Pope reckons evolution is real

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".

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?

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?

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 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 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).

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 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 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?)

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

That is an elegant explanation for what original sin should be an allegory for, but that's not what is expressed by the story of Adam and Eve and what the church generally tries to hammer into people.

Your perspective seems to be that original sin is the ongoing self-destructive nature of humanity as a whole, driven by the various flaws that come with free-will. Presumably in your view infants aren't born actually guilty of any sin, they are merely born into humanity with all the potential to fall afoul of the flaws of human nature. Baptism, then, is more a symbolic cleansing of an individual of inherent negative parts of human nature, than actually a forgiving of an infant for being human.

The common church perspective is that original sin was a specific act that happened in the past, that all current sins originate from and that each individual is guilty of from birth. Even accepting Adam and Eve as allegory, it's underlying plot points are that original sin was something humanity was tricked into by an outside source and that the sin was knowing what we doing was a sin (and that the current ongoing sins are a result of being kicked out of Eden, rather than an effect of knowing what sin is). While the tree, fruit and serpent may only be allegory, they are allegory for something.

Your perspective (which makes original sin an inherent something for humanity to rise above) makes much more sense than the churches perspective (which makes original sin a historic something for humanity to beg for forgiveness for) but I don't really think they are the same thing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is an elegant explanation for what original sin should be an allegory for, but that's not what is expressed by the story of Adam and Eve and what the church generally tries to hammer into people.

Your perspective seems to be that original sin is the ongoing self-destructive nature of humanity as a whole, driven by the various flaws that come with free-will. Presumably in your view infants aren't born actually guilty of any sin, they are merely born into humanity with all the potential to fall afoul of the flaws of human nature. Baptism, then, is more a symbolic cleansing of an individual of inherent negative parts of human nature, than actually a forgiving of an infant for being human.

The common church perspective is that original sin was a specific act that happened in the past, that all current sins originate from and that each individual is guilty of from birth. Even accepting Adam and Eve as allegory, it's underlying plot points are that original sin was something humanity was tricked into by an outside source and that the sin was knowing what we doing was a sin (and that the current ongoing sins are a result of being kicked out of Eden, rather than an effect of knowing what sin is). While the tree, fruit and serpent may only be allegory, they are allegory for something.

Your perspective (which makes original sin an inherent something for humanity to rise above) makes much more sense than the churches perspective (which makes original sin a historic something for humanity to beg for forgiveness for) but I don't really think they are the same thing.

Well, yes. And no.
You’re focussing on a legalist conception of sin - the commandments are laws; sin is breaking one of the laws; god is a judge who renders judgment for your breach of the law; damnation (or purgatory, or whatever) is a penalty imposed for the breach of the law. And so forth.
And of course you didn’t come up with that conception yourself; you’ll find it reflected in plenty of Christian (and, with appropriate variations, other religious) sources.
But it’s not a complete account of the concept of sin; there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between sin, etc, and crime, etc. There never has been. You can only push this analogy so far.
In particular, it pretty much breaks down when you try to apply it to something like original sin, as you correctly point out. We can just about see, if we want to, some king of cosmic justice in me bearing the consequences of my own sin. We can also see, as a horrible reality, that I might have to bear the consequences of someone else’s sin - in fact we see this happening daily. But the notion that I’m “guilty” of someone else’s sin - someone who died before I was born - that I am at fault, can’t be reconciled with any idea of justice. And that’s where the crime analogy, and the associated language, ceases to be useful or meaningful.
Augustine was happy to use the “guilt” language in connection with original sin, but that’s certainly not the current position. In fact the Catechism explicitly states that “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice . . .” (Para 405). And if you’re looking for analogical language to discuss the issue, nowadays you are far more likely to find Catholic and Christian voices useing, not the language of criminal law, but the language of of medicine; sin, and in particular original sin, is not presented as inherited guilt but as weakness or infirmity that characterises - and damages - the human condition.
And, for the record, the Catechism denies that the Adam and Eve story needs to be understood literally in order to sustain the Catholic understanding of original sin. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event” - para 390. The “primeval event” is the abuse of human freedom, which of course in historical terms can’t have occurred until the species had evolved to a point in which free choice was a possibility.