Now we arrive at the heart of my argument, or at least what I hope will be the heart of my argument.
The greatest problem in the Church, and especially in theology, is that it refuses to evolve. I don't mean to suggest the Church ought to radically alter its stance or go the way of popular opinion. The Church does need to have a position, and it needs to be an anchor of sorts for Christians. Truth, as we understand it, does not change, which is something the Church very much holds on to.
But therein lies the problem. I don't mean we need to take a "survival of the fittest" approach to intellectual or spiritual ventures, but we need to be flexible. It is incredibly arrogant to assume that we know all truth, in the first place, and in the second, if we actually wish to learn the truth, we must be open to it. As society is evolving, so is our understanding of the world. Something like the concept of "two natures, one person" or "three persons, one nature" may have made sense to ancient Christians, but it means nothing to us today, while on the other hand we have a much more expansive understanding of the universe than did first-century Christians.
Of course here we have an obvious conflict. On one hand, Christianity must be based in something, in a faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior that has existed for nearly 2000 years. On the other hand, we cannot hold onto this faith blindly and dismiss all other facts about the world we live in. Some men and women, especially in the sciences, hold these two things in tension somehow, but there is something truly disingenuous about believing on Sunday that the world was built in seven days only a few thousand years ago and believing the rest of the week that the universe is billions of years old.
It is my opinion that Christianity needs to do two things: First, it needs to re-evaluate its tenets of faith and decide which doctrines and dogmas are really necessary to be "Christian" and which are merely appendages. This should be done with real seriousness and an attempt to root out any dogma that stands as purely polemic. Second, Christianity needs to find a way to incorporate our new understanding of truth in a way that is meaningful and life-giving.
I think most Christian dogmas are appendages. Even the Chalcedonian Creed (Nicaean Creed) has superfluous material in it, including "consubstantial with the Father." We need a bare-bones set of doctrines which will probably include the Incarnation, the moral truth of the Bible, the virgin birth, and probably a few other things. We will have to work hard to take out needless dogmas like the infallibility of the pope or even apostolic succession.
Then, we will have the more difficult task of integrating our newer understandings of the world into this faith. Of course faith includes things such as miracles, so understanding biology does not negate God's ability to be made flesh through a virgin. However, we can understand the universe as created by God over time, and the creation of humans as being a process of evolution. We can understand our biological drives and instincts as natural and God-given while insisting that Christians need to live to a higher standard of living.
Better yet, we can finally fully integrate a notion of God's created goodness that requires our care in environmental ethics. We can understand that sex not simply biological, but also psychological and spiritual. We can understand our place in the universe as unique, since we are the only intelligent beings we are aware of within the vastness of the universe.
We need to evolve as a faith. At this time in our history, the main focus of Christian leaders seems to be in disagreeing with each other over whether we're persecuting the marginalized enough, following the naturalistic fallacy enough, or reciting the awkward English translation of a Latin rite correctly. The aspects of our faith that were supposed to be nurturing and life-giving have become a source of conflict, and the main Christian theme of meekness and humility is nowhere to be seen. Nuns are being condemned for performing the works of mercy, bishops are preaching against the right for two people to marry and nobody is taking responsibility for the real sin of child abuse. There is very little that is Christian going on within the Catholic Church, and many Protestant churches are just as bad.
Imagine, then, if we admitted that the beatitudes are more important than Augustine's "Let Nuns Go Out in Groups of Three," or that the love command had priority over Row v Wade. It seems that Christianity is either maintaining a neutral or a negative influence on society--there is not much done in terms of love or mercy or kindness, but much done in the way of argumentation and strife. Jesus commands us to build up the Kingdom of God, but at this time, it seems like the Kingdom will have to wait for Jesus' return. As long as we are stuck in the old dogmas of the past, we cannot embrace the true essence of Christianity.
But, dear reader, don't believe that this is only a case of the corrupt hierarchy vs the enlightened faithful. If I have learned anything over the last two years while studying theology, it is that theologians are often times the least Christian people in the Church. I am probably as guilty of this as any, but I have noticed so many times that professors who teach theology are often less inclined to be merciful and more inclined to try to force your own belief than any other professor.
With this I leave you with my own conundrum, which I believe is relevant to all the faithful (though I say that with a sense of the irony of such a proud statement). I am to be starting my PhD in ethics in a few months. At this point in my life, however, I am not sure if I want to be involved in the largely un-Christian enterprise that is studying theology. I am afraid that I will lose faith as I continue to study and find fewer and fewer true Christians as colleagues. I am afraid that I will become discouraged and bitter, and that I will become obsessed with asserting my own voice over finding the truth. Indeed, I can see that I do that now. But this is much like the task required of Christians in helping the Church evolve. It may be easier to maintain one's true Christian identity by avoiding the arguments and disputes that surround Christianity today, but at the same time, the Church needs people who are willing to stand as voices.
I do not offer you a solution to this problem here. I merely pose it to you, the reader. Do you stay in the Church to make a difference while risking the corrosive effects of intellectual and spiritual battle with your fellow Christians, or do you abandon the Church in order to avoid the seemingly unimportant conflict and miss an opportunity to make a difference for the better?
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Unanswered Questions
So Alexa and I had a long discussion today which involved several different things. However, there is really one which I would like to expound more. Anybody who has paid much attention to controversial issues of the day knows that a chief topic is Creationism versus Evolution.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Being a Christian in today's world
So I've realized that I write a lot about what it means to be Christian and how different it is from what we normally view as Christianity.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Augustine contra Darwin
In a 1996 talk entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," Pope John Paul II announced to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that evolution does not contradict Christianity. In this talk, the point of human kind's separateness and likeness to God is emphasized.
Of course, innate in this line of thinking is an idea that humankind, though not necessarily coming from two beings in the Garden of Eden whose names were "Adam" and "Eve," is the idea that we descended from some origin divinely set apart by God.
This contradicts a lot of evolutionary theory that depicts the mutations that caused evolution to be random and the selection of traits to be natural. In this case, God has fore-ordained which traits would be passed down to the human species that would make us in His likeness and image.
Now, this kind of thinking does not sit very well with traditional Biblical thinking. Pope John Paul II emphasized that the evolution theories don't depict well the innate spiritual qualities of man nor do they talk about our being the end of God's creation.
So we begin to see where the two don't function very well together. With an Augustinian view of natural sin, how can this correspond in a human history that has no root in the Garden? If we descended from Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals, how is it that we are the only creations created in God's image and likeness?
Furthermore, we begin to see problems like what John Paull II mentions. How do Athanasius' and Anselm's views on the Word made Flesh correspond to a human kind that does not derive its humanity from God? How can Christ take on our sins and become one of us if all we are is a process of random mutations?
I offer no solutions to this problem. I do offer this, however: in the Muslim Empire from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, science was never seen to contradict faith. If one thought they were in opposition, then it was clear to that person that either his scientific discovery was off, or his faith was not correct. In this case, it is clear that this applies to us. If God is the God of nature and the cosmos, than no scientific law or truth can contradict what God has made so. Thus, if evolution is the way that scientists say it is, then this does not disprove God, only what we think of God.
Of course, innate in this line of thinking is an idea that humankind, though not necessarily coming from two beings in the Garden of Eden whose names were "Adam" and "Eve," is the idea that we descended from some origin divinely set apart by God.
This contradicts a lot of evolutionary theory that depicts the mutations that caused evolution to be random and the selection of traits to be natural. In this case, God has fore-ordained which traits would be passed down to the human species that would make us in His likeness and image.
Now, this kind of thinking does not sit very well with traditional Biblical thinking. Pope John Paul II emphasized that the evolution theories don't depict well the innate spiritual qualities of man nor do they talk about our being the end of God's creation.
So we begin to see where the two don't function very well together. With an Augustinian view of natural sin, how can this correspond in a human history that has no root in the Garden? If we descended from Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals, how is it that we are the only creations created in God's image and likeness?
Furthermore, we begin to see problems like what John Paull II mentions. How do Athanasius' and Anselm's views on the Word made Flesh correspond to a human kind that does not derive its humanity from God? How can Christ take on our sins and become one of us if all we are is a process of random mutations?
I offer no solutions to this problem. I do offer this, however: in the Muslim Empire from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, science was never seen to contradict faith. If one thought they were in opposition, then it was clear to that person that either his scientific discovery was off, or his faith was not correct. In this case, it is clear that this applies to us. If God is the God of nature and the cosmos, than no scientific law or truth can contradict what God has made so. Thus, if evolution is the way that scientists say it is, then this does not disprove God, only what we think of God.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Ex nihilo ad Omnium
Please excuse my Latin.
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
