An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support - John BuchanLast week we had a priest friend over. He is the first cleric to cross our door since moving here but he was in secular dress and the children were none the wiser. Had they asked what he did I would have told them but they didn’t. Had they wanted to discuss religion with him they would have been free to. But he and I had other fat to chew and they didn’t bother. Had I been called away on some unforeseen business I would have said to him, ‘mind the kids till I get back.’ Were he to have discussed religion with them while I was away it would not have mattered. He and they are free to discuss what they want. We don’t hide behind closed doors and drawn curtains, keeping the religious at bay. Our secular household is not filled with non-spiritual angst but is quite relaxed.
Nevertheless, I have sought to protect my children from religion. I consider it a virus which I do not want polluting their lives. They don’t attend mass, make communion, or engage in any of the rituals that are meant to groom them for Catholicism. The five year old has no clue. Heaven would only interest him if there were cars in it. Conversely, my nine year old is quite adamant about her non-belief. Her friend once told her that people who don’t believe in god die. Her response was simple; she had not believed in god since she was born and she was nine now and was still alive. What, if anything, her young superstitious friend thought about that he did not say.
One day in town we were shopping for a DVD. I picked one up about the pope for a laugh and suggested she take that home for the evening’s viewing. She shouted at me ‘I hate religion.’ A woman looked on as if she had just witnessed a lewd act. I stood ready to bark if she as much as opened her holier than thou gob. She remained silent. A good example for preachers to follow.
I tell my daughter that she is free to do what she wishes in terms of her beliefs. If she opts for religion at a later stage it will her own choice and I will not stand in her way. She knows that if she joined the Church, discrimination on misogynous grounds would bar her from becoming a priest and she would be expected to become an anti-gay bigot and oppose the use of condoms even where they might save lives. She would have to pretend that some man in the Vatican is infallible but no women are. But she is in charge of her own beliefs. She likes science documentaries about the beginning of the universe and forever asks questions about causes behind effects. She has difficulty in comprehending the finality of death but I don’t bluff her with afterlife fairytales. I tell her I am so glad that I am able to die as the only things that don’t die are those that never lived. And had I not lived I would never have experienced my wonderful journey through life with her. She is not convinced but in time she shall understand.
But is she an atheist child? I don’t like children being labelled with the belief of their parents. As Richard Dawkins points out there should be no Catholic children or Marxist children. Irish Children or British children yes, but not the other types. She is just a child with no religious belief. I would not call her an atheist.
It is as good a start as I can give her. It is much better than her falling for the old saw about a man living with his mother until he was 33, all the time believing she was a virgin and she believing he was god. Whatever she believes I trust she never comes to believe anything as screwed up as that.
Great post !!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Dawkins - there should no such thing as an 'atheist, catholic, muslim etc child' unfortunately that's not the way our world is . . . . I've never been one for religion and raising my daughter in any specific sect she did attend catholic schools in Belfast . . . but she was also raised to question whatever she wished to . . . . at almost 15 she has no structured religious belief like all teenagers she is rebellious of anything that wishes to claim authority over her behaviour (at times including her parents) this has had no impact on her moral fibre - she is intelligent, independent,confident, open minded and ever questionning the world around her rather than accepting anything at the 'status quo'.
I,ve said it many times before Anthony but I do agree with you mo cara, I look at life as if its a brilliant book which we are reading ,we wont know how it ends untill we get there,I think thats the way it should be!
ReplyDeleteFor someone who believes God isn't there, He seems to occupy an awful lot of your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI came across these words recently referring to a survey, (in the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life), on another blog. Just wondered if you had any thoughts on the subject?
"The survey showed that atheists are more preoccupied with God than the average uncommitted church-goer. For them, it's not a one-hour once-a-week thing. It's 24/7. Atheists think, write, talk, and text about God. They put up billboards, make DVD's, and write books about God. They religiously gather together and confirm each other's beliefs about how God doesn’t exist."
"It's a kind of infatuation that could even be termed "religious zeal" by psychology. This preoccupation with what they believe is non-existent, exists because atheists have nothing to do. They have no purpose in existence, and this gives them one. If God didn't exist, neither would they."
Sam Harris insists in 'The End of Faith' that if only all parents were honest with their children, that belief would vanish. I am not sure, for many parents are convinced of what reason cannot explain. Many of us have a yearning we foster, or which is fostered in us at a very young age if like myself we are raised within a devout family, for the ineffable.
ReplyDeleteWith more secularism, I wonder if this attitude will rapidly fade in the coming generations. I am soon going to read Olivier Roy's 'Holy Ignorance' which sees current fundamentalism as a last gasp before this global dawn of reason.
Many believers may aver along with their purported foe Daniel Dennett how we're hard-wired to entertain 'just-so stories', but your calm explication of how you're raising your children confidently is a harbinger of Harris' hopes. What I admire about you among other qualities, AM, is how you stay informed about religious ideas rather than rubbishing them; a look at your bookshelves attests to this 'catholicity'; too many who oppose religious domination fail to stay informed of what they are debating with, and with whom.
I try to read widely, pro and con, as it keeps my mind nimble and prepares me to stay open-minded with my students who often come from considerably more traditional mindsets. Or, many now are raised with no religious insight, or with stupid stereotypes, and they do not understand the wisdom within the legacy of our culture that many ignore today, the complexity of what we believe or what we defy.
Tolerance, not in the name of wishy-washy 'diversity' but desperately needed civility, models well for the future. Despite the fervent wishes of Dawkins & Hitchens & Harris, there's a long time and billions out there to talk to before the new Enlightenment will dawn!
Leaving the choices up to those we raise, as moral individuals worthy of their own judgment, attests to the wisdom (underneath the tantrums) of your two wee ones!
John,
ReplyDeleteI don't think atheists are preoccupied with god at all. I think some of them are preoccupied with exposing the fallacy of an invisible man being used by visible men and women to impose their religious opinion on others. God does not occupy a single moment of my time. That is like saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Thor occupies a lot of my time. The non-god occupies a bit of my time!
Aine,
ReplyDeleteabsolutely right. She was always an intelligent child. I wonder where she gets the rebelliousness side of her nature from!!!
Marty,
ReplyDeleteglad you liked it. But now we will be getting called each others yes men!!! John will be throwing the holy water at us!! We'll hardly mind. Unlike a lot of them he has a sense of humour.
Anthony I,d rather be a yes man to someone talking sense,than a psf nodding dog,(there got them in again shimbo}and if any water is being chucked try and organise that its falling down stuff!
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteThis I believe is a strange irony. I have had more religion on the Pensive Quill over the last month than I have had in my local parish over a considerable number of years.
I am beginning to think that the PQ is one of the last bastions of religion.
My parish priest, who never visits us, in contravention of Canon Law, only ever chats about Gaelic Football, television sit-coms, and a 'dumded-down' form of 'let's all be nice and everything will be alright.'
The 'I hate religion' quote was apt in light of a previous discussion. It reminded me of a close relative of mine who turned atheist and is so full of hate he cut us off altogether. The last I looked he was posting Calvary scenes on Facebook of Santa being crucified in place of Christ.
If we could get people with such passion back to the Catholic Church, Ireland would again be a Land of Saints and Scholars.
Mackers,
ReplyDelete'Unlike a lot of them' sounds as if religous believers are some sort of alien species.
Aine,
I came from a very religious and very rebellious family on both sides.
I don't think we were stifled by religion and I certainly don't believe it meant we accepted the status quo. If we did the state certainly had a strange way of repaying our acceptance.
My son was reared as a Catholic, he is now an non-believer, however, that does not mean he engages in innuendo or scathing comments about anyone elses beliefs.
John,
ReplyDelete'I am beginning to think that the PQ is one of the last bastions of religion.'
Still laughing at the thought of that. My wife agrees with you!
The hate thing is always bad. Funny enough, the one word my daughter was prohibited from using when younger was 'hate.' But they get to the stage when it is pointless policing it. My wife does not like her saying she hates religion or god. She teaches her tolerance and tries to instill respect in her for the fact that other people hold different views.
I have mixed views about passion. I half agree but at the same time think it produces fanaticism and fundamentalism.
Marty,
and there was me hoping we could have pacified Shim and you go and ruin it! But it is what we do. That would be worse than a month off the drink
Nuala,
ReplyDeletewhat did aliens ever do to liken them with religious types?!!!
AM, with your equally wide reading about the Soviets, this may be a good test case. If seventy-odd years tried to erase within the masses the need for a deity, the expectations were kept alive by a theory as intricate as the Christian, intertwined with the cult of the dead and living Leader.
ReplyDeleteBut, after a while, if not out of fear of being persecuted, did the need to believe atrophy among families and in schools? Or, was faith always suppressed from above? Was religion always feared? Did it erupt on its own otherwise, clandestinely? If a people are cut off from exposure to belief, will they still 'catch it' as we do the common cold? After all, the flu mutates...
Has belief made a comeback among most Russians, or have they've kept their atheist mindset instilled? I know Stalin saw it wise to keep the Orthodox entangled in his machinations, as did the Chinese with their anti-Vatican Catholic church. So, even under Marxist regimes, the religious element remained evident. It may have been more for cultural reasons, but it seems not to have been able to have been erased.
Maybe it eventually morphs into 'custom' or 'folklore' as we regard Thor today...? The reversion to paganism among a few in the West, a conscious reconstruction of what people want to believe, from highly technical and educated folks, speaks to another direction away from monotheism that some longing for a way of life that opens them to meaning beyond the material may invent. As others create Spaghetti Monsters online.
A last question: has secularism kicked in and stayed put somewhere? Scandinavia comes to mind. Where churches now are as we regard Maypoles and Halloween. But they too have their pagan revivals. (P.S. I like your cartoon-- I chose it for my blog entry on this endlessly interesting topic a while back as well.)
Fionnchu,
ReplyDeletereposting due to silly typo.
I don't know if Harris is right. I don't think he is actually. I don't think Oliver Roy is right either. I think religion will stay with us much as the common cold. Current fundamentalism has always been around. Was there ever a time when it was not 'current'?
There is much to be said for Dan Dennett's view. Although my favourite from him was when he almost died a few years back some friends told him they had prayed for him and he said 'did you not sacrifice a goat?'
My kids are as good or as bad as the next parent. They fight incessantly as you might recall. But they don't fight because there is no god in their lives. I have few qualities Fionnchu! And I don't like being reminded of them in case I have to live up to them! As you say there is a wide range of books in this house. In 'your room' the library is teeming with a wide range of subjects and there are many religious authors. I read lots of theology in my twenties but not so much in recent times. Still, I like to remain abreast of some of the issues. The Creationist disputes have interested me for quite a few years although most of my watching it has been was on the American screen. For that reason I am somewhat familiar with the history of the Intelligent Design phenomenon. I recently finished the Goldberg book and the Forrest/Gross one. One of my favourite movies is Inherit The Wind. My wife got me to watch that.
Most religious service's talk about
ReplyDeletethe devil- the bible's are full of the devil and its devilment
is this the true meaning of religion and its leaders- that they
have a obsession with the devil
were those who wrote the bibles
obsessed with the devil did satan tell them to add a wee bit there or take that bit out
At the start of Doctor Zhivago on the translators note it is said that he found it very hard to
translate the russian meaning into
english-he thought that the englsh
version did not convey the whole
story- perhaps some or most of the bibles were lost in translation.
Or just man made Mickeyboy
ReplyDeleteAM
ReplyDeleteI have read the post a few times and am trying to work out what message or advice or whatever you are trying to convey to the reader really is . I must admit that my first thoughts were that to be a non believer of religion was like some badge of honour , to allow your kids to roam freely through the world of religion without supervision could be a very dangerous path especially if they get caught up in the world of cults . Children can be very impressionable and if caught by the wrong people can be lead into a very strange world . I as an adult find religion very dangerous in the hands of the wrong people so what chance has a child , I tried from an early age to teach my kids about the different religions out there and then let them make their own decisions later in life . To ignore this very strange subject would in my opinion be on a par with ignoring part of their education
@ Anthony & John McGirr alaughin me guts out here
ReplyDeleteAnthony God Squad
Re John McGirr
'For someone who believes God isn't there, He seems to occupy an awful lot of your thoughts.'
_________________________________
NB John McGirr is right imo Too funny!
_________________________________
In a strange way atheists do obsess but not John with working out the whys and wherefores but with how to expose what they believe to be fallacies.
In doing so atheists often pull up some right worthy stuff and can be dead on right at times with their analysis.
Plus they do much for social justice issues where there is religious corruption... I think Anthony is frank/honest and very witty at times. Beats church stuff hands down does it not. Go on u know it does. O and i believe in Jesus aka Jah Yeshua The Great I AM The Christ BUT not a jot of belief have i for the flamin' maggoty Vatican aka BABYLON.
And John Ireland and the Catholic Church? Cop on baby It is OVER so OVER. Ireland the land of saints and scholars? Nah! Ireland the land of suckers & sqaulor is more the like... The terrible grip of a religion on a culture and people... The subjugation - It is over! Babylon is exposed naked in her filth...
Anthony I think kids should be protected from religion and factions but i also think be careful u ain't infusing the kids with too much cynicism
(methinks Anthony dont realise kids see Mother Nature and instinctively know there is something mystical and wonderful and what is it...)
Hi marty & fionnuala!
Fionnuala,
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear than religion didn't stifle your development !! But I firmly believe that it has stifled the progression of people's lives all over this globe. eg. We have an AIDS epidemic that could be significantly decresed through the use of appropriate protection. . . issues like this lead me to think that religion is a controlling and manipulative force. Or the fact that Abortion is illegal in Ireland, this mostly a religious issue.
Would you have questionned this theme's as a teen? or would you have went with the church's teaching on the subjects?
Interested,
ReplyDelete‘I have read the post a few times and am trying to work out what message or advice or whatever you are trying to convey to the reader really is.’
It was not a controlled piece of writing aimed at influencing any particular readership. There was a clear statement that priests are not something to be tarred with the one brush. My mate who was visiting doesn’t cause me the slightest discomfort. I would trust him to be in charge of the kids without a second thought. He is just a guy who happens to be a priest. He could as easily have been a footballer.
‘my first thoughts were that to be a non believer of religion was like some badge of honour.’
Not so. It is no more a badge of honour than religion is a badge of dishonour. Much rather the believer Helder Camara than the atheist Lavrentiy Beria.
‘to allow your kids to roam freely through the world of religion without supervision could be a very dangerous path especially if they get caught up in the world of cults.’
But you could say that about parks – they go and you tell them to keep out of the bushes. Yet there is something in it that will cause me at some point to revisit the concept.
‘Children can be very impressionable and if caught by the wrong people can be lead into a very strange world.’
But that world need not be religious to be strange.
‘I tried from an early age to teach my kids about the different religions out there and then let them make their own decisions later in life.’
The difference is that I don’t teach my kids about them but will allow them to make their own decisions later in life. There is no one way or right way to handle these matters with kids. I protect mine without being overzealous.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete‘Still laughing at the thought of that. My wife agrees with you!’
I’m glad that thought amused you and that I have support.
‘The hate thing is always bad.’
I absolutely concur with that. We should never hate the person. In any case this week’s atheist may be next week’s Saint, or vice versa.
‘But they get to the stage when it is pointless policing it.’
We can only do our best, I’ve raised and am raising a few myself, and one thing is sure, they will decide themselves in the end what they believe in.
‘I have mixed views about passion. I half agree but at the same time think it produces fanaticism and fundamentalism.’
I think fanaticism is not always bad, it is how it is directed. I’d share your views on ‘fundamentalism’ but suspect you might describe me as one, so it would depend on definitions.
Michaelhenry,
‘Most religious service's talk about
the devil- the bible's are full of the devil and its devilment’
It is rare to hear the devil spoken of these days in my experience. I think this is regrettable because if we lose sight of evil we are more enticed to it.
St?MaryHedgehog,
‘I think Anthony is frank/honest and very witty at times. Beats church stuff hands down does it not. Go on u know it does.’
There is much truth in this. I think Anthony would make an excellent ‘man of the cloth’.
‘O and i believe in Jesus aka Jah Yeshua The Great I AM The Christ BUT not a jot of belief have i for the flamin' maggoty Vatican aka BABYLON.’
But we get our knowledge of Jesus Christ from that source.
‘Ireland the land of saints and scholars? Nah! Ireland the land of suckers & sqaulor is more the like...’
Some years ago, I read the Life of Saint Malachy by Saint Bernard. In it he describes a land that was so subject to abuse and wickedness you would think it applied to now. There is always a way out and the potential to true reform. We are not looking for an earthly Utopia, such as the Marxist seek, there will always be imperfections in this ‘vale of tears.’ There will also be the unacceptable that must be repudiated too, that is where we are now, in my view.
‘The terrible grip of a religion on a culture and people... The subjugation - It is over! Babylon is exposed naked in her filth...’
In my view it is a rejection of that religion that has caused problems. If people had been following it, we would not be where we are.
AM
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed your response actually as I was thinking out my own post I was trying to figure out what your response would be maybe not the correct way to do things but me just being curious .
You are correct in everything but because your post was more of a religious tone is this was what I responded to , everything has its place in life but me thinks that because of the overwhelming power that religious people have in society I really do believe kids should be kept informed and up to date so that they can have a better understanding , in the same way as we try to guide them through life in the fast lane of education and work .
John,
ReplyDelete‘His argument is that because ‘same-sex attraction is a consistent feature of human life then it cannot be called unnatural. Why does that
not apply to any other perversion?’
The priesthood is the perverse corruption of healthy sexual appetites. But few would call the priests perverts.
And same sex attraction cannot be equated with pederasty.
It is revolting to read a priest saying;
“If God is love, and if sex is loving, then sex between two people of different or the same gender can only be looked upon lovingly by God. The real sin would be to live without ever having had this contact with
another human being.”
I think it enlightening.
‘Given that all the evidence points to the abuse within the clergy as being overwhelmingly homosexual’
This is untrue. You know that there is evidence contradicting this view so to say ‘all’ the evidence is simply without validation. There is also much opposition to that claim.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-14-france-condemns-vatican-for-blaming-gay-priests
‘The real crime is that wayward clerics with ideas like that are still allowed to remain priests in good standing.’
But not a greater shame that Cardinal Brady should still be a priest? A person must be ‘objectively disordered’ if they feel that imposing a vow of silence on a child victim of priests is better than having those priests exposed and hauled before due process.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete‘The priesthood is the perverse corruption of healthy sexual appetites. But few would call the priests perverts.’
In what way can the non use of sexual acts be construed as ‘perversion’? Only a society obsessed with sexual pleasure could consider it a perversion not to engage in it. You would be condemning the young, the old, widows, and many others, not least many married couples.
‘And same sex attraction cannot be equated with pederasty.’
But in the words of Randy Engel:
“Adult homosexuality and pederasty are not mutually exclusive- either in terms of individual behaviours or the homosexual movement. Rather, like the relationship between contraception and abortion, they are both mutually competitive and mutually stimulating.”
“One would have to be intellectually dense or in a perpetual state of denial not to recognize this mutuality in the simultaneous rise of clerical pederastic crimes with the rise in clerical homosexual incidents in dioceses and religious orders in the United States since the 1950s. If the presence of an active and activist homosexual clergy and hierarchy does nothing else, it most certainly sends a signal to fellow clerical pederasts that immorality and perversion within their ranks is at least tolerated where it is not openly condoned. …”
“The proselyzation, seduction and recruitment of youth, has been the lifeblood of the homosexual sub-culture wherever and whenever it has emerged in human society. Clerical homosexuality poses no exception to the rule.”
“Given that all the evidence points to the abuse within the clergy as being overwhelmingly homosexual”
‘This is untrue. You know that there is evidence contradicting this view so to say ‘all’ the evidence is simply without validation.’
I have seen nothing to contradict the fact, as Jenkins’ study showed, over 80% of all abuse has been of a homosexual nature. This is confirmed by Leon Podles:
‘Homosexuality Is the Problem’
‘Second, and most important, Jenkins’s analysis indicates that the true nature of the problem in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia, but homosexuality, which can lead to sexual relations with sexually mature but underage boys.’
‘Neither the media nor the Church have made it clear to the public that most of the abuse cases involve teenage boys, for this would focus the issue on the problems of homosexuality, a topic that is not politically correct. By not making this clear, the media has given the impression that the Catholic Church attracts sick priests who like little children, as opposed to homosexuals who like teenage boys (not a good thing, but not as disgusting as pedophilia).’
‘There is also much opposition to that claim.’
Yes there is a lot of opposition, but like the link you posted it is merely stated, without evidence, that there isn’t a link. The evidence is there, whether or not it is accepted. If anyone has any source that states that that the abuse is not overwhelmingly homosexual in nature, I would be more than happy to see it. But it is to dodge the evidence if it is stated 'it is only homosexual because of opportunity.' we need to deal with the evidence that is there, not give reasons why we think it is distorted.
Stefan
ReplyDelete‘the problem with the accommodationism of Darwinism within an theistic framework is it exists because that is exactly what Darwins theory is - blind, random, mutations.’
And yet we have the greatest of minds completely at ease with the fact of evolution and seeing a divine hand as the catalyst for it. Whatever the intent of Darwin those who believe in the synthesis of god and evolution see it very differently and have been remarkably adept at weaving Darwinism into their belief in god. If you are intrigued by that it is a matter you need to resolve one way or the other. There is not much I can say to influence you either way. You see the very synthesis in front of your eyes and do not like it. You don’t have to like it but to be intrigued at a suggestion that it exists is another matter.
‘The best the accommodationist can offer to combine Darwin and God is offer us a Deism for as soon as God so much as slightly interacts with the unguided material processes of Darwin it simply is no longer unguided and thus no longer Darwin.’
But again this is to fly in the face of the facts in front of you. This argument has failed hopelessly to persuade those who think Darwinism can readily be incorporated into a Theistic framework. A belief in god does not in itself in order to be genuine require a god who ‘slightly interacts.’ The type of theism implicit in your perspective rules out those many believers who have no need for bibles to wave at others that don’t share their particular religious opinion, or who do not believe in things like miracles. I detect a certain religious intolerance here on your part.
‘In fact one could argue that, all other factors aside, trying to accommodate a theory that pertains to purposelessness in a theory that is built on purpose is where the inconsistency lies.’
I could see a sense in this were it not for the fact that the mutual irreconcilability you point to has been overcome by swathes of believers, many of whom have given serious intellectual deliberation to the problem and have overcome whatever difficulties it may have posed. There is no reason whatsoever for religious believers to believe ‘special creation’ whereby we were all created pretty much as we are today and all at the one time. And when they look at who pushes such a notion - the ID creationists, they must sorely feel the need to protect religious belief from that.
Stefan,
ReplyDelete‘You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the Dover trial in trying to disprove people’s credibility.’
Did it not? It was the greatest trial on this issue since the Creationists humiliated themselves at the Scopes trial. It showed clearly that Intelligent Design was religion and creationism, not science, and the credibility of those who argued otherwise was seriously dented. Discovery Institute for all its faults did foresee the problems of credibility and urged caution. So, yes, it is a great benchmark and reference point. As for Eugenie Scott, I dealt with that in another post. Seems to me that it was nothing remotely like what West said it was. But this is the sort of thing we have come to expect from the DI crowd.
‘Dover has no bearing on contesting the claims of Darwinsim’s incompatibility with Theism.’
That much we can agree on if we agree to differ on the ‘incompatibility.’ What it did have a bearing on was the credibility of the religious Darwinist who proved a more compelling witness than anyone from the ID movement including Behe.
‘If anything Judge Jones ruling goes someway to adding substance to my argument in that, in it's own essence, it further defines the clear distinction between materialistic science and religion so painfully obvious in Theistic Evolution.’
Hardly gels with your earlier comment of ‘no bearing.’
Stefan
ReplyDelete‘I offered up Richards and Klinghoffer's opinions on Darwinian accomodationism, no more no less.’
Which is what I told you. If there was substance to the opinion you would have told us that rather than the fact that there was an opinion.
There are greater or lesser degrees of substance to opinions. But in this case all you provided was the opinion of someone else. What value did it have that your own opinion lacked? You tried to add authority through them to your opinion. Why could your opinion not stand alone? In citing their opinion you added nothing to your own.
‘Based on your assumption that there is no substance to an opinion simply because it is an opinion then apart from scientifically provable phenomena there is no substance to any theory unless it is absolutely provable time and time again.’
Wrong. I value opinions. Why otherwise would I exchange so many with you? But I can differentiate between them.
What intrigues me is that Van Till, a Professer of Physics and devout Christian Theistic Evolutionist in his own words "eventually felt the need to extend my intellectual exploration into the philosophical territories far outside the one provided by Calvanism".
Brilliant. Nothing like intellectual exploration unless we are afraid of where it might take us. And what would that make us?
‘No Discovery Institute to blame for Van Tills dissent or is his 'just' an opinion too?’
The Discovery Institute brings enough ridicule on itself without me having to blame it for Van Till’s issues.
‘I was a Calvinist through and through. For 31 years my teaching career was deeply rooted in the Calvinism I had inherited from my community. During most of that time it was a fruitful and satisfying experience. Nonetheless, stimulated in part by the manner in which some members of that community responded to my efforts to practice what I had learned from my best teachers, I eventually felt the need to extend my intellectual exploration into philosophical territories far outside the one provided by Calvinism. Did I complete the lengthy journey from Calvinism to
Freethought? The listener will be the judge.
Seems it wasn’t Darwinism at all that caused him to move but religious intolerance.
"For me, to be alive is to have some curiosity, and the desire and freedom to explore,"
What possibly could be wrong with that?
As for your opinion of Van Till ... no DI for support? Was this because Richards was spoofing about him having left the Christian faith?
Perhaps now you might realise why I don’t value their opinions.
@ John McGirr RE: '... I think Anthony would make an excellent ‘man of the cloth’.
ReplyDeleteYou know John humour aside and it did make me laugh - i pictured him apreachin' at a quakin, sweating in his red shoes Papa!
I think what you mean is the crave for honesty in men of cloth is on you...
Is ea! Anthony would make a searingly challenging 'man of the cloth' but he is powerful as he is. Intellectually as he rips topics/issues apart. He is compassionate/fair in his approaches and causes one to think. He encourages all to be here & gives room for all to speak out/wrangle. It is educational, diverse, embraces pathos and so on all in one hit. It is also worthy of mention that his ability to have a blog and write the way he does is birthed from much suffering. You cannot live thru what he did without it shaping depth or if one lets it - u go mad/bitter/insane with hate/ptsd.
For a truth seeker it is landing ground here in some ways... For those who do not want to join teeming, deluded minions politically nor spiritually it is good value here.
So how one percieves religion or spirituality (they r two different states of being) is up to one. I think you seek liberty in all senses but NB also from what u write here you remain heavily immeshed in RC doctrines and are pining for the cleansing of Catholicism and the beauty of Jah to shine thru.
But i tell you it will not occur as the foundations of the Vatican are corrupt. Until u see that you will run in circles analysing dictates and doctines of the Vatican. A significant part of Irelands shackles was/is Catholicism which betrayed her and her people. Slan
PS they say God moves in mysterious ways! anthony may well gravitate towards becoming a man of the cloth but not in the traditional ways u speak from ahaha
Saint?MaryHedgehog,
ReplyDeleteI read your words about the Anthony and his qualities, ‘birthed from much suffering’ with a considerable amount of appreciation and agreement. Whilst not agreeing with a lot of what he, and others, think, I have found that it helps me to clarify and re-evaluate my views without taking them for granted.
Your comments on the Vatican betraying the people of Ireland made me reflect on my thoughts on treachery within the Church. (I would advise anyone who has a ‘religious-phobia to skip the rest of this post, I normally, try to keep religion out of my posts and concentrate on what can be known by reason rather than faith, but here I am making an exception).
There is no doubt that treachery has occurred, a treachery begun before but accelerated by the Second Vatican Council. In my lifetime I have witnessed the rape of the liturgy, the replacement of Latin by stilted vernaculars which mistranslate the already bastardised missal of Paul VI. Gregorian chant has been replaced by guitars strumming regurgitated protest songs and meaningless nonsense like ‘kumbaya.’ I have seen the destruction of so many sacred buildings and the erection of cafeteria style bingo halls. The Blessed Sacrament has been demoted to side altars; Communion in the hand has become the norm, often given out by mini-skirt wearing divorcees.
Benediction has gone, confession is now seen as non essential, mortal sins are never mentioned, nor Hell, Purgatory, indulgences. Cohabitation is the norm and there is a near universal rejection of the Christian moral order, seen especially in regard to the 6th and 9th Commandments.
Meanwhile the Catechism was thrown out of the window and two generations have now been raised without any belief at all, other than cultural Catholicism, where newsagents double as ‘Holy Shops’ and deal in Mass cards, Rosary beads and statues together with the filth of the tabloids and mild pornography.
And after all this, we have demonic priests preying on the most innocent of all, our children, breaking their own vows and dragging what is left of the Church to the lowest depths imaginable, not to mention the scarred children who will never recover.
It was always said that if an angel was standing next to a priest, the priest should be honoured first before the angel. Now those who have caused such scandal have destroyed the faith in potentially millions of people.
It is my contention that it is treachery within the Church that has allowed an infestation of devils who are now tearing apart the Church in a bid to destroy it once and for all. I can see no other explanation.
St Mary Hedgehog the idea of becoming a priest has now entered my head ,where does one apply?and the thought of screwing the church rather than them screwing me really appeals!
ReplyDeleteThe Quote you used Anthony, presented in 2006 for the Freethought Association by Van Till doesn't address "Robust Formational Economic Principle" for which he is acreditted and thus glosses round the real issues for his dissent!
ReplyDeleteWithin his theory is the substance of Darwins incompatability with Theism.
On your quote..."Seems it wasn’t Darwinism at all that caused him to move but religious intolerance", I assume you are accepting the reality of the problems of accomodationism in the two theories irrespective of what particular one causes the conflict with the other.
Another MacIntyre adds further substance to my argument and goes by the name of Alasdair.His book 'After Virtue' is an account of the dysfunctional quality of moral discourse within modern society.Quoting first the late Stanley Jaki on G.K.Chesterton and why he detested Darwinism, he says..."it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul." MacIntyre backs this up in his book saying if somethings nature includes purposes or proper functions, then "oughts" follow from that which "is", Darwinism denies that organisms have formal natures or are purposefully made.That is too say not confusing present function at a particular time (as perscribed in Darwin theory) with purposeful design.
ReplyDeleteThis is all adding evidence that Darwin denies true species or 'essences' as Thomas Aquinas put it and as he is considered the Church's greatest theologian and philosopher I confirm my statement that Darwin and Theism are incompatible.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteyou went and found somebody you agree with and then confirm your own statement. Mmmm
Alasdair MacIntyre went from Marxist to Roman Catholic in similar circumstances to myself. In an interview with Prospect Magazine he explains that his conversion occurred as a "result of being convinced of Thomism while attempting to disabuse his students of its authenticity."
ReplyDeleteI offered him up as a qualitative example due to his crudentials the same as Fr Stanley L. Jaki and Gilbert Keith Chesterton.
The fact you agree it seems religious intolerance pushed Van Till to dissent from Theistic Calvanism in veiw of his "Robust Formational Economic Principle" also goes some way to confirming my own statement...would you not agree Anthony?
Stefan,
ReplyDelete'Alasdair MacIntyre went from Marxist to Roman Catholic in similar circumstances to myself.'
Well, not exactly. If I am not mistaken he hardly embraced the religious right of the Discovery Institute and its pseudo science.
'I offered him up as a qualitative example due to his credentials the same as Fr Stanley L. Jaki and Gilbert Keith Chesterton.'
I suspect you offered him up in an attempt to improve your hand after previously offering up the DI cranks. You tried to add authority to your opinion on incompatibility. So you picked Acquinas rather than MacIntyre per se because he was the big hitter theologian of Catholicism. A bit like flashing: 'mine is bigger than yours'. But you didn't tell us that there are those who believe Acquinas legitimises their view of the compatibility rather than the incompatibility between Darwinism and belief in god. In fact it might even be argued that the greatest accomodationists are the Thomists.
'The fact you agree it seems religious intolerance pushed Van Till to dissent from Theistic Calvanism in veiw of his "Robust Formational Economic Principle" also goes some way to confirming my own statement...would you not agree?'
While I don't intend looking back over it I believe you told me that your case was that it was Darwinism that pushed him away from the Christian faith altogether. I think I suggested to you it was religious intolerance that pushed him beyond Calvinism but not beyond Christianity. This is the first I knew we agreed it was religious intolerance. So did he abandon his belief in the Christian god as stated by you or did he not? Did he abandon one or the other - Darwinism or belief in god? If he did that would prove your point that the accommodation became too much for him to reconcile. If not he reconciled it. Either way, he remains just one character from whom we cannot generalise either way. So even if he did manage to maintain the accommodation, as I think he did, it means little in terms of where the discussion is at which is whether the two bodies of thought can be accommodated. And you were intrigued that any theorist could find accommodation. Now you find lots of them but think Van Till is the weak link and home in on him. I think you were more intolerant than intrigued.
As a matter of interest does MacIntyre believe we were all created at once in our current form by an act of special creation?
"Robust Formational Economic Principle". I do not know what it is so can't comment on it.
But ultimately it seems to me that what we have is a situation where the zealots within the Darwinist camp and their counterparts within the religious camp are unable to accept the synthesis between Darwinism and theism which so many others are able to do.
I read your blog often. I started mostly because I enjoy the way you write. I have never commented, being an American, I have some admitted ignorance on your political writing and felt I never really had a place. I am commenting now because I agree with John. Your blog has been a lot about religion, surprisingly. As an atheist you talk more about God than I do as a practicing Christian. And I have to also admit, I never find myself talking so much about non-believers…in fact I don’t…ever.
ReplyDeleteAs for the part about your children, that's your choice as a parent and I respect that. I can't say I don't feel the same way. My future children will not be forced into believing anything. I was raised the same way and found God myself, due to life experiences that no science could ever explain to me.
I will continue to read, because I do love your writing, I just hope you can leave God out of it. I would end with God Bless…but I guess that would be wrong. Sooo have a good day! :)
Katie,
ReplyDeletethanks for posting. You are welcome here and have a place. I write about whatever takes my fancy and there is a lot about religion. Probably because of the way it encroaches on lives and forever wanting to dictate to others what they should believe or how they should behave.
The funny thing is that more than anything else the god/religious/atheism topics prompt the most discussion.
Maybe you don't discuss what non-believers are at because they aren't at anything in any organised sense. They aren't out preaching, covering up or facilitating rape of children or whatever. I am sure if the religious crowd didn't poke its nose in where it has no place, it would attract few articles.
You can end with god bless if you wish. It is hardly the imposition of an unwanted view. But your request to have god left out will be politely declined. Where god stays out he can be left out.
Best, and thanks again for commenting.
Agreed, we shouldn't generalise on Van Tills dissent but being he spent over a decade defending accomadationism and is well acknowledged in the feild for this he is a very good example to home in on and it was you who offered him up as a example you "pulled from your memory" on the 'Morning After' thread, not me to serve my purpose with him being a weakest link. Any proponent of Theistic Evolution has exposable weaknesses due to the inconsistant nature of the concept.Robust Formational Economic Principle is Tills fancy terminology for his own particular brand of Theistic evolution.He also calls it the "Fully Gifted Creation Perspective"
ReplyDeleteRegarding his dissent from Calvanist Catechism....
"His own tribal membership—professional, as a Calvin Professor and theological—as a thoroughgoing Calvinist Christian to his bones, brought to bear the full power of conformity within the group. Its unyielding bindings came to the fore of his consciousness when he was called upon to once again sign the Form of Subscription for the Professors and Instructors of Calvin College and Seminary. He had begun to experience conflicts regarding his passive and unquestioning participation in this form of institutional control once he started to expand his intellectual horizons to begin to encompass other portraits of reality and to critically and honestly evaluate his own."
...and as of yet hasn't confirmed adhearence to any other Catechism so we can only assume he has abandoned 'theism' as I don't remember saying "he abandoned his belief in the Christian God" as you said I stated.A 'Christian God' could be interpreted many ways, not all theistic...my argument is the incompatability of Darwin and Theism.
I find it intriguing that some tolerate the untolerable.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteAlasdair MacIntyre was shipped out of Glasgow when still a baby, his parents seeking work in East London, the same as my father.Incidently Glasgow is the home is the of the Centre for Intellegent Design, its objectives being -
promote the professional investigation and public debate of Intelligent Design.
challenge, on the scientific evidence, the neo-Darwinian claim that the development of life is purely the result of undirected forces.
encourage consideration of the wider implications of Intelligent Design.
Alasdair being an Aristotelian and Thomist would therefore embrace aspects of the rightwing political sphere the same as myself. This would also mean he embraces the four key elements of Causality rejecting the modernist reinterpretation as I quoted in my previous post.Wether or not he beleives 'we were all created at once by special creation' I do not know, but as a Thomist would reject Darwin's denial of true species or 'essences', thus the greatest accomodationists cannot be Thomists or have atleast misinterpretated one or both theories.
If by Zealot you mean a fanatically committed person I assume you are using the anology to refer to both theories in undiluted form and again by your own words are "unable to accept the synthesis between Darwinism and theism"...am I right in thinking you are agreeing with my stance on the substance of the incompatability?
Stefan,
ReplyDelete'he is a very good example to home in on'
Only is he abandoned belief in accomodation.
'it was you who offered him up as a example you "pulled from your memory" on the 'Morning After' thread'
We are not in dispute about that. He is referenced in Creationism's Trojan Horse by Forest and Gross as one of those theologians who reconciled Theism and Darwinism.
'not me to serve my purpose with him being a weakest link.'
Out of all four or five mentioned you focused on him because you thought he would carry the case for you. Has he abandoned accomodationism or has he not? That is the sole relevance. If he has you have a point. If he has not you don't have a point. Either way it does not clinch the argument bacause as we agree it is not possible to generalise from him.
This is what you said in relation to his leaving the Christian faith.
'Van Till, since retirement as a professer from Calvin College has left the Christian faith according to J.W Richards.'
I presume that equates with abandoning the Cristian god. The main point would be is not to pay too much attention to Richards.
'Any proponent of Theistic Evolution has exposable weaknesses due to the inconsistant nature of the concept.'
Look at the exposable weaknesses of ID and that seems to cause you no problem. Now the ground shifts somewhat from your being intrigued that any theorist would suggest a link to exposing the weakness of any such link.
A for 'Robust Formational Economic Principle', I appreciate the leg up but for now I will call 'pass'. Too much else to be done offline.
From what you tell me it seems you are of the view that he was forced out by an intellectually repressive Calvinist regime. It seems that way to me also. It seems fair to extrapolate that his intellectual promiscuity was persecuted by a closed conformist culture, not accomodationism. This is the crux - has he abandoned accomodationism or not?
'I find it intriguing that some tolerate the untolerable.'
Always a problem for the fundamentalist. They set out to define the 'untolerable' and then try to get people to conform to their own view of the intolerable.
When stripped back to fundementals the intolerance between directly conflicting theories is exposed.I have found no problem defining this but as to wether I wish to get people to conform to my own veiw I am of the principle that an individual needs to find interaction with God in their own lives on their own terms through their own experiences.I will feircely defend the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from aggressive atheistic attack such as Darwinism and its penetrating attempts at introducing its eroding acid with Theistic Evolution.
ReplyDeleteVan Till no longer presents his theory within a recognized Theistic framework.Whatever his own veiw of God is now is anyones guess and without that universal recognition of Theism his accomodationism has been abandoned.
As he is referenced in Creationism's Trojan Horse by Forest and Gross as one of those theologians who reconciled Theism and Darwinism does the fact his theory failed hold any substance with you that the two are incompatible.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteIf you will allow me, I want to stress this particular point over and above the discourse of dialect for want of it maybe getting burried in the detail.
Aristotle gave us four causes ie material, formal, efficient, and final.Basing the 'fact' Aquinas is 'Gold Standard' Catholic teaching and he drew off these to compose for us a teaching that Darwinists vehemently deny post Modernism, dropping two essential factors, well documented around the scientific revolution of the 16th Cen onwards, do you not think this poses serious flaws and thus substance against your proposed accomodationism.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteand why would I not allow you? !!!
Just in from work. Brain too frazzled to take any of it in! Another time
Stefan
ReplyDelete'I want to stress this particular point over and above the discourse of dialect for want of it maybe getting burried in the detail.
Aristotle gave us four causes ie material, formal, efficient, and final.Basing the 'fact' Aquinas is 'Gold Standard' Catholic teaching and he drew off these to compose for us a teaching that Darwinists vehemently deny post Modernism, dropping two essential factors, well documented around the scientific revolution of the 16th Cen onwards, do you not think this poses serious flaws and thus substance against your proposed accomodationism.'
There is no clarity that I can see here. It reads like convoluted babble. The only point that seems coherent is my 'proposed' accommodationism.
I don't propose accomodationism anymore than I propose England. Both already exist. I merely acknowledge their existence and am not in the slightest intrigued by it.
Apologies Anthony, I wanted to condense what I needed to say for direct impact.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to reconstitute and try and explain it a bit better for you.
You argued that no one had provided you with substantial evidence that Darwins theory of evolution and Theism cannot be accomodated in one theory ie Theistic Evolution.
Here's the substance you require to prove the illegitimacy of such accomodationism.
A standard of universal theistic teaching is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
His teaching was drawn from Aristotles concept of Causality, that is 'an explanation for how a thing came about'.
Scientific method, born out of the scientific revolution in the 16th Century, hinging on empirical findings rejected aspects of Aristotles theory focusing on just two of his aspects ie the material and efficient causes dismissing the formal and final causes.Modernism is the world-view that grew out of Enlightenment philosophy in the 18th century and lead to the rise of empiricism.This is the foundation of the materialism that Darwin bases his theory of evolution thus rejected the key elements of theism I mentioned above.
This is why Van Till no longer presents his theory within a recognized Theistic framework.
That is why I need not bother presenting "those who believe Acquinas legitimises their view of the compatibility rather than the incompatibility between Darwinism and belief in god." as they cannot be theists because whilst you say "it might even be argued that the greatest accomodationists are the Thomists" I beleive the substance of the evidence I've presented above puts pay to this idea.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteit just gets more abstract and devoid of meaning
Lets see if Logan Paul Gage can explain this better.
ReplyDeleteTaken from "Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas"
Two parts - the first Denial of True Species then second part in following post called Exemplar Causes.
Denial of True Species
Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.
Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder. This is an extreme expression of the anti-Aristotelian (and anti-Thomist) philosophy of nominalism. Nominalism (stemming from the Latin nomen, or “name”) suggests that the individual is the only reality—not the universal, form, or essence. The mind invents universals in order to group together similar objects. But the universal is not a reality in which the individual in some way participates.
But Thomas embraced form and, following Augustine, even maintained that a creature’s form reflects the second member of the Trinity. For, “as it [the creature] has a form and species, it represents the Word as the form of the thing made by art is from the conception of the craftsman.”
The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
Exemplar Causes
ReplyDeleteRecall that for Thomas, creatures are a combination of form and matter. The question that must be answered, then, in any version of Thomistic evolution, is where form comes from. Darwin, denying Aristotelian essentialism, saw organisms’ traits as accidental properties of living things that change with the winds of time. Not so St. Thomas.
In his recent book Aquinas on the Divine Ideas as Exemplar Causes, Catholic University philosophy professor Gregory T. Doolan gives the most extensive treatment to date of Thomas’s notion of “exemplar causation,” an integral part of Thomas’s metaphysics.
What is an exemplar cause? It is a type of formal cause—a sort of blueprint, the idea according to which something is organized. For Thomas, these ideas exist separately from the things they cause. For instance, if a boy is going to build a soapbox derby car, the idea in his mind is separate from the form of the car; yet the car’s form expresses the idea, or exemplar cause, in the boy’s mind. Exemplar causes actually do something. They are “practical ideas,” writes Doolan.
For Thomas—and here is the important point—a creature’s form comes from a similar form in the divine intellect. In other words, the cause of each species’ form is extrinsic. In fact, writes Thomas, “God is the first exemplar cause of all things.” Creatures do possess the causal powers proper to the nature God has granted them, but creatures most certainly do not possess the power to create the form of their or any other species.
For instance, frog parents have the proper ability to generate tadpoles. They are able to bring out the natural form that is present in the potentiality of matter. However, the frog parents cannot create the form “frog.” After all, Thomas reasons, if frog parents could create the form “frog” they would be the creators of their own form, and this is clearly a contradiction. Natural things can generate forms of the same species, but they cannot create the form of a species in general.
Thus, natural agency is not eliminated, yet God is still actively involved in nature. Specific forms originate and reside in his mind, though God allows creatures the dignity of acting in this creative drama. Still, Thomas is careful to note that while secondary causes are real, “God . . . can cause an effect to result in anything whatsoever independently of middle causes.”
By now it should be clear how different Thomas’s philosophy of nature is from Darwinism. Rather than form being a merely apparent reality that can be molded into any other form, for Thomas form originates in God’s mind. He directly creates it. It is a forethought, not an afterthought. Species, then, come to be because of his will and power (either successively or all at once). They are neither the product of a trial-and-error process of natural selection nor the mere intrinsic unfolding of secondary causes. Secondary causes have their place, but they are inherently impotent to create novel form.
Let’s face it: Thomas Aquinas was not an evolutionist, let alone a Darwinist, in any sense.
Stefan,
ReplyDeleteyou might as well write it in Latin. After 2 paras I just switched off
AM-
ReplyDeleteJust switched of-
Thank fcuk
I thought it was only me
'you might as well write it in Latin. After 2 paras I just switched off'
ReplyDelete'Just switched of-
Thank fcuk
I thought it was only me'
It makes perfect sense to me. But then I am an unreconstructed Thomist.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteI read about two paragraphs of the first, and nothing of the second, and resorted to the wine. That's how gruelling it was. So there are two of us who don't do theobabble.
John,
if nothing else I admire your courage! You must be from the flagellist movement being able to read through that!! But whatever arguments you make, they are not steeped in turgidity. Can't comment on your unreconstructed Thomism as I never read anything past the first two paragraphs to know what made perfect sense to you.
'You must be from the flagellist movement being able to read through that!!'
ReplyDeleteWell I guess I do need to do a little mortification, no matter how unfashionable.
'But whatever arguments you make, they are not steeped in turgidity.'
As a simple self-instructed Thomist, simplicity is something I admire.
I would recommend the works of a simple Thomist, such as Paul Glenn.
Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYou seem keen to use popular media newsbites taken out of context on evolution and where the Catholic Church stands on it without any deeper look at the actual theology.You must recognise similarities are drawn here with Michael Ruses criticism of Dennet and Dawkins when he said "neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas".Whilst I have engaged Darwins ideas and rejected them on the grounds that I understand them you display the same paranoia in your Atheism that John G. West and Jonathan Witt describe in the book you quoted - 'Creationism's Trojan Horse' by insisting that no one has shown you that Darwin and Theism are incompatible and then refusing to acknowledge the evidence when put before you.
Using the veiws of Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi to give an impression of accomodationism within Church teaching holds little relevance in relation to the statements from the 2006 Castel Gandolfo seminar where his Holiness says "the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory", and "I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science."
You have become another Atheist, in a long line of Atheists that fail to stand up to the challenge posed by his Holiness.
Regarding where the Church stands in relation to Darwinism Denyse O'Leary introduces Fr Martin Hillberts peice in 'The Catholic Church and ID: What's really happening?'
ReplyDeleteRecently, Fr. Martin Hilbert of the Toronto Oratory wrote an excellent overview in Touchstone Magazine setting out the details of how and why the Catholic Church started to distance itself from Darwinism. Fr. Hilbert's clear exposition is indispensable if you want to understand why the Catholic Church has started to make clear that it does not support Darwinian evolution, the only kind permitted to be taught in schools. For decades, opinionators have piously affirmed that the Catholic Church has long accepted an evolutionary worldview, but - stated in that form, without qualification - such a statement is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation.
Darwin’s Divisions
The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins
by Fr Martin Hilbert
The church does not pretend to give scientific answers to biological questions. But it does point out that some Darwinist claims are mere materialist metaphysics pretending to be science, because it knows that were it to remain silent on a truth—the nature of man—that has been entrusted to it by God, that truth would soon disappear, only to be replaced by the ever-changing dogmas of a materialist science.
Even so, the Catholic Church has been surprisingly sparing in its pronouncements on the subject, given that Darwin’s theory has been used to underpin some fairly disastrous worldviews, such as Nazism and communism. The church has never been very comfortable with the theory, but, perhaps fearing bad press of the kind that arose from its condemnation of Galileo, has usually preferred to deal with theologians who were enthusiastic about evolution in more discreet ways than by magisterial interventions.
John,
ReplyDeleteAnd witty to boot!
I enjoy your simplicity as so much is explained through it. You have not won me over but I have been both impressed and challenged by some of the arguments you have brought out (and evidence.) I have zero tolerance for pseudo intellectualism.
Do you believe in evolution John?
'As a simple self-instructed Thomist, simplicity is something I admire.'
It is not a common trait. In my experience over the years simplicity is shunned by those who need to be deliberately opaque otherwise the transparency of their case is all too visible. It is the only reason they employ it.
'I would recommend the works of a simple Thomist, such as Paul Glenn.'
Not familiar with him John. But if the opportunity arises I will read him. I don’t do the pseudo stuff as you can glean. There is a Marxist writer called Fredric Jameson who I once read. An insufferable bore who dealt in abstraction to the point of deadening tedium. It frazzled the brain rather than enlivened it.
'Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.'
Rather than the Enlightenment?
Anthony,
ReplyDelete‘Do you believe in evolution John?’
I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty, which if denied denotes madness.
My answer is, that no, I don’t believe in it. To believe something you have to have grounds, and I don’t have any for that. My faith fully accounts for our origins, and I see it as rather a way around faith, an attempt to find an answer to a question, that I don’t see any reason to raise; God made the Heavens and the earth.
However, I would not dismiss limited theistic ‘evolution’ as a possibility, provided that it were accepted that the spiritual soul cannot be accounted for in that way, and that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous. I think it is noteworthy that the two major evils of the 20th century, Communism and Nazism, were both inspired by it, together with a large array of eugenicists and racists.
“Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.”
‘Rather than the Enlightenment?’
You are right that the Enlightenment is the basis of our current situation, its destructive influence is evident everywhere.
I was referring to the heights of our civilization, such as the works of Dante, not the mess we have all become.
John,
ReplyDelete‘I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty.’
Not so. I could have asked you do you believe the fact of evolution. Some people don’t believe facts or what others hold to be factual.
I don’t particularly care how we got here. It matters not to me if we somehow (given the sheer weight of scientific discoveryI have no idea how) appeared in our current form with no previous biological history. But evolution is so well established as fact that I never doubt that is how we arrived. And there are so many religious people who believe in it. Even when I still had religious sentiment evolution never caused me a problem. Adam and Eve yarns did. When as a child I told my mother I didn’t believe in the Adam and Eve idea and felt it nonsense she took me over to my grandfather who was pretty devout. I still recall him telling me if we went up to the zoo a monkey would still be a monkey in a million years.
Religion would have been a greater factor in my dropping the god concept; evolution played no part in it. Strangely enough, the first person who set out the evolution argument clearly for me was a priest during the Blanket protest. By that time I was no longer believing. If I recall he was a Thomist and was also a teacher of metaphysics. He went into Aristotle’s 3 principles of life which led on to a discussion about Genesis. He commented that if his cat ever said to him ‘how are you doing John?’ He would say ‘fine, Adam.’ I think I have remained faithful to the account but it is from the winter of early 1979 so is hardly verbatim. I suppose you’ll think him another renegade.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“‘I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty.’”
‘Not so. I could have asked you do you believe the fact of evolution.’
Unless someone is an expert and has studied the question of evolution, in depth, a layman has no choice but to put faith in it or not.
‘Some people don’t believe facts or what others hold to be factual.’
Your ‘fact’ is evolution, my fact is God. I can deduce the existence of God, but I cannot deduce the existence of evolution, I could only rely on belief in that respect.
‘But evolution is so well established as fact that I never doubt that is how we arrived. And there are so many religious people who believe in it.’
But do they believe we are the product of blind chance or do they support theistic evolution? If the former, then there is no place for religion, if the latter, then it is no longer Darwinian evolution.
‘When as a child I told my mother I didn’t believe in the Adam and Eve idea and felt it nonsense she took me over to my grandfather who was pretty devout. I still recall him telling me if we went up to the zoo a monkey would still be a monkey in a million years.’
And so it would; as a stone could lie for a million years and not change into an egg.
John,
ReplyDelete‘God made the Heavens and the earth.’
All religious people believe that, I imagine. For those who believe in evolution It poses no problem to their belief. They can combine both. And there are so many of them. If god was the moving force, there is no difficulty for them. To me it hardly matters if he specially created us or evolved us. The fact that he did it would be sufficient if I were a believer. And if he is an omnipotent being, which a god must be in order to retain the status of uncaused cause, then he could easily do it. And as he is unaccountable to us our objections could easily be dismissed on the grounds of the mystery of god.
‘I would not dismiss limited theistic ‘evolution’ as a possibility, provided that it were accepted that the spiritual soul cannot be accounted for in that way, and that we are all descended from one man and one woman.’
I have never seen a spiritual soul and until one comes into a lab I never will. To me that is all manufactured. It is conceptualised by humans but never demonstrated. But again an omnipotent god could easily insert the soul. I am not a Darwinist nor am I anti-Darwinist. Pretty much indifferent to it. Natural selection is not in the view of all evolutionists the only form of evolution. I think Steven Jay Gould was once described as an evolutionary pluralist because he did not feel natural selection explained it all. I think the great theological minds are quite adept at knitting evolution and theism together. I think the less equipped find it difficult.
‘Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous.’
Like so many others including Catholics I don’t agree on the incompatibility. Even on this question I found the Thomists interesting as I explained to Stefan before he went abstract on me. That the Thomists seem to scorn the DI crowd was interesting in itself but the writings of Carroll and Tkacz struck me as being accomodationist. I suppose that is why I asked you about evolution – you described yourself as a Thomist.
Darwinism is like any other body of thought John. It is the uses that it is put to. Communism was more atheistic than Darwinist, and Nazism intended being top dog in any event. Both would have gone about their business in the same way without Darwinism. There were pastors in the Einsatzgruppen, blessing the SS as they went about their murderous business. Religion too has been put to enough bad use over the years. We have had a few murderous popes and ayatollahs.
‘You are right that the Enlightenment is the basis of our current situation, its destructive influence is evident everywhere.’
I suppose we could say the same about religion.
That is where we disagree most I guess. You see the Enlightenment as regressive and I as progressive.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete‘For those who believe in evolution It poses no problem to their belief. They can combine both. And there are so many of them. If god was the moving force, there is no difficulty for them. To me it hardly matters if he specially created us or evolved us. The fact that he did it would be sufficient if I were a believer.’
I would not deny that it is possible for God to use an evolutionary mechanism, but my personal belief is the one I put forward when you asked.
In the words of Ann Coulter:
“Although God believers don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.”
‘I am not a Darwinist nor am I anti-Darwinist. Pretty much indifferent to it.’
If you insert ‘evolutionist’ in place of ‘Darwinist’ I would agree. It is Darwin I oppose, absolutely, on account of reason and of faith. I don’t ‘believe’ in other types of evolution, but am open to be persuaded within the realms of reason.
‘Natural selection is not in the view of all evolutionists the only form of evolution…. I think the great theological minds are quite adept at knitting evolution and theism together.’
I assumed you meant Darwinian evolution, which I absolutely reject. I don’t dispute the possibility of ‘theistic evolution’ but have seen nothing to convince me of it either.
“‘Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous.’”
‘Like so many others including Catholics I don’t agree on the incompatibility.’
Darwinian evolution is based on ‘natural selection’ which might also be called chance selection. This flies in the face of our reason for chance is never a cause, but rather pre-supposes a cause. Once we posit a form of evolution that is not based on these principles we are no longer discussing Darwinism.
‘I suppose that is why I asked you about evolution – you described yourself as a Thomist.’
I am only, (to borrow a phrase from a light-hearted book on the subject), a ‘peeping Thomist’.
‘That is where we disagree most I guess. You see the Enlightenment as regressive and I as progressive.’
At least we can agree that this is where we disagree.
Saint?MaryHedgehog/John
ReplyDeleteMuch too late for me to make a man of the cloth. I crossed the Rubicon to disbelief a long time ago and burned the bridge behind me.
Saint?MaryHedgehog,
You are much too generous in your estimation of my intellectual ability. I delve into things more than rip them apart. If something makes no sense I merely pull and unpick at it. Any time I read theology it is so ludicrous that it merely reminds me of how unfulfilling religion actually is as an explanation. And when theobabble is introduced to confuse us it provokes disdain in me. To John’s credit he has never done that. His ability to make a clear point without needing to wander of into the mists of theobabble is admirable.
When I read you refer to as my ‘suffering’ I look around and think of those who have really suffered rather than having undergone a few unpleasant experiences.
John,
‘Whilst not agreeing with a lot of what he, and others, think, I have found that it helps me to clarify and re-evaluate my views without taking them for granted.’
I would say that experience is mutual.
Well you did warn us not to read your diatribe (as I would put it) but I could not resist.
‘The Blessed Sacrament has been demoted to side altars; Communion in the hand has become the norm, often given out by mini-skirt wearing divorcees.’
That sounded so funny. My wife asked me what I was laughing at. I know you said it in anger rather than in humour but it is how it came across. Nice to have something to laugh about as we stare ahead into the abyss of the blue shirts.
Saint?MaryHedgehog
ReplyDelete‘I think Anthony is frank/honest and very witty at times.’
I am not a tub thumper for truth. I am always suspicious of that approach. I tell my kids every day I will take them swimming at the weekend and … tell my wife I will be home from the pub ‘shortly.’ None of it true!!
There are at times truths that never get told for a wide range of reasons amongst them the fact that people do not like to hurt their friends. I have always stuck to the basic position of never writing what I know to be false rather than writing all the things I believe to be true. It seems to me that in any society that free inquiry is absolutely essential for understanding.
‘I think kids should be protected from religion and factions but
i also think be careful u ain't infusing the kids with too much cynicism.’
I don’t believe my kids are passed on any cynicism. They are advised to think about things even religion. I also tell them my view that religion is rubbish. That’s how I find it. But they are free to explore the world. I don’t ever want them coming home and spewing some of the religious trash I have had to trudge through on this site, theobabble and the like. At the same time they would always be prompted to listen to the views of someone like John McGirr and make of them what they will.
John
ReplyDelete‘In what way can the non use of sexual acts be construed as
‘perversion’? Only a society obsessed with sexual pleasure could
consider it a perversion not to engage in it.’
Sex far from being an obsession seems so natural a human activity that it would seem perverse to avoid it. There seems something perverse about the self infliction of intense deprivation. The flagellist movement always struck me as perverse.
‘You would be condemning the young, the old, widows, and many others, not least many married couples.’
We would need to know how many actually abstain. I do not think it perverse where the urge is not there.
Randy Engel seems such a homophobic bigot. I think Podles whom you occasionally quote seems more persuasive.
‘Neither the media nor the Church have made it clear to the public that most of the abuse cases involve teenage boys, for this would focus the issue on the problems of homosexuality, a topic that is not politically correct. By not making this clear, the media has given the impression
that the Catholic Church attracts sick priests who like little
children, as opposed to homosexuals who like teenage boys (not a good thing, but not as disgusting as pedophilia).’
That is put forward as if it exonerates priests from liking little children. There are enough of them who do rape little children and have done so in the sure knowledge that they would be covered for and not face handover to the statutory authorities. That to me is the problem in the Church, not whether rape is carried out by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If every single instance of clerical rape was carried out by a heterosexual it would not make heterosexuality the cause of clerical rape of children. Same with homosexuality. The problem is the culture of concealment. That needs addressed.
John,
ReplyDelete‘Yes there is a lot of opposition, but like the link you posted it is merely stated, without evidence, that there isn’t a link.’
You are right, it was just an opinion. But it was not offered as something else. I actually don’t have a problem with your statistics or evidence. I find them interesting and thought provoking. The first principle in these matters is to protect children not hang priests. I don’t care if it is homosexuals they need protected from. It has to be done. But I do happen to believe that more than homosexuals or heterosexuals, kids need protected from a church structure that de facto if not de jure created the culture of concealment which enhanced the likelihood of children being raped by clerics. Had that culture of concealment been targeted by the Church hierarchy, the instances of child rape would have dropped dramatically. After that there would have been room for looking at the issues of homosexuality that you raise.
The thing is that if society is to deal with the problems of injustices there is no point in hugging our favourite PC line and giving it a sacred status which leaves it immune from criticism. If gay culture can be shown to be a threat to children then it has to be addressed. The same as the Church hierarchy. Public scrutiny and transparent accountability seem musts in these things.
John,
ReplyDelete‘Unless someone is an expert and has studied the question of evolution, in depth, a layman has no choice but to put faith in it or not.’
Not at all. We don’t need to be experts in France to believe it exists, without it being reduced to sheer faith. People look at the evidence, arguments, use their common sense and then decide that there couldn’t be any other explanation that comes up to the mark. There is no serious scientific evidence against evolution. Intelligent Design is junk science, religion tarted up. The Thomists themselves hammered it. People don’t know it all, may even know very little of the science, but are able to deduce on the basis of evidence that evolution is a sound explanation. We would have to ignore so much evidence not to believe it. It would be like sticking to a flat earth school of thought in the face of all the evidence. This is why so many Catholics believe in it. The Catholic Truth Society has put out some interesting material on it. A brief but very good booklet from CTS is Darwin And Evolution by Joseph Bolin. A while back I was reading a book on Aquinas and the author (a Catholic priest) spoke about ideas that existed in TA’s day but which nobody would believe now – ‘no evolution’ being one of them.
‘Your ‘fact’ is evolution, my fact is God.’
Evolution can be scientifically proved but god can’t. That said, the facts for very many Christians are both god and evolution. I think some of the Christian arguments for compatibility are very clever. You can see how easily they dwarf Intelligent Design and pose a much greater challenge to atheism than the ID cranks.
John,
ReplyDelete‘But do they believe we are the product of blind chance or do they support theistic evolution? If the former, then there is no place for religion, if the latter, then it is no longer Darwinian evolution.’
In his letter to the botanist Asa Grey shortly after he finished Origin of Species, Darwin wrote ‘I had no intention to write atheistically.’ So it was not as if he was on some die hard atheistic mission in alliance with Marx as some conspiracy theorists are prone to believe. And again we have the numerous examples of Christian thinkers synthesising Darwinism and theism. That synthesis would not be my view but it is there and growing all the time. I can hardly deny what is in front of my eyes. The bigots hold out but they end up bringing ridicule down on their heads. If people are comfortable with both, then that is up to them. I think it actually suits religion better for a fusion than it does atheism.
‘a stone could lie for a million years and not change into an egg.’ But god could change it into an egg even an Easter egg!
But not all things are like this particular stone. Evolution occurs both at macro and micro levels. I have just never seen how it contradicts a belief in god. The Christians ask many interesting questions in this regard. They accept the evolution argument, the big bang theory – but then go on to probe the energy behind it. Kung is very good on this but hardly alone. Creationism which morphed into creation science and then intelligent design still has a flat earth view of the world because it can’t abide by anything other than a literal interpretation of Genesis. A 6000 year old earth! That is like saying Ireland is about half a centimetre wide.
‘I would not deny that it is possible for God to use an evolutionary mechanism, but my personal belief is the one I put forward when you asked.’
When do you think humans appeared and how? And does it really matter to you if the cause of all causes is god? I have never drawn my atheism from evolution but from the implausibility of god.
John,
ReplyDelete‘In the words of Ann Coulter: “Although God believers don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.”
I am not a fan because of her willingness to slaughter in the name of Christianity. But I think the most important part of her statement is ‘God believers don’t need evolution to be false.’ I am not sure atheists ‘need’ evolution to be true. I think the bulk of them assume it to be. But if science was to come up with evidence to show that humans just appeared with absolutely no biological history then I guess atheists could accept it. For them as long as god is kept out of the equation it doesn’t much matter how we got here. I think that most atheists are non believers before they are evolutionists.
‘It is Darwin I oppose, absolutely, on account of reason and of faith. I don’t ‘believe’ in other types of evolution, but am open to be persuaded within the realms of reason.’
But again we see the convergence of strands of Darwinist and Christian thought.
‘I don’t dispute the possibility of ‘theistic evolution’ but have seen nothing to convince me of it either.’
The biological evidence we have demonstrates evolution. So it is either theistic or it isn’t. Once we have evolution the question becomes one of whether god is behind it. There are so many strong Christian works out there John which accept it. Bible bashers don’t but the intelligent Christian community is easy with it. In fact I think it is all too easy for atheists to laugh at believers who stick to a literal interpretation of Genesis. It becomes much less easy when believers master evolution and tie it in to god.
‘Darwinian evolution is based on ‘natural selection’ which might also be called chance selection. This flies in the face of our reason for chance is never a cause, but rather pre-supposes a cause. Once we posit a form of evolution that is not based on these principles we are no longer discussing Darwinism.’
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing Darwinism although not in its entirety. It is the ability of Theism to incorporate major aspects of Darwin into its belief system that makes it strong. Christian evolutionists are not susceptible to laughter and ridicule like the ID mob is. If the creature that evolves, even if through natural selection, has a ‘soul’ there is not much of a problem for believers. I am interested in the words of Ken Miller at the Dover Trial. He is a devout Christian who is also a biologist. He made the point ‘the notion that we are united in a great chain of being with every other living thing on this planet confirms my faith in a divine purpose and in a divine plan and means when I go to church on Sunday I thank the creator for this wonderful and bounteous earth and for the process of evolution which gave rise to such diversity that surrounds us.’ It is not meant to persuade you John. It merely illustrates how people have reconciled the two systems of thought.
‘I am only, (to borrow a phrase from a light-hearted book on the subject), a ‘peeping Thomist’.’
I liked that. I am only a peeping Darwinist – if even. I have books by him and on him in the house these years but only ever glance at them. We have to give our kids the best education available and when religion is smuggled into the classroom dressed up as science by people who admit their science is on a par with astrology I would defend evolutionary biology. We want science for our kids not myths. But I am by no means a Darwinista! The history of the dispute interests me more than the science of it.