Althouse: News flash: Catholics believe in God.

९ जुलै, २००५

News flash: Catholics believe in God.

It's front-page news, apparently, that the theory of evolution as accepted by the Catholic Church actually envisions a role for God.

११ टिप्पण्या:

Nick म्हणाले...: I saw this at the Starbucks this morning while I was waiting line and I actually started to laugh out loud. Do the people at the NY Times really find this such a shock? They sure wrote the article as if they did.

Why do all articles like this after to be written as if its breaking news?; ९/७/०५, १२:३९ PM
P_J म्हणाले...: Two related problems with typical science reporting are the lazy and inaccurate use of terms and a resultant confusion of categories. The article uses "evolution" to mean both natural selection (an observable biological process) and atheistic materialism (a philosophical worldview). Christians are are then criticized and ridiculed for rejecting "evolution" when what most question is really materialism, a worldview incompatible with their own.

The problem isn't just with the NYT or the left. Does anybody seriously try to portray fairly what other people believe?; ९/७/०५, १:०७ PM
P_J म्हणाले...: gs,

I don't have access to the OpEd piece. What is it in the Cardinal's manner of rejecting atheistic materialism that troubles you?; ९/७/०५, २:३९ PM
Roger Sweeny म्हणाले...: Pastor Jeff,

I was able to get both articles by registering. If you can't, send me an email and I'll send you a copy.
RogerSweeny@yahoo.com; ९/७/०५, ९:३४ PM
Roger Sweeny म्हणाले...: I think there really is something important going on here, a lot more than "Catholics believe in God." Alex Tabarrok brought up something similar at Marginal Revolution last June 20.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/06/theism_versus_e.html

Thiests believe there is a God who created the universe. But they also believe that it is possible to have a personal relationship with that God. Among other things, God listens to and answers prayers, though He/She often doesn't give you the answer you want. God can be a presence in any person's life. But it is very hard to believe that and also believe that God let everything evolve to the way it is today.

It IS possible and the story would go something like this: Thirteen billion years God created the universe in the Big Bang and established its laws. But then for the next 12 billion, 999 million, and several hundred thousand years, He/She stood on the sidelines and waited. Then, when humanoids became sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently conscious, He/She infused them with souls and began to take an active interest in them. He/She communicated with them and changed their lives, indeed changed the history of the human race. He/She continues to do this today, but in ways that it is impossible for humans to predict ("The Lord works in mysterious ways.")

Tabarrok thinks that while this is logically possible, it is nonsensical: "It makes no sense to assume a god that intervenes to answer prayer but who never has done any genetic engineering." Cardinal Schoenborn seems to agree. While fundamentalist Protestant churches have often had problems accepting evolution, the Catholic Church is usually considered to have accepted it. But the Cardinal seems to have the same problem Tabarrok has. No, he says, God has not absented Himself all those years; He has indeed done genetic engineering all along the way.; ९/७/०५, ९:४९ PM
Michael Stiber म्हणाले...: To access NY Times articles without registering, go to the New York Times Link Generator. They also have a "bookmarklet" you can drag to your browser's bookmark bar to click on when the NYT asks for registration.

It IS possible and the story would go something like this: Thirteen billion years God created the universe in the Big Bang and established its laws. But then for the next 12 billion, 999 million, and several hundred thousand years, He/She stood on the sidelines and waited. Then, when humanoids became sufficiently intelligent...

Kinda like making a bank shot in pool, right? But, of course, much more difficult. In fact, you'd probably have to be all-powerful and maybe all-knowing to do that...; १०/७/०५, ६:४५ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...: Michael: My link is already a "link generator" link. I always use it for my links when it works (which is not always).; १०/७/०५, ६:५२ PM
Roger Sweeny म्हणाले...: I fear I have not done Tabarrok's idea justice, so let me try again, Tabarrok distinguishes between deists and theists.

Deists believe that there is something that is somehow responsible for the universe. But it doesn't have anything to do with the day-to-day happenings in that universe.

Theists believe in a capital-G God who is very concerned about what happens every day. God can light the way to the path your life should take. God can be comforter, and an "ever-present help in times of trouble." God listens to and answers prayer.

So people say that God created the universe and its laws and then let history unfold. He/She did not interfere. But recently (almost certainly since the time of Abraham, perhaps earlier), God has intervened a lot, and in fact is now available to anyone who will open his/her heart to Him/Her.

Tabarrok says that such people are deists for 99.99-plus percent of the history of the universe, and theists for the remainder. He finds this incongruous. So does Cardinal Schoenborn.; १०/७/०५, ७:५१ PM
Roger Sweeny म्हणाले...: Next to last paragraph should begin "Some people." Sorry.; १०/७/०५, ७:५४ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...: Slocum: I imagine there are about ten theological answers to your question, e.g.:

--billions of years are a snap of the fingers to God,

--who are you to dare to contemplate the motivations of God?

--He wanted to create a world in which people would not be able to discern that He had created it, so that faith would be necessary to know Him.; ११/७/०५, ७:४० AM
P_J म्हणाले...: Slocum,
While man is the highest of God's creation, we are not the center. Creation doesn't exist for us, but God. The Bible is full of reminders that God is glorified by all creation. The rest of creation is hardly "of no consequence." Little time is required for God to do anything, but that doesn't mean it's the best way - and we see that pattern repeated over and over in the Bible.

gs,
I'm not at all sure that the Catholic Church "opposes modern biology" because they oppose atheistic materialism. That seems like a non sequitur. If you're speaking about embryonic stem cell research, I think precisely what the Catholic Church is trying to do is help create a society of ethics and human rights - especially rights for what the Church sees as the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human community. I share their concern, especially in the face of attitudes that seem to say "Damn the ethical concerns, full research ahead."; ११/७/०५, १:४५ PM