Pope reckons evolution is real

smacl · 29-10-2014 10:52am #1

Pope concedes evolution and big bang theory are real. Way to piss off the creationists :pac:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

drumswan · 29-10-2014 10:53am

He didnt 'concede' anything, thats been the stated position of the catholic church for yonks. A catholic priest came up with the big bang theory in the first place.

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-10-2014 10:54am

smacl wrote: »

Pope concedes evolution and big bang theory are real. Way to piss off the creationists :pac:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

That's a good way to piss of over 40% of Americans

Invasion of the Vatican imminent :eek:

Tar.Aldarion · 29-10-2014 10:55am

That was already the stance of the church (for decades), they've even said we'll probably find life on other planets.

smacl · 29-10-2014 10:57am

drumswan wrote: »

He didnt 'concede' anything, thats been the stated position of the catholic church for yonks. A catholic priest came up with the big bang theory in the first place.

So Catholics reckon the Adam and Eve thing and Noah's ark are a load of cobblers. Learn something new every day.

Custardpi · 29-10-2014 10:57am

Non story. The RC Church has accepted both theories as fact for decades. They believe in a certain amount of divine guidance of the processes involved of course. Actually the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian priest, Le Maitre. Creationism these days is exclusively a Protestant phenomenon.

Tar.Aldarion · 29-10-2014 11:00am

smacl wrote: »

So Catholics reckon the Adam and Eve thing and Noah's ark are a load of cobblers. Learn something new every day.

Yes, the document relating to it evolution is Humani generis by Pop Pius II, written in 1950, guess people are catching up.

The big bang theory was also made by a catholic priest.

BarryD · 29-10-2014 11:07am

Yes, it's odd how we get our perceptions. I was mildly surprised recently when a priest I was chatting to, picked up a chestnut and commented on the millennia that it had taken to evolve to that state.

lazybones32 · 29-10-2014 4:04pm

Meh!...many creationists probably consider him to be an antichrist anyway, so...

Cantremember · 29-10-2014 4:07pm

drumswan wrote: »

He didnt 'concede' anything, thats been the stated position of the catholic church for yonks. A catholic priest came up with the big bang theory in the first place.

Of what significance is the fact that he was an ordained minister in the RCC to his advancement of that? You wouldn't be trying to imply that because a priest proposed the theory then this somehow legitimises revelation to Moses and Abraham and the teachings of the RCC? Hardly. Shame about Galileo.

Cantremember · 29-10-2014 4:11pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes, the document relating to it evolution is Humani generis by Pop Pius II, written in 1950, guess people are catching up.

The big bang theory was also made by a catholic priest.

The account of Adam and Eve has not been superseded or set aside by anyone. It cannot. If is part of a divinely inspired revelation didn't you know. And if there is no original sin then there's no need for the atonement and no need for Jesus expitiatory death and if Christ has not been raised...Catholics need to be very careful with dogma. They might end up realising that the emperor has no clothes.

oldrnwisr · 29-10-2014 6:24pm

drumswan wrote: »

He didnt 'concede' anything, thats been the stated position of the catholic church for yonks. A catholic priest came up with the big bang theory in the first place.

This idea gets repeated time and again on this forum and unfortunately it doesn't get any less wrong each time.

Firstly, since the Pope made comments about evolution and the Big Bang we should separate the Church's position on these two issues.

With regard to evolution, the Catholic Church's position on evolution has not been this way for yonks. It wasn't until 1996 that the church adopted an acceptant position on evolution:

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

The first official church position on evolution in 1859 was strongly negative:

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."

The position was left largely unchanged in 1909, though the language was softened:

"The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 that stated that the literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to "the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race...."."

It wasn't until 1950 and Humani Generis as Tar points out that there was a step change in the church's position. However, Humani Generis doesn't actually support evolution. Rather it recognises the changing opinion of the population at large, while keeping the church's own position neutral:

"The Church does not forbid that ... research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Now as for the Big Bang theory, I fail to see the relevance of Lemaitre's vocation. It seems that every time Big Bang is mentioned in a religious context, people are always rushing to mention that Lemaitre was a catholic priest. There are two things to point out here though.

Firstly, the idea that Lemaitre and he alone proposed the big bang theory belies a situation which is far more complex than most people realise. There are, for my money, getting on for seven people who should all get credit for the big bang theory. Firstly, none of our current cosmology would have gotten off the ground without Einstein's work on developing General Relativity. Secondly, there was Zipher's observation of doppler shift in a spiral galaxy in 1912 although the implications of this were not immediately recognised. The first real pioneer in advancing the possibility of an expanding universe was Alexander Friedmann in 1922. His equations wouldn't be independently derived by Lemaitre for another 5 years. Finally, as much as Lemaitre took the Friedmann equations and moved it forward toward a coherent explanatory framework, the work of Edwin Hubble in 1929 and Robertson and Walker in 1934 actually served to give the Big Bang theory a degree of traction in the scientific community.

Secondly, what does Lemaitre's religion matter? Do we feel the need to point out that Peter Higgs is an atheist or that Chandrasekhara Raman a Hindu or Abdus Salam a Muslim? No, of course not. To mention Lemaitre's religion as if it is somehow relevant is showing some remarkably faulty cause and effect. In fact, it wouldn't be until 1951, that the Catholic Church declared the Big Bang theory to be compatible with church doctrine.

EoghanIRL · 29-10-2014 6:25pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's a good way to piss of over 40% of Americans

Invasion of the Vatican imminent :eek:

But there is no oil in the Vatican is there ? :P

PopePalpatine · 29-10-2014 6:31pm

It would be fun to see Alive!'s response to this. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato · 30-10-2014 2:41am

I'm actually surprised they haven't come out with an 'Imposter Pope' theory yet. Give it a couple of years though...

Wereghost · 30-10-2014 2:57am

smacl wrote: »

So Catholics reckon the Adam and Eve thing and Noah's ark are a load of cobblers. Learn something new every day.

I think they prefer the word "parables".

GerB40 · 30-10-2014 3:00am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's a good way to piss of over 40% of Americans

Invasion of the Vatican imminent :eek:

The Vatican has amazing oil paintings.

(What Americans hear) THE VATICAN HAS OIL!!!

Edit: EoghanIRL got there first. Fair play Eoghan, you can have that one...

SameDiff · 30-10-2014 3:03am

smacl wrote: »

So Catholics reckon the Adam and Eve thing and Noah's ark are a load of cobblers. Learn something new every day.

That must have been so disappointing for you. To try and show up Catholics as ignorant fools and end up showing yourself up as just that.

SameDiff · 30-10-2014 3:05am

Cantremember wrote: »

The account of Adam and Eve has not been superseded or set aside by anyone. It cannot. If is part of a divinely inspired revelation didn't you know. And if there is no original sin then there's no need for the atonement and no need for Jesus expitiatory death and if Christ has not been raised...Catholics need to be very careful with dogma. They might end up realising that the emperor has no clothes.

Nope, still no opportunity here for slagging Catholicism, try elsewhere.

J Mysterio · 30-10-2014 3:46am

Custardpi wrote: »

Non story. The RC Church has accepted both theories as fact for decades. They believe in a certain amount of divine guidance of the processes involved of course. Actually the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian priest, Le Maitre. Creationism these days is exclusively a Protestant phenomenon.

Seems somewhat ironic in a sense, given that Protestantism grew from a schism in the church that railed against obvious untruths, that they now hold to an indefensable in the modern age. Almost could be said that the Catholic church is now the reformer.

smacl · 30-10-2014 8:02am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It would be fun to see Alive!'s response to this. :pac:

I rather like the WWN response;

smacl · 30-10-2014 8:30am

SameDiff wrote: »

That must have been so disappointing for you. To try and show up Catholics as ignorant fools and end up showing yourself up as just that.

I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, nor raised as such, and am admittedly ignorant of the diversity of the many opposing beliefs currently held by different sects. However, going to primary school in the 70s, Adam and Eve, God creating the world, etc... was taught, and it certainly wasn't done so as some defunct mythology that nobody really believes in.

Oh, and not disappointed at all. Always willing to learn something new and become ever so slightly less ignorant about things. Do Catholics still believe in God then?

Peregrinus · 30-10-2014 9:32am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The first official church position on evolution in 1859 was strongly negative:

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."

Well, hold on.

It’s hardly fair to present this as an “official church position on evolution”. What you’re quoting here is the Decree of the First Vatican Council on “the Dogmatic Consitution of the Catholic Faith”. It’s from 1870, not 1859, but I don’t think much turns on that. More to the point, it doesn’t mention evolution at all (or indeed any other particular scientific claim or theory) and there’s nothing in the context to suggest that they had evolution in mind. What this says is that Christian’s can’t support scientific opinions “which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith”. A contentious claim, possibly, but it doesn’t identify any particular scientific opinion. There may well have been individual Catholics who thought that evolution was one of the scientific claims to which this decree applied, but there were certainly others who did not think that, and said so, and were not slapped down. There was never (SFAIK) any authoritative statement that evolution was “contrary to the doctrine of faith”.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The position was left largely unchanged in 1909, though the language was softened:

"The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 that stated that the literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to "the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race...."."

Even on the most extravagant interpretation, this isn’t a general rejection of the theory of evolution; it’s just a claim that humanity is the result of special creation. Nor does it say that the special creation of the human race is inconsistent with the evolution of the human race; there were plenty of Catholic theologians arguing that it was not and, again, they were not slapped down.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the 1909 decree wasn’t seen as being directed against the theory of evolution, but at the then-fashionable theory of polygenism, which argued that the different races descended independently from different species of ape. (And the whiteys, naturally, had evolved first, and from the finest kind of ape, and so were the “most evolved”.)

The truth is, I think, that there were probably many Catholics, and quite possibly a couple of popes, who regarded the theory of evolution with great suspicion. But there were many who took the opposite view. And - having learned, I suspect, something from the Galilleo debacle - the church was not going to make the mistake of singling out a particular scientific position for explicit condemnation.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now as for the Big Bang theory, I fail to see the relevance of Lemaitre's vocation. It seems that every time Big Bang is mentioned in a religious context, people are always rushing to mention that Lemaitre was a catholic priest . . .

I agree with you. It’s hardly relevant at all. Except, in the present context, to this extent; Lemaitre clearly didn’t see any inconsistency between his theory and the Catholic faith. And neither did his superiors. And neither did the authorities in Rome. On the contrary, after he published this theory he was appointed to the Pontifical Acadamy of Sciences, and in due course became President of that body. Knowledge of his vocation and his career trajectory tends to refute the belief that the Catholic church was creationist or biblically-literalist in the way that some American Protestants were, and still are. And, as BarryD shows in post #9, this urban myth isn’t quite dead yet.

jaffusmax · 30-10-2014 9:47am

Sounds like the bible is in dire need of an update. Maybe there is some "prophet" in some cloister by candlelight and quill beavering away ascribing a new revelation from God that incorporates a previously unknown paradigm of evolution and quantum mechanics!

Cantremember · 30-10-2014 12:14pm

SameDiff wrote: »

Nope, still no opportunity here for slagging Catholicism, try elsewhere.

Lol. You actually don't get it.

PopePalpatine · 30-10-2014 1:28pm

Cantremember wrote: »

Lol. You actually don't get it.

I think he wants to "aware" on us. Either that or he doesn't want us sitting in the front of buses.

iDave · 30-10-2014 1:37pm

How long before he realises resurrection is impossible too?

shruikan2553 · 30-10-2014 1:42pm

smacl wrote: »

So Catholics reckon the Adam and Eve thing and Noah's ark are a load of cobblers. Learn something new every day.

They are just metaphors like all the other things proven to be wrong but the rest should all be taken and followed word for word!

oldrnwisr · 30-10-2014 3:58pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, hold on.

It’s hardly fair to present this as an “official church position on evolution”. What you’re quoting here is the Decree of the First Vatican Council on “the Dogmatic Consitution of the Catholic Faith”. It’s from 1870, not 1859, but I don’t think much turns on that. More to the point, it doesn’t mention evolution at all (or indeed any other particular scientific claim or theory) and there’s nothing in the context to suggest that they had evolution in mind.

OK, perhaps "official church position on evolution" is quite badly phrased. However, in so much as the first vatican council doesn't mention evolution, neither does any church position until 1996. What the Council decree does do is fire a shot across the bow of the argument. The decree comes in 1870 (thanks for the correction btw) a decade after the publication of The Origin of Species and while it isn't a coherent position on evolution specifically, it does seem that the church is at least cognisant of the what we would now call media hype surrounding its publication. So it does seem as if the church has used the publication of Origin as a means to reiterate its core teachings.

Furthermore, while it doesn't refer to evolution specifically there are teachings laid out in the document which it is difficult to reconcile with evolution:

"If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema."

Now while the intent of this passage is to argue against the idea that God and the universe are identical, the highlighted portion is something we would expect of a creationist. The idea that God created things in distinct genera and species is contrary to evolution.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even on the most extravagant interpretation, this isn’t a general rejection of the theory of evolution; it’s just a claim that humanity is the result of special creation. Nor does it say that the special creation of the human race is inconsistent with the evolution of the human race; there were plenty of Catholic theologians arguing that it was not and, again, they were not slapped down.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the 1909 decree wasn’t seen as being directed against the theory of evolution, but at the then-fashionable theory of polygenism, which argued that the different races descended independently from different species of ape. (And the whiteys, naturally, had evolved first, and from the finest kind of ape, and so were the “most evolved”.)

OK, let's deal with polygenism first. While the broad definition of polygenism is as you have outlined above, this is not the definition which the church has used as outlined in Humani Generis:

"3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans."

What the church was opposing here was the idea that humans descended from an original group and not a single mating pair (i.e. Adam and Eve). Of course evolution demonstrates exactly that, that we did come from a group and not a single crown pair.

Now, as for the 1909 document, one of its purposes was to outline a number of "historical truths" from Genesis which could not be doubted, namely:

"the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer."

The idea that woman came from man is of course just plain wrong. Its one of the many things that Genesis gets completely ass backwards. However, this is more of an embryological issue than a general evolution one.
The special creation idea however, is something that directly conflicts with evolution, something that we can and have (thanks to Ken Miller) shown to be complete nonsense.

Unfortunately this nonsense persisted right up until Humani Generis and the quote I used above. What caused the step change in the church's position on evolution however is this:

"The question of the origin of man's *body* from pre- existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science."

This at least opens the door and allows the church to take a more measured stance in the future.

The thing is though that the important part of this whole news story is Francis' endorsement of evolution and Benedict's before him. Humani Generis like the documents that went before make specific mention of humans being descended "literally" from Adam as a core truth which cannot be denied. However, evolution has shown that there was no such single ancestor nor were we specially created. This means no original sin and if so, the implications of an endorsement from the catholic church of evolution are huge.

smacl · 30-10-2014 4:44pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The thing is though that the important part of this whole news story is Francis' endorsement of evolution and Benedict's before him. Humani Generis like the documents that went before make specific mention of humans being descended "literally" from Adam as a core truth which cannot be denied. However, evolution has shown that there was no such single ancestor nor were we specially created. This means no original sin and if so, the implications of an endorsement from the catholic church of evolution are huge.

One wonders though whether the catholic church's understanding of evolution would have much in common with that held by the scientific community. From the article;

Benedict XVI and his close advisors have apparently endorsed the idea that intelligent design underpins evolution – the idea that natural selection on its own is insufficient to explain the complexity of the world. In 2005, his close associate Cardinal Schoenborn wrote an article saying “evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process – is not”.

Peregrinus · 31-10-2014 2:57am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

. . . Furthermore, while it doesn't refer to evolution specifically there are teachings laid out in the document which it is difficult to reconcile with evolution:

"If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema."

Now while the intent of this passage is to argue against the idea that God and the universe are identical, the highlighted portion is something we would expect of a creationist. The idea that God created things in distinct genera and species is contrary to evolution.

Hold on. Maybe I am confused here, but isn’t the highlighted opinion being denounced? Isn’t the teaching here that Christians are not supposed to belief that God “establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals”? Isn’t the church denouncing the view which you present as “contrary to evolution”?

Maybe I’ve just tripped over too many double negatives, but it looks to me as if this particular teaching, if not supportive of the theory of evolution, is entirely consistent with it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's deal with polygenism first. While the broad definition of polygenism is as you have outlined above, this is not the definition which the church has used as outlined in Humani Generis:

"3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans."

What the church was opposing here was the idea that humans descended from an original group and not a single mating pair (i.e. Adam and Eve). Of course evolution demonstrates exactly that, that we did come from a group and not a single crown pair.

Again, I am possibly confused. (And possibly ignorant.) Isn’t in the case that evolution proceeds through random genetic mutations? And what distinguishes home sapiens from our pre-human ancestors is particular one or more genetic mutations which have proved evolutionarily advantageous, and have therefore survived and thrived?

OK. Are you saying that the theory of evolution holds that these particular genetic mutations must have happened more than once, in different individuals, and that we must all be descended from two or more of these individuals? That it is impossible that we are all human by virtue of a genetic characteristic that resulted from a mutation occurring only once, in a single individual? If that is what the theory of evolution maintains, it had escaped me up to now.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, as for the 1909 document, one of its purposes was to outline a number of "historical truths" from Genesis which could not be doubted, namely:

"the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer."

The idea that woman came from man is of course just plain wrong . . .

Oh, I’ll grant you that. Sexual dimorphism is plainly much, much older than the human species.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

. . . .The special creation idea however, is something that directly conflicts with evolution, something that we can and have (thanks to Ken Miller) shown to be complete nonsense.

Depends on what you think “special creation” means. It’s plainly not a scientific term, and so quite easy to interpret - if you are so minded - in a manner consistent with scientific findings. What’s “special” about the creation of man, in the Catholic view, is not that he is the only thing created; everything (but God) is created, including things which evolved. The “special” feature is that man is supposed to have an immortal soul. And since even the most enthusiastic Darwinian does not assert the evolution of the human soul - for obvious reasons - assertions about the soul, whatever other objections might be made to them, are not contradicted by the theory of evolution. Or vice versa.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The thing is though that the important part of this whole news story is Francis' endorsement of evolution and Benedict's before him. Humani Generis like the documents that went before make specific mention of humans being descended "literally" from Adam as a core truth which cannot be denied. However, evolution has shown that there was no such single ancestor nor were we specially created. This means no original sin and if so, the implications of an endorsement from the catholic church of evolution are huge.

I take your point. But I think the step is not quite as huge as you say, because I think your belief that the “special creation” of humanity is inconsistent with the evolution of humanity is mistaken. Creation in general is not inconsistent with evolutionary development, and this has long been accepted. Whether “special creation” is inconsistent with evolution depends on what you are claiming is “special” about it.

Brian Shanahan · 31-10-2014 2:43pm

Custardpi wrote: »

Non story. The RC Church has accepted both theories as fact for decades. They believe in a certain amount of divine guidance of the processes involved of course. Actually the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian priest, Le Maitre. Creationism these days is exclusively a Protestant phenomenon.

And this is what Msgr. Lemaitre had to say when the then current pope tried to shoehorn god into science:

As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

From reading this quote and others attributed to him, the good priest-physicist's position is far closer to the deism of the majority of the American founding fathers, than what the rcc would expect of its ministers (viz. a god who is evident in the world and active in his interventions, the classical big beard in the sky).

Peregrinus · 03-11-2014 2:39am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

From reading this quote and others attributed to him, the good priest-physicist's position is far closer to the deism of the majority of the American founding fathers, than what the rcc would expect of its ministers (viz. a god who is evident in the world and active in his interventions, the classical big beard in the sky).

Well, it may seem so you you, Brian. But remember that Lemaitre was very much in favour in Rome - appointment to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in due course appointment as President of that body, various other honours and favourable mentions. It doesn't appear that they saw his theorising as being at odds with "what the rcc would expect of its ministers".

smokingman · 03-11-2014 9:07am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it may seem so you you, Brian. But remember that Lemaitre was very much in favour in Rome - appointment to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in due course appointment as President of that body, various other honours and favourable mentions. It doesn't appear that they saw his theorising as being at odds with "what the rcc would expect of its ministers".

So what of "original sin" then?
Y'know, that thing he's "saving" us from?

Peregrinus · 03-11-2014 10:47am

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you suggesting that Lemaitre's views on the evolution of the universe are inconsisent with the Christian notion of original sin?

Because I don't see that either Lemaitre himself or his religious superiors thought so. Have you spotted something that they have missed?

Mr. CooL ICE · 03-11-2014 2:28pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The idea that woman came from man is of course just plain wrong.

But but but... nipples!

smokingman · 03-11-2014 6:35pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you suggesting that Lemaitre's views on the evolution of the universe are inconsisent with the Christian notion of original sin?

Because I don't see that either Lemaitre himself or his religious superiors thought so. Have you spotted something that they have missed?

I'm simply asking, if Adam and Eve are acknowledged as a metaphor, where does that leave original sin?

branie2 · 03-11-2014 10:45pm

He caused a bit of controversy though by saying that God is not a magician, and cannot do all things

Peregrinus · 04-11-2014 2:09am

smokingman wrote: »

I'm simply asking, if Adam and Eve are acknowledged as a metaphor, where does that leave original sin?

It leaves it as an understanding of the human condition, which is what it always was. Your question implies that you think the Christian doctrine of original sin requires the Adam and Eve story to be taken as factual history, but I don't see why you would think that.

Peregrinus · 04-11-2014 2:11am

branie2 wrote: »

He caused a bit of controversy though by saying that God is not a magician, and cannot do all things

Neither of these things are novel or controversial propositions in Christianity. Can you point to evidence of the controversy that you think he caused?

Hotblack Desiato · 06-11-2014 9:05am

Peregrinus wrote: »

"If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema."

Hold on. Maybe I am confused here, but isn’t the highlighted opinion being denounced? Isn’t the teaching here that Christians are not supposed to belief that God “establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals”? Isn’t the church denouncing the view which you present as “contrary to evolution”?

I take 'self-determination' to mean that life arose spontaneously, or was created in a primitive form, and in either case evolved into complex forms - and that this idea is anathema.

Peregrinus · 06-11-2014 9:24am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I take 'self-determination' to mean that life arose spontaneously, or was created in a primitive form, and in either case evolved into complex forms - and that this idea is anathema.

I don't think so, but I say that with a degree of caution, because of course what's being anethematised here is a scientific or philosophical idea that was current a hundred and fifty years ago, and that I may not grasp very well or be very familiar with, and that it is probably a mistake to map onto current scientific or philosophical ideas.

But, having said all that, I think the idea being condemned is not the scientific notion that life arose spontaneously/was created primitively and then evolved to become more complex, but rather the pantheist theological notion that God is [nothing more than] the force/conditions/scientific law which cause this to happen.

Remember, even by 1870 the church was not fussed about the evolution of life. They had no difficulty with the notion that creation could be effected through evolution, and there was no contradiction in that. Their concerns were focussed on the creation of humanity - a "special creation", remember. And when they talk about distinct genera, species and so forth they are clearly not making a point about humanity in particular, but about life in its totality. So I'd read this not as condemnation of the idea that life evolved from simple to diverse and complex forms, but as condemnation of the pantheist idea that that's what God is.

Mark Hamill · 06-11-2014 1:12pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It leaves it as an understanding of the human condition, which is what it always was. Your question implies that you think the Christian doctrine of original sin requires the Adam and Eve story to be taken as factual history, but I don't see why you would think that.

Because original sin doesn't make any sense if there is no original sin. If Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for how people are (i.e. the human condition) then that means there was no actual act of original sin, we were simply created that way. And that means that God has made us damaged (i.e. with original sin) so he can hold us ransom with the cure (i.e. baptism).

Peregrinus · 07-11-2014 3:00am

In Catholic theology, God has made us with freedom, including the freedom to injure ourselves and others.

And we have in fact acted from time to time so as to injure ourselves and others.

And the effects of those injuries are long-lasting and can be multi-generational. It's not difficult to find examples of multi-generational damage resulting from child abuse, say. It's a truism that many children are born into broken, damaged or hopeless situations; that the odds of their growing up healthy in body and mind are stacked against them from the outset; and that this is the consequence of choices made by others before they were born, and that they in turn, damaged in this way, will pass on that damage to others. We afflict one another with systemic structures of sin that are transmitted through families and through wider communities and societies.

Through our choices, we injure ourselves, and we injure our society and its members, often in ways that we don't intend and can't foresee. That injury is how we experience original sin. I can't remember who it was that said that original sin was the one Christian dogma for which there was abundant and compelling evidence, but he was right.

You can like that account of original sin or you can dislike it, and you can take the view that a God who creates humans with freedom to choose to injure one another creates them damaged. But I think you do have to accept that this account of the link between human freedom and human diminishment doesn't require an actual tree or actual fruit or an actual serpent.

smacl · 07-11-2014 8:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I think you do have to accept that this account of the link between human freedom and human diminishment doesn't require an actual tree or actual fruit or an actual serpent.

Or an actual God for that matter

smacl · 07-11-2014 8:46am

Peregrinus wrote: »

branie2 wrote:

He caused a bit of controversy though by saying that God is not a magician, and cannot do all things

Neither of these things are novel or controversial propositions in Christianity. Can you point to evidence of the controversy that you think he caused?

Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the Christian concept of God was that He was omnipotent and omniscient. By definition doesn't this imply he can do all things?

Peregrinus · 07-11-2014 9:12am

smacl wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the Christian concept of God was that He was omnipotent and omniscient. By definition doesn't this imply he can do all things?

Depends on what you mean by “all things”.

What the Pope actually said was this:

“When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings.”

It’s a truism that God can’t do “all things” in the sense of, e.g. make a triangular circle. This goes back to (at least) Aquinas; God can’t do the meaningless or contradictory. And what the pope is saying here is that divine omnipotence is not such that God can contradict himself. Having created a universe which evolves, he doesn’t simply tap his magic wand and cause something to be other than it would be if he hadn’t tapped his magic wand; he doesn’t, by creation, cut across the evolution which is itself an outworking of creation, because to do so would be to set aside or negate his own creation. He can’t do “all things” in the sense of creating two opposing realities.

Which, as I say, is not a novel or controversial position, theologically.

smacl · 07-11-2014 9:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s a truism that God can’t do “all things” in the sense of, e.g. make a triangular circle. This goes back to (at least) Aquinas; God can’t do the meaningless or contradictory.

Philosophically though, meaning is subjective, a thing is only meaningful or meaningless to a given subject group at a given point in time. Similarly, to be contradictory requires a context, hence the 'mysterious ways' clause popping up so frequently when we see acts of God regularly devastate the apparently innocent.

Oh, and creating a triangular circle is a cinch;

Cut out an elliptical disc
Place an elastic band around the major axis
Fold along the minor axis.
Viewed from above we now see a circle, viewed from the side, a triangle.

Simples

Peregrinus · 07-11-2014 9:54am

smacl wrote: »

Cut out an elliptical disc
Place an elastic band around the major axis
Fold along the minor axis.
Viewed from above we now see a circle, viewed from the side, a triangle.

Simples

We may see a circle, and we may see a triangle, but what we have created is a three-dimensional object, which by definition cannot be either a circle or a triangle.

Therefore, God exists. QED.

smacl · 07-11-2014 10:01am

Peregrinus wrote: »

We may see a circle, and we may see a triangle, but what we have created is a three-dimensional object, which by definition cannot be either a circle or a triangle.

Therefore, God exists. QED.

Not so. A circle and a triangle are both two dimensional objects that exist on the plane. When we see our bent ellipse and band as a circle, it exists as a circle on our plane of vision from one perspective, and as a triangle when viewed from another. Both of these are very real planes, and our object exists as a circle on one of these planes and a triangle on the other.

God on the other hand would appear to be an unsupported abstract

Peregrinus · 07-11-2014 10:07am

smacl wrote: »

Not so. A circle and a triangle are both two dimensional objects that exist on the plane. When we see our bent ellipse and band as a circle, it exists a circle on our plane of vision from one perspective, and as a triangle when viewed from another. Both of these are very real planes, and our object exists as a circle on one of these planes and a triangle on the other.

Well, then, what we have created is a three dimensional object, one of whose cross-sections is circular and another of which is triangular. A cone would also qualify, and has the advantage of having a handy name.

The circular cross-section, however, is not triangular and the triangular cross-section is not circular. There is no cross-section which is both triangular and circular, and the object as a whole is neither a triangle nor a circle. So we still don't have a triangular circle. Hah!

(Why are we even arguing about this?)

Pope reckons evolution is real

Comments