific papers.

Amen.

1366

According to your definition, you are invoking “magic” as well, when you claim that “God taught to A&E”, aren’t you?

Additionally, by claiming that “memes” did “spread throughout the species” by means of “a tangible causal connection” you are assuming that a mind can change another mind by using a connection between bodies. Is this not an even bigger “magic”?

1 Like
1367

No, not according to MY definition. I gave a direct causal connection. This is according to some definition of YOURS that magic is anything which God does. This is not even out of the range of usual human experiences, which includes religion – people all over the world claiming they are doing what God has instructed them to do. It is a phenomenon which some even try to study with science, whatever explanation they may resort to. The point is the question of HOW, which I give an answer to and you do not. Frankly, you would do better just to make this a dictation of divine law that God has declared that all these homo sapiens should be treated as human persons rather than expecting people to believe that God actually changed them all in an instant by magic – an explanation worthy and typical of creationists.

Yes by the usual means which memes/ideas spread over the world… by human communication – language and examples seen with their own eyes. In the same way people all of the world all use things like money, and devices, democracy, and share the same entertainments. There is no mysterious magic anywhere in this – not in MY explanation.

1368

But Jesus Christ is true God, so is his body the body of God.

Moreover: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14).
Are you claiming that Jesus’ flesh could not inherit the kingdom of God?

1369

It is all in 1 Cor 15, which I am quoting. Read the whole thing.

Jesus was the first of many brethren in being bodily resurrected to a spiritual body, which is not of dust or the earth bound by the laws of the Earth, but of heaven and outside such laws. This is where PAUL says at the end in verse 50, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The resurrected Jesus is not flesh and blood. Nor is He a ghost. He has all the substance and realness of flesh and bone, for a living spirit is nothing like the pathetic shadowy character of ghosts (which are dead spirits) but having all the greater reality of God Himself, the spirit which is more real and substantial than anything else.

“The Word became flesh”

Indeed. God became a human being subject to all the laws of nature: born, growing up, and dying. And then He showed us the resurrection to a spiritual body which is possible also for us if we follow Him.

1370

“Inspired by Ratzinger, in my paper (quoted by gbrooks9 in the OP of this thread) I propose an explanation in accord with the teaching of St. Paul and the Council of Trent, without assuming genealogical descent from a single couple.”

Ok, I will take the twice hint in the message and read through your paper. I downloaded it in May, but time and priority have pushed it back. The fights and posturing among evangelical Protestants about YECism don’t interest me to participate in, and unfortunately they take up much of the energy in communication on the science, philosophy, theology discourse these days, at least in the N. American variant. You are promoting a European Roman Catholic approach to these major fields using what you call “quantum philosophy”. This is new to me, so I need to give it a closer look.

In the meantime I wonder if you would answer a simple two-part question which gives some cause for concern in your writing. Here’s the background below.

I did a quick search on a search engine and these were the results - # of hits:
“Evolutionary biology”: 9,130,000
“Evolutionary science”: 390,000

That first comparison is a concern for your chosen terminology. Following that, it shows a strange mixture of “evolutionary” fields:
“Evolutionary anthropology”: 836,000 (biological, not cultural, via N. American 4-part division?)
“Evolutionary geology”: 119,000
“Evolutionary cosmology”: 121,000
“Evolutionary philosophy”: 49,900
“Evolutionary mathematics”: 7,870
“Evolutionary economics”: 1,280,000

You repeatedly use the term “evolutionary science” as if it has wide familiar resonance, whereas I don’t think it does. That makes me curious: Which fields of study do you include in “evolutionary science”, and which fields do you exclude? Is what you call “evolutionary science” a strictly natural science, iow, such that you distinguish “evolutionary economics” as “non-evolutionary science” because it is not “natural science”? Or are you attempting to “universalize” the meaning of “evolution” into become a “general science”, that functions in an interdisciplinary way across … which “sciences”? It would be helpful for me in dialogue if you could please clarify your view on this, as I have not seen (please direct me to it if there is one) a Catholic teaching from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that shows the science/non-science way on this.

My concern is with evolutionary philosophy and ideological evolutionism, much more than with evolutionary biology, for example, if that helps you to frame the dialogue landscape.

Will respond after digesting your transmission & generation paper.

1371

My point is the opposite in that knowledge of God comes through revelation and not human sources.

Good.

My understanding is base on comments on technology and its application - most of what I say may be read within Gregory of Nyssa the making of man. You may elaborate.

Yes, that’s a good source to turn to for extension thinking. Nyssen though does not use the term “techn-” in that text.

I do not support ID notions. I have come across the three terms you mentioned and have not adopted any of these, mainly because I have been interested in seeking harmony between sound science and Christian doctrine. You may expand your comments on concurrentists for further discussion.

Good to know we’re both non-supporters of ID notions. Ok, will return to concurrentism later. It helps to shut down the ID theory noise coming from the IDM. But more importantly, it helps people to think, and better think towards living in world where “God’s not dead”.

Laws of science debates seem to be ubiquitous while the Law of God as intrinsic to human spirituality and Christian life seems to be viewed within an evolutionary/sociological context, and I reject this, be it inferred or stated explicitly. I have formed this opinion from a wide range of sources and not specific papers.

How about let’s not have a “laws of science” vs. “Law of God” debate? It would really be unfortunate if “Christian life seems to be viewed within an evolutionary/sociological context”. This is why I’ve been suggesting in recent years the need for discussion about “trans-evolutionary change” on the cultural (human) level.

We really need a buffer against “evolutionary religious studies” (ERS) that is not present in the “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation” conversation so far. ERS makes the “kingdom of heaven” into something “contrived” (man-made), not “revealed” (God-created). Defending evolutionary biology to religious believers at the same time by itself does nothing to defend religious belief from ideological evolutionism. The latter concerns me more than the former.

1372

Will leave it to the two physicists to sort this one out regarding “memetics”. I’m siding with Antoine’s version of the “memetics is magic” approach (c.f. “Dawkins’ magical, made-up theory” below), rather that with @mitchellmckain’s “coopting the ideas and terminology of…” atheist biologists.

This is one of the articles I wrote on memetics back in 2013, which offers a view from someone in the “cultural sciences” (if there counts such a thing), the fields in which “cultural replication” belongs and has been historically studied, under non-Dawkinsian meanings. Collective Vision - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Call me crazy, but when I make use of peoples’ theories, I usually try to find the right, most qualified person for the task of constructing them. A biologist with little training in philosophy, and a disdain for theology, doing cultural studies, was bound to be a disaster in proposing a “cultural theory” to begin with. And thus, memetics failed.

At least it would be helpful if the proponent of “memes” in this thread would openly recognise the glaring mismatch in the case of Dawkins’ “cultural theory of mimetics”. Will he?

1373

I am not interested in cultural “sciences,” cultural theory, or memetics and I never said a single thing about them. This guy just read the word coined by Dawkins and jumped up on his own personal soap box. Nor am I interested in Gregory’s issues with the person of Dawkins and his ideology.

These are the facts that I am interested in.

  1. Language is the one demonstrable difference between man and animals. At least we have no good evidence that any of the animals on the Earth have anything of the sort – not that it would bother me in the slightest if we found out that some do.
  2. Human languages have at least the representational capabilities of DNA. This is demonstrable because we can use language to describe everything that DNA does and is capable of.
  3. This means that human language is just as capable of being a medium for the process of life as DNA.
  4. The human mind has much the same characteristics of a living organism - its own needs, and its own inheritance of information passed on to the next generation.

Is the human mind a living organism? This status is not unambiguous. The point is that the capabilities are there. To be sure we can ask whether the human mind does things for its own reasons as a living organism does, OR is the human mind is a slave to its environment, i.e. the body in which it resides. I think we can find examples of both of these in different people. The point is that there is no need for the dualism of Neoplatonism or Descartes, which cannot stand up to either philosophical scrutiny or the objective scientific evidence. But there is sufficient evidence for an effective dualism between mind and body as different (interdependent) physical living organisms. For this purpose the term “meme” coined by Dawkins is useful for contrasting the memetic life of the mind with the genetic life of the body. This is a philosophical metaphysical issue with some bearing on theology and does not have anything to do with any so called “cultural sciences” (not that I care in the slightest).

Gregory is of course free to believe whatever he likes. But the above is what I believe, and Gregory’s likes or dislikes doesn’t means squat when it comes to what I believe. He certainly hasn’t said a single thing with any significant consequence for them.

I reject this as equivalent to panentheism and God as a dreamer of the world, which is all you get if the universe is not an authentic creation which can stand on its own. In response to Mancha I support creation ex nihilo as no problem for the simple fact that modern science dissolves the distinction between thing and action in the concept of energy. God’s action of creation therefore is sufficient to provide the substance of what is created, which I think renders void Mancha’s argument that God’s creation cannot be a natural efficient causality and thus requiring the strong view of providence which again I would equate with panentheism.

1374

Entirely agreed!

And God showed us also what to do to get to a spiritual body:

John 6:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

I wonder whether we may find common ground in the following points:

  1. Christ is true God.

  2. Thus, the body of Christ is the body of God.

  3. The body of Christ is a true human body.

  4. So is our human body in the image of Jesus’ (God’s) body.

  5. Thereby, our human body is a seed capable of becoming the imperishable resurrected body of Christ.