Theistic Evolution: The parents of Adam & Eve

[Pon de Replay]

What stopped you in the end?

What were the biggest contributing factors?

The three biggest problems for me in the end were theodicy, ecclesiology, and evolution.  Apropos of this thread, evolution was the least nuanced.  The dilemma seems almost perfectly binary: if evolution is true, then Christianity is false.  And vice versa.  I tried for a time to hold theistic evolution in my head, but it drove me mad.  I admire people who are able to somehow reconcile the two, but for me it was not possible.

There was also the nagging problem that I was my own pope.  I was fashioning my own little niche version of Catholicism, "Gallican and Jansenist."  In truth, Catholicism is neither of those things.  Nor is it really Hellenistic, despite the great efforts of the Church Fathers and the early Renaissance artists, and at some point one has to be honest with one's self.

[Greg]

Honestly, I like being my own Pope.

[The Theosist]

What stopped you in the end?

What were the biggest contributing factors?

The three biggest problems for me in the end were theodicy, ecclesiology, and evolution.  Apropos of this thread, evolution was the least nuanced.  The dilemma seems almost perfectly binary: if evolution is true, then Christianity is false.  And vice versa.  I tried for a time to hold theistic evolution in my head, but it drove me mad.  I admire people who are able to somehow reconcile the two, but for me it was not possible.

Yet Christianity and evolution can both be true without forcing Genesis into moral metaphor or holding to theistic evolution. It just requires giving up the notion that this world of Adam's exile is God's creation and that any intelligent designer is divine. You know my answer for theodicy, and the problem of the sensible meaning of omnipotence and foreknowledge that can be used to reject these concepts as commonly invoked and answer your objection to "gnosticism". As for ecclesiology, abandoning the Catholic version hardly entails having to abandon Christ.

[Greg]

The problem is the Church taught them defide.  To require Catholics to believe something that is objectively false, even if you did not know that at the time, is an error.

This means the Church is not protected from error.  And that Science is superior to the Church.  Since science technically allows opposition of theories and does not call people sinners who contradict it.

But I don't believe in evolution.  I think it is a giant self justifying bullshit exercise like Coronavirus.  Humans are very adept at myths.  And most people are compliant sheep.  So false ideas get oxygen and grow like weeds.

[Frank]

The problem is the Church taught them defide.  To require Catholics to believe something that is objectively false, even if you did not know that at the time, is an error.

This means the Church is not protected from error.  And that Science is superior to the Church.  Since science technically allows opposition of theories and does not call people sinners who contradict it.

But I don't believe in evolution.  I think it is a giant self justifying bullshit exercise like Coronavirus.  Humans are very adept at myths.  And most people are compliant sheep.  So falsd ideas get oxygen and grow like weeds.

It's only protected from error under certain specific circumstances.

Outside those it can and does make all kind of errors.

[Greg]

Such specific circumstances, and so rarely, it is next to useless.  It makes zero difference to my life whether the BVM was immaculately conceived or not.

Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

If the Church punishes people for disagreeing with it, over something that turns out to be true, then it is a tyrant like all other tyrants. It has certainly thrown its political weight around with the confidence of an institution protected from error in more than just those limited circumstances.  Right now, for example, where the ONLY thing it insists on compliance with is Vatican II.  And the only schismatics in the world are those who reject Vatican II.

Marcel Lefebvre is bad.  Biden and Pelosi welcomed in the Vatican. 

A guarantee which guarantees an appliance only under specific or rare circumstances is worthless.

[Frank]

Such specific circumstances and so rarely it is next to useless.  It makes zero difference to my life whether the BVM was immaculately conceived or not.

Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

If the Church punishes people for disagreeing with it over something that turns out to be true, then it is a tyrant like all other tyrants. It has certainly thrown its political weight around with the confidence of an institution protected from error in more than just those limited circumstances.  Right now, for examples where the ONLY thing it insists on compliance on is Vatican II.  And the only schismatics in the world are those who reject Vatican II.

Marcel Lefebvre is bad.  Biden and Pelosi welcome in the Vatican.

A guarantee which guarantees an appliance only under specific or rare circumstances is worthless.

[Daniel]

The answer is simple: "evolution" is bad science, "evolutionism" is a false counterreligion, and "theistic evolution" is syncretism.

Certain kinds of microevolution have been directly observed. But this is not incompatible with young earth creationism, and microevolution doesn't entail other kinds of evolution.

Macroevolution and cosmic evolution have never been directly observed. What we have is unclear, ambiguous data that could go either way. The only reason why so many people believe in evolution is because they are spiritually blind. They assume up front that young earth creationism is absurd (or at least wrong, not to be taken seriously), so they go with the only other option that they've ever been taught (or, the option that they judge to be more "likely" or "probable", the only option which they take to be worthy of belief).

There's no point trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity, unless you want to be a heretic and believe in absurdities. Evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable. The God of Christianity is simply not the same person as the "God" posited by theistic evolution, and Christians are definitely not free to reject the fall of man (a doctrine which entails that the world was not always imperfect).

[Jayne]

Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

I am not sure what point you are making. Are you claiming it is objectively false that there were two parents to the human race? Or are you claiming the Church changed position on this? The Church continues to teach that we had two parents to the human race. (Current science supports the idea the humanity arose in on place and that DNA can be traced to a common ancestor.) Theistic evolution could only be considered if it incorporated that teaching.

[Maximilian]

The answer is simple: "evolution" is bad science, "evolutionism" is a false counterreligion, and "theistic evolution" is syncretism.

Certain kinds of microevolution have been directly observed. But this is not incompatible with young earth creationism, and microevolution doesn't entail other kinds of evolution.

Macroevolution and cosmic evolution have never been directly observed. What we have is unclear, ambiguous data that could go either way. The only reason why so many people believe in evolution is because they are spiritually blind. They assume up front that young earth creationism is absurd (or at least wrong, not to be taken seriously), so they go with the only other option that they've ever been taught (or, the option that they judge to be more "likely" or "probable", the only option which they take to be worthy of belief).

There's no point trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity, unless you want to be a heretic and believe in absurdities. Evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable. The God of Christianity is simply not the same person as the "God" posited by theistic evolution, and Christians are definitely not free to reject the fall of man (a doctrine which entails that the world was not always imperfect).

Well put.

With your intellect so solid on such a fundamental topic, I think it is only a matter of time before you begin to resolve some of your other quandries.