Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze on the Pope’s recent statement on evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Laszlo Bencze:

“God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

I believe the Catholic church became hyper sensitized to issues of science vs. religion as a result of the Galileo debacle. This became a huge embarrassment to Catholicism. It was a clash that no pope wished ever to repeat. Post Galileo the church moved ever closer to uncritical acceptance of scientific theories. This accommodation posed no problems so long as the theories were actually physical rather than metaphysical. Thus Newton’s mechanics, Boyle’s law, and Lavoisier’s oxygen theory of combustion meshed uncontroversially with church doctrine.

Unfortunately Darwinism appeared mid 19th century posing as a normal physical theory about how the world works when in fact it was metaphysical speculation. Gun shy Catholicism accepted its claims at face value without doing the careful study that discernment demanded. As a result it was saddled with a fundamental contradiction: belief in a creator god who science had divested of all creative power. To say that science was wrong was to align the church with Protestant fundamentalists who protested in a style that was unseemly and tainted with an anti-science stance the church had long abandoned. Yet to unreservedly endorse evolution was clearly to abdicate all authority to an atheistic secularism.

So the church in its struggles to avoid the two ends of the spectrum eventually cobbled together a compromise solution perhaps best exemplified by Teilhard DeChardin’s The Phenomenon of Man. God let things run their course according to the “laws of evolution” interfering only on three occasions—the beginning of life, the creation of man, and the birth and resurrection of Jesus.

Though DeChardin did not receive official approval of that book, it now seems to have become the defacto stance of the Catholic church. The pope genuflects to Darwin because not to do so is to seem irrelevant and foolish in a world which has accepted Darwin as the Messiah. Yet the pope also reserves a few strongholds for god in a self-referentially incoherent system known as “theistic evolution.”

Anyone looking for logical consistency in the Pope’s statements should apply elsewhere. On the other hand post-moderns, mainline Protestants, and weak kneed evolutionists are free to derive solace as they may wish.

Eventually, the Church will be forced to grapple with the metaphysical naturalism that underlies Darwinism and allows it to br considered the “science” of biology. Many denominations will merely go under first.

See also: Pope on evolution? Wait, what? The Church published an encyclical 64 years ago saying exactly what Pope Francis said yesterday? You don’t say!

Comments
Silver Fox, I think Hunter Thompson's invective was in a class of its own. But I remember a couple of chapters of the genius you normally only find in classics - where he wrote straight from the heart - not a word too many, not a word too few.Axel
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PST
To my Catholic brothers, God bless you.Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST
And you think that proves your point re: Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics, et. al. are Creationists?
Yes, it does prove my point. I provided definitions of the term, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.Silver Asiatic
November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST
rhampton: Footnote to the above: While your implied understanding of "creationism" is sound, your definition of the term "theistic evolution" (TE) has yet to be produced. Note that in your previous debate on this subject on this site, you ducked out of the discussion when it came to the crucial matters of (1) defining TE, and (2) evaluating the theology of John Haught whom you used as your example of a TE. Why don't you want us know what you mean by "TE"? And why don't you want us to hear your agreements/disagreements with Haught? For the discussion, see: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-conversation-with-a-te/ Better late than never, rhampton. You can still show some theological spine by making some committed statements regarding these matters. Easy to attack others, such as ID people, and easy to quote (without comment or explanation) Popes or Catholics documents; much harder to articulate and defend a positive position.Timaeus
November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST
rhampton7: You are right to say that the position of the recent Popes has not been "creationist" as that term is usually employed in popular American discourse. It is too bad you do not contribute over at BioLogos. There seem to have been a string of "Catholic creationists" commenting over there in the past few years, all of whom sound like ICR or AIG when interpreting Genesis. I would think that those people, much more than StephenB or Vincent Torley here, need your Catholic corrective. It also interesting how uncritical you are of the "magician" language of Pope Francis; such rhetoric on the part of Francis is hardly argument. It is quite clear that at many points in the Bible, God acts as a "magician" -- walking on water, feeding the five thousand with the equivalent of half a dozen bag lunches, instantaneously (as the language of Mark stresses) healing the blind, the paralyzed, etc. Only someone convinced of the self-sufficiency of the modern Enlightenment view of nature is embarrassed by such stories. And if God could act that way in NT times (and indeed in OT times) there is no reason why he could not have acted in that way in the creation. This does not mean that God could not have employed natural causes in the creation; it does mean that embarrassment about a "magician" God is out of place for a believing Christian -- Catholic as well as Protestant, Pope as well as lay person. I wish that Francis would refrain from rhetorical appeals (tacitly implying that the dumb people believe God created partly by direct means, while the smart people believe in 100% naturalistic evolutionary creation), and stick with cool Biblical and theological analysis. Benedict seems to me to have take a less rhetorical -- and more philosophically thoughtful -- approach to the matter, granting fully the possibility of evolutionary creation without employing a language of ridicule of God's "primary" activity -- a ridicule that plays right into the hands of the Enlightenment, 19th-century reductionism, and scientism.Timaeus
November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST
God directly creates each human soul
And you think that proves your point re: Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics, et. al. are Creationists? Catholicism is no friend to the Creationist's literal biblical interpretation. Pope Benedict XVI explains;
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.
I recommend that you spend some time at ICR or AIG Creationist sites to clear your confusion. In their own words, they emphatically prove you wrong.rhampton7
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST
De fideSilver Asiatic
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PST
You might read the link I provided. God directly creates each human soul. Due fide Doctrine.Silver Asiatic
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST
Silver Asiatic, That's an outright lie. No less than John D. Morris & Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research bemoan the anti-Creationist views of the Popes and the Catholic Church. Answers in Genesis agrees, proclaiming that;
"Ultimately, although the pope (Benedict XVI) calls for a broader approach to human origins, the theistic evolution belief he supports is a dangerous belief that accepts the evolutionary ideas of long ages, violence and death, apemen, and the like, merely adding a vague, distant “god” in the picture."
rhampton7
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PST
Pope Francis uses quite a lot of creationist ideas and terminology there. Not surprising, since he is, as all Catholics must be, a creationist. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htmSilver Asiatic
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PST
You are addressing the highly complex subject of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into the scientific complexity, which you well understand, of this important and crucial question. I only want to underline that God and Christ are walking with us and are also present in nature, as the Apostle Paul stated in his discourse at the Areopagus: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings. The beginning of the world was not a work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big Bang theory, which is proposed today as the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of a divine creator but depends on it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.
From Address Of His Holiness Pope Francis On The Occassion Of The Inauguration Of The Bust In Honour Of Pope Benedict XVI, October 27, 2014.rhampton7
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PST
Axel -- yes, that's the quote I was thinking of and I'm glad you saw it as a compliment. The bio I saw just last night was quite good, with a lot of rare interview clips and many interviews with people who knew him in his glory days through to the end. They spent time analyzing his writing style and methods which were so innovative. Like how he joined the Hells Angels to live with them, then he was beaten by them within inches of his life after he wouldn't share revenue from the book. I read his first three books years ago. He was a genius. Tragic in so many ways, but he had a good sense of rebellion against stupid things. I wish he could have shifted his talent to something like the absurdities of Evolutionism - his humor would have been endless and brilliant on this topic. Meanwhile, we've got David Berlinski who has that same kind of ingenious humor and writing style as HST did (and a healthier lifestyle).Silver Asiatic
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST
Graham - I appreciate your thoughtful reply also - and your sincerity as well. I don't think most people here have that primary aim, to protect the faith, but maybe it seems that way. We all come at these issues with assumptions, as I see it. Very often, atheists carry a Christian worldview with them and it creates a strange mixture of thought. Also, Catholicism is a minority view in the ID world so you'll find different reasoning on these matters from most IDers. But belief in God is not necessary to recognize the ID inference anyway. I think you disagree with that, but that's one of the big debates we have here.Silver Asiatic
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST
SA: I had a small pang of contrition after that. You gave a long, thoughtful reply to my heartless little jabs. I agree with most of what you say, in the sense that that is exactly what drives much of the thinking of the religious people in this place. It is wrapped up in fuzzy sciency stuff like 'design', but all with the same aim: to protect the faith. You at least had the honesty to lay out the assumptions with a clarity not often seen here.Graham2
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST
SA: We are forbidden to be skeptical You guys just cant help yourselves.Graham2
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST
I hope this digression will be OK with you, Laszlo, but I'll understand if it won't! Thanks for that 'weird' compliment, Silver Fox! Methinks you must be thinking of these words of Hunter's: 'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro!' What he calls 'weird', I call mad, and it's one of the highest compliments I can pay someone. To seem mad to a world of mad people might just be the way to go...! I've just seen that that was Hunter's rationale, in calling his party of spaced-out hippies, Freak Power, pushing for legalisation of marijuana. I loved the hair-cut jape! Reminds me of the time, when, in a restaurant, pretending he didn't know who this aggresive, narcissistic astronaut, a stereo-typical All American Boy' type was, he called him 'a goddam Polack!' Which of course was guaranteed, not inappropriately, to send him into the stratosphere! Lucky you, able to watch a documentary on him. He's hopeless, mind you on YouTube interviews, as he mumbles inaudibly in an introverted sort of way. Strange for a very tall extravert, which he clearly was, though Clint Eastwood, while not an inspired headbanger like Hunter is softly-spoken. If you can get hold of his book, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, you should read it. I think it's his best, at least of his older books. I need to read his more recent ones. http://hunterthompsonblog.tumblr.com/post/3832711917/the-battle-of-aspen-freak-power-in-the-rockiesAxel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST
Graham2
So, any catholic who comments here is forbidden (by the Pope no less) to even consider any scientific claim that contradicts a ‘revealed truth’.
I can try to explain. First, we didn't say "to even consider" but rather, "to be skeptical of". Secondly, not by the Pope, but by God. That's the way the Catholic religion works. The believer becomes convinced of the truth that God exists. He is convinced by reason, through arguments that indicate a high level of certainty, as well as by Faith - through prayer, an inner conviction is reached. Belief in God, in the Catholic religion, entails a belief/faith in what God revealed - His teachings via the authority of the Church. So, we are forbidden to go against our own convictions of the truth. We are forbidden to be skeptical about what we have already recognized as true and which we pledged our faith towards. It's like a marriage - man and woman pledge their trust and love. There is faith involved. Suspicion and skepticism about the other person would damage the love realitionship. The believer recognizes that God is more trustworthy than even a loved person (spouse or loved one). This doesn't prevent believers from looking at scientific results. But it is forbidden to believers to deny the existence of God, or to think that material nature alone has the power to create itself (or take the place of God). That's idolatry.
I can only repeat, Im impressed with your candour. Now, why on earth didn’t someone in this place point this out earlier, like about 10 years earlier. It would have saved so much trouble.
This site is really not the best place for religious discussions, although they pop up once in a while. Catholicism has been around for 2000+ years and has had a massive influence on society and culture - and even science. So, it's something that every educated person should be knowledgeable about, in my opinion.Silver Asiatic
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST
Good thoughts, Axel. Weird also, (when the going gets weird) I watched a bio of HS Thompson on tv just last night.Silver Asiatic
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST
I think the RC church leaders fear the power of the obfuscatory power of the corporate-owned media, as well as its mischief-making. Would they be failing to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's? I get the impression, however, that Pope Francis can see from the signs of the times, as well as from the reverberations of Scripture in both the Mass and the Daily Office, that the church has, for far too long, acted as if it were the monied folk who were the Lord's anointed, and 'the poor we have always with us'. 'Maybe that means they've always coped without our paying to much attention to the ways in which they have been routinely oppressed. Which, of course was not the meaning of those words of Christ. However, I'm strongly inclined to think that people would jump for joy once they were told by the Catholic church not to be taken in by the false narrative of today's atheist scientists relating to evolution, which in fact has been disproved in a number of significant ways; or by the notion that science and religion are in conflict. The exact opposite is the truth. I think it would contribute mightily to the taming and control of the multinationals, owned by the 1%, and the national governments which are supposed to serve the people, but are in the pockets of the 1%, who effectively rule the world. Respectability is of the essence of the highest reaches of power, and subsequently having the multinationals, indeed, the whole 'rentier' sector, operate within a moral and indeed patriotic framework, chillingly absent from our atheist industries, today, would not be a cheering prospect for their boardroom 'wheelers and dealers'. As Hunter S Thompson once remarked: 'Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.'Axel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PST
'Graham2 – I think you’d sigh merely at the mention of belief in God, right? If so there’s less reason to be dismayed about beliefs that follow from it.' Go easy on him, Silver Asiatic. I think all those sighs suggest that he could die of inanition at any time.Axel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PST
SB: The Church encourages skeptical inquiry, as long as it isn’t about revealed truths. I give you credit for honesty. So, any catholic who comments here is forbidden (by the Pope no less) to even consider any scientific claim that contradicts a 'revealed truth'. I can only repeat, Im impressed with your candour. Now, why on earth didn't someone in this place point this out earlier, like about 10 years earlier. It would have saved so much trouble.Graham2
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST
Graham as opposed to having hyper skepticism to anything immaterial or supernatural . I guess so done forgot to tell this kettle that he is black as well huh graham and fior the record I'm Catholic and I was persuaded. Y the evidence to leave the theory of evolution ;)wallstreeter43
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST
Graham2 - I think you'd sigh merely at the mention of belief in God, right? If so there's less reason to be dismayed about beliefs that follow from it.Silver Asiatic
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST
Graham2
The church encourages sceptical inquiry, as long as its not too sceptical.
The Church encourages skeptical inquiry, as long as it isn't about revealed truths.
the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God Sigh.
Of course. Both faith and reason demand it. It is physically impossible to generate an immaterial soul from physical nature. Matter cannot produce spirit. That's one of the reasons for the aforementioned encyclical.StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PST
SB: The op is about the attitude of the church towards evolution. Exactly why their opinion is of any value is beyond me, and the reason its beyond me is clearly demonstrated in the quoted section. The church encourages sceptical enquiry, as long as its not too sceptical. and theres more: the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God Sigh.Graham2
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PST
Excellent analysis by Mr Bencze. Thank you. I'm encouraged by the growing number of Catholic intellectuals who understand the issue. Teilhardism is still with us but I don't see it having much future. The Church has been cautious and that was, in part not only due to Galileo but also because it has taken a while to build an airtight case against Darwinism, given its many ambiguitiesSilver Asiatic
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST
Quest, You may have left the anti-Catholic component without having been introduced to the Catholic component.StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PST
Shame! Shame! And one more time shame! To me personally the Catholic Church would accept anyone and anything as long as they put in some money into the volt... Shameful behavior! I'm glad I left this organization over 20 years ago now...Quest
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST
Graham2
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church Sigh.
Well, yes, that is what it means to be Catholic, or haven't you heard. Sigh.StephenB
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church Sigh.Graham2
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply