Are All Coynes Made of Dross? — First Jerry and Now George!

_{William Dembski

November 18, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Comments

A God that can create a universe with such precision that He knows it's going to produce rational man 14 billion years later is pretty awe inspiring if you ask me. What could be more omnipotent and omniscient than that?DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Boze, the Catholic church isn't going by a literal reading of the old testament. I can hardly blame them because anyone that claims it's literal instead of allegorical gets about as much respect from modern society as someone that believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. The Catholic church doesn't want that.DaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

jboze: "That alone goes against everything the Bible itself says." I agree with you if you would only add the important and necessary phrase "the Bible as interpreted by jboze" says. That alone goes against everything the Bible as interpreted by jboze says. I've already quoted what the Catholic Church officially teaches on creation, and what the leaders in the Church accept on evolution. We have no argument with the natural sciences, and God the Primary Cause works through natural, secondary causes according to official Catholic teaching. I see no conflict, and neither does the greatest theologians and scientists in the Catholic Church today. 159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." [Vatican II GS 36:1] 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin.... Cardinal Schonborn was the general editor of the Catechism (paragraphs 159, 283-284 cited above). Phil PPhilVaz_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

"Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation." That alone goes against everything the Bible itself says. This statement makes God out to be some sort of minor player who merely started it all out and let purely natural causes do the creating.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

god creating thru natural evolution is a complete contradiction. if god created thru natural evolution, then he really didnt create anything besides starting it all. which means he didnt create humans (they just naturally evolved). even the pope seems to be confused as to what natural evolution means.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

FR. GEORGE COYNE: "God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves." (from The Tablet article) Conclusion: God creates through natural evolution and there is no conflict with Catholic dogma and science. CARDINAL SCHONBORN: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained....When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith....I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things." (10/2/2005 catechetical lecture) Conclusion: God creates through natural evolution and there is no conflict with Catholic dogma and science. CARDINAL RATZINGER / POPE BENEDICT: "Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion -- an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them....We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason." (In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall) Conclusion: God creates through natural evolution and there is no conflict with Catholic dogma and science. INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION: "In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe." (paragraph 68) AND "A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s providential plan for creation." (paragraph 69) Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (July 2004) Conclusion: God creates through natural evolution and there is no conflict with Catholic dogma and science (see also Catechism 159, 283-284). The theme of "man created in the image of God" was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis BruguÃƒÂ¨s, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe GeschÃƒÂ©, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J. As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm These Catholic folks have said more, but they've at least said the above. You guys aren't being fair to Fr. Coyne. If he is a heretic, Pope Benedict would be after him. And he's not. It is best to err on the side of charity when interpreting him. Phil PPhilVaz_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Over at PT, they're not disappointing to show how childish they all are. I've seen Dembski compared to Nazi figures, Stalin, a liar, a religious nut, an idiot, and more.jboze3131_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

well, i just read schonborn's essay linked above...and he says he has no problem with evolution as long as it stays in the bounds of science and doesnt attempt to claim purpose. so, i guess hes going for theistic evolution then? tho, i still dont see how you can adhere to that and still stick with a straight reading of genesis. im all for long ages in the 'days'...but still. the competing views that seem to me to be at least semi-official are confusing. theyre still proving my point over at PT that most people who comment there are hate-filled bigots who have too much time to personally attack others anytime they want. its a pleasure to say something then be proven right after less than an hr! and by 2 different people! (my belief in an immaterial soul tells K.E. all he/she needs to know about me..and max says that everyone posting here at this site is lying and we all know were liars!) hate-filled rants from bigots. gotta love it.jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

"Most people outside the church, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d think, easily assume they both speak for the official church and its position." That's true, but I think this issue of Coyne vs. Cardinal will be moot once the pope takes an official side. And he is most likely to be on Cardinal Schonborn's pro-ID side.anteater_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

i should also point out:
These should be the first words of instruction as well. Belief in God the Creator, belief that He created the heavens and the earth, is the beginning of faith. It launches the credo as its first article. That already implies that here is the basis of all, the foundation on which every other Christian belief rests. To believe in God and, at the same time, not to believe that he is the Creator would mean, as Thomas Aquinas puts it, "to deny utterly that God is." God and Creator are inseparable. Every other Christian conviction depends on this: that Jesus Christ is the Savior, that there is the Holy Spirit, that there is a Church, that there is eternal life: they all presuppose belief in the Creator.
If Coyne doesn't believe the Bible teaches a creator and designer God, then according to Aquinas, he's utterly denying that God is. Someone said that he doesn't speak for the Vatican, but it seems to me that if he's the Vatican astronomer and he goes out on TV and print and attacks a designer God, then most people would assume he's speaking for Tha Vatican...and it would further seem that The Vatican officials need to get their stories straight. The hierarchy, as I said, I don't totally understand- it's not rooted in the bible, but Catholic tradition, so I'm fairly clueless to the top down line of officials. Point is- most people would assume, I think, that this is official Vatican position since he's always given the title the Vatican Astronomer, and his views contradict the Catholic Church's official written views wildly. How does the Cardinal here speak FOR the Vatican but Coyne doesn't? Confusing. Most people outside the church, I'd think, easily assume they both speak for the official church and its position.jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

This idea of a God who is 100% superfluous to the origin of the universe and life really borders on the heretical (if the Bible is the basis).anteater_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod alone created the world. (De Fide) Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide) Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide) --------------------------- my problem with this is coyne has basically said that mud to man evolution is the case. if thats true, then how would god have created everything into existence and the 3rd item i pasted about proecting and guiding all he created? is coyne asserting theistic evolution? if so, MAYBE those 3 above could fit with his views...but from his talk i saw on cspan, it seemed to me that he was asserting the unguided (possibly front loaded) view or maybe total darwinian view of unguided processes without meaning or ultimate purpose (which, of course, isnt science to begin with, but thats the basic claim of NDE). i doubt hes asserting theistic evolution even, because behe is on record as saying that ID, to him, is a type of theistic evolution since hes fully fine with common descent. so, that said, it seems odd coyne would attack ID to begin with. then again, i dont really know how common descent even fits with the bible at all. well, with a straight forward reading of genesis (which seems to be written as history, not poetry or anything else...and christ seemed to think it was a literal book as well from his own words.)jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

I see PuckSR is over at PT attacking IDers as crazy...and claiming that all IDers do is try to "disprove" evolution. That, and he seems to be taking part in the religion bashing. I love PT- it's a great site to send your friends to to show you what religious bigotry is like. Well, religious bigotry and closed minded science and logical thinking. They're still over there discussing religion, trying to claim Mr. A and Mr. B are liars and that ID is all about religion- yet no one talks about religion more than the posters over at PT themselves! Anyone with 2 brain cells and common sense knows we were discussing theology NOT science in this particular thread...PT posters seem unable to comprehend the fact that science affects a person's worldview, just as Dawkins (a hero to many at PT) said Darwinism allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dawkins saying that is pure gold...but when someone on an ID site discusses theology, that's somehow a conspiracy and proves that ID IS theology. Common sense is rare at the site, as you can obviously see. I'll wait for more comments to see how many other people claim to know ANYTHING about my religious views or ANYTHING ELSE about me at all. I know none of those people, but of course they'll claim this and that about me and others posting comments to UC. My advice- get a hobby and worry about your own views, instead of taking time to make up imaginary views of others.jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

phil you must be kidding. You haven't read or heard everything Coyne has said. Ã¢â‚¬â€œAll that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide) That's a logical contradiction. From nothing comes only nothing. I'm not a Catholic so I don't accept on faith that the impossible can be possible. In my belief God created everything from something. That something is God. Panentheism (not pantheism). -God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide) Coyne says that God didn't create the world and that he also didn't plan on creating the world. He says that the universe in it's form today came into existence through a natural process of increasing complexity and that God didn't involve himself in it. He said that God wanted the universe to exist but did not cause it to exist. He teaches that the universe is evolving on it's own into the world we see today. God is somehow responsible for the natural laws of physics but not for the actual creation of the universe. Ã¢â‚¬â€œThe world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't belive the world was created, nor does he believe that it came about purposefully. He seicifically says it came about by a natural process without guidance from God. Ã¢â‚¬â€œThe Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide) Coyne has written that he doesn't believe that God is omniscient. That rules out the Holy Spirit. If you are omnipresent then you are also omniscient if you are God. Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't believe God created the world. Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod has created a good world. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't believe God created the world. Ã¢â‚¬â€œThe world had a beginning in time. (De Fide Coyne does believe that. Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod alone created the world. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't believe God created the world. Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't believe anything was created. Coyne doesn't believe God is omniscient. Ã¢â‚¬â€œGod, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide) Coyne doesn't believe God created the world. Coyne doesn't believe God is omniscient.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly" His invocation of "modern biblical research" worries me as much as postmodernist liberal protestant churches do.anteater_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Good post Phil. Mentok, I hope the quotations Phil provided helps.PaV_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

jboze: " After reading these comments by Coyne, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m even more worried over the state of the Catholic Church. Heck, does the Catholic Church even have any use for the Bible anymore? " Don't be worried, just read Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you have any doubts about the official teaching: "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Thus 'all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work' [2 Tim 3:16-17]...." AND "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord, in so far as she never ceases, particularly in the sacred liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ. She has always regarded, and continues to regard the Scriptures...as the supreme rule of her faith. For, since they are inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time, they present God's own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles. It follows that all the preaching of the Church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture. In the sacred books the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life. Scripture verifies in the most perfect way the words: 'The Word of God is living and active' [Heb 4:12] and 'is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified' [Acts 20:32; cf. 1 Thess 2:13]." There are also late 19th and 20th century encyclicals on Scripture written by Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus), Benedict XV (Spiritus Paraclitus) and Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu) that are easily available online. As for Catholic doctrine on creation, Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974, orig 1952) affirms these points (De Fide are infallible dogmas "of Catholic faith"). --All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide) Ott points out that what is in view here by the First Vatican Council are those heresies of ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism (where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere "matter" is evil not good, etc), along with modern materialism or pantheism (Ott, page 79). Further: --God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide) --The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide) --The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide) --God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide) --God has created a good world. (De Fide) --The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide) --God alone created the world. (De Fide) --God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide) --God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide) That's the official teaching of the Church. As for Fr. Coyne's position, you can read the full article published in The Tablet rebutting Cardinal Schonborn's editorial in the New York Times (which Schonborn is clarifying in a new series of catechetical lectures). See Schonborn's first catechetical lecture 10/2/2005 on Creation and Evolution here http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm The Tablet article here http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01063 FR. GEORGE COYNE: "It is unfortunate that creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaeo-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true...." "This stress on our scientific knowledge is not to place a limitation upon God. Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God. Such a view of creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St Augustine in his comments on Genesis. If they respect the results of modern science and, indeed, the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words. Scripture is very rich in these thoughts. It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe, who empties himself in Christ the incarnate Word. Thus GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s revelation of himself in the Book of Scripture would be reflected in our knowledge of the universe, so that, as Galileo was fond of stating, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature speak of the same God....." "God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism? Only a protracted dialogue will tell. But we should not close off the dialogue and darken the already murky waters by fearing that God will be abandoned if we embrace the best of modern science." I don't see any conflicts with what I quoted as De Fide dogma above. Although as pointed out, Fr. Coyne doesn't speak officially for the Church, the Popes and Magisterium do (see Vatican Council II, the Catechism, the papal encyclicals, Ludwig Ott, or Denzinger if you want the sources of Catholic dogma). Fr. Coyne is simply giving his understanding as a professional astronomer and priest how he reconciles science (evolution) and religion. It is basically a theistic evolution position which has been non-controversial in the Church since Pius XII (Humani Generis in 1950). Phil PPhilVaz_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

"Does the Word of God receive that kind of reverential treatment in your church?" Yes, there is an outward form of reverence, but that would be moot if the Word were not followed internally. BTW, I agree with the catholic church on many more issues than I do with postmodernist liberal protestant churches.anteater_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

An uncomputable number somewhere between 11 and 13... What? Angels can dance on the head of a pin....jesguessin_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Well, Mentok, at least the Catholic Church sticks to its canon better than the Episcopal Church. Look at John Spong and Gene Robinson. I know the Vatican wouldn't put up with that! Davidcrandaddy_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

I meant pseudo. I think psuedo is some kind of soup :)mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Why does Coyne pretend to be a Catholic priest? He clearly doesn't believe in nor teach Catholic doctrine. What's the point of calling himself a priest? Just because he has some convoluted belief about God doesn't mean that he should be recognized by the Catholic Church as a priest. Why not let priests preach voodoo or scientology or islam or judaism as being superior to Catholicism? What is the purpose of having a priesthood if the priests can teach a religion different then what the religion teaches? I can understand having a difference and allowing a difference over philosophy and theology. But the differences should be able to be supported in some way by the religious doctrine. If there is difference over birth control or other non essential theological points that can be acceptable. But Coyne teaches a completely different religious belief then Catholicism. He has that right. But why should the Catholic Church recognize him as their priest, and why should be misrepresent himself as one? He openly teaches against and vociferously opposes the very basic tenets of Christianity. If he had an ounce of integrity he would remove his collar and resign as a priest. If he wants to teach that the traditional teachings of Christianity are all wrong, that is fine by me. Good luck. But for him to pose as a priest of the Catholic Church is a dishonest and unethical charade on his part. He talks about how ID is psuedo science, well, he's a psuedo person.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Just because ID has strong religious implications doesn't make it a religious concept; undirected evolution is in the exact same boat. Anybody with an IQ over 90 can understand that. Comments like those are the reason I don't bother with Panda's Thumb. Davidcrandaddy_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

pav you wrote: "The KabbalistÃ‚Â¹s God is both perfectly simple and infinitely complex, nothing and everything, hidden and revealed, reality and illusion, creator of man and created by man,. Does Fr. Coyne sound like heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s saying anything like this at all? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think so" I didn't say that Coyne teaches an exact copy of kabbalah, I said he teaches in a similar way. They both believe in more or less the same thing, there is a little difference, but not much. "the Kabbalists conceive God, the world and humanity as evolving together through, and thus embodying, a number of distinct stages and aspects" That is pure Omega Point doctrine and what Coyne says he believes. Both also believe in an impersonal God who doesn't get involved with the world e.g because it is a universal impersonal "God" not a conscious entity. They both believe that the universe is working not by God's direction but through "Gods" intermediary e.g natural forces which are evolving. In other words God to them is a kind of universal being non-being, not a conscious entity.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

that is absurd. we werent discussing science in this thread, we were discussing theology. PT CONSTANTLY posts about religion and uses their stuff to attack religion and religious groups...so, with their logic, theymust be lying and theit theory is really all about religion. so absurd. many things in science affect a persons worldview and religion is part of a persons worldview. side discussions on religion in NDE or ID are not shocking. dawkins said it allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, so HE must be lying and NDE must be all about religion, right? their is simply no logic over at PT.jboze3131_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

In the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, it should end: "from the beginning of the Universe (Big Bang)." Sorry.PaV_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

mentok: The KabbalistÃ‚Â¹s God is both perfectly simple and infinitely complex, nothing and everything, hidden and revealed, reality and illusion, creator of man and created by man,. Does Fr. Coyne sound like he's saying anything like this at all? I don't think so. There's a fair legitamacy in thinking that God, in his infinite Wisdom, already set in place all the physical constants and parameters for the evolution of life on earth. Michael Denton sort of takes that position. For theology, maybe this is problematic; but for science it's not. They are the actual psuedo scientists. In their spastic futile flailing away at ID they reveal their own pathetic state of stale discredited sophistry and spiritual philosophical vaccuousness. But maybe he's just wrong. You make him sound evil. Why demonize those with differing views? What would you do if it was proven that RM+NS can account for macroevolution? I would simply believe that God guided that process. No problem. Look at the problem of grace and freedom. We have free will; but if God didn't help us with His grace, we couldn't do the good He ask us to. I, for one, admit that except for very rare cases, I don't really "feel", or "detect", that grace at work. But surely it must be at work. Well, can't the same be true of the natural order as well?PaV_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Cambion you wondered if the Big Bang theory has been discredited. The answer is yes. But like evolutionary theory it's hold over mainstream academia is still dominant, although there are many scientists who dispute it. Here is a huge list of scientists who oppose the Big Bang theory. See http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ The Big Bang theory was conceived of by a monk scientist named Georges LemaÃƒÂ®tre working on the order of the Vatican to come up with a scientific explanation of creation ex nihilo based on the new physics of day popularized by Einstein. Later it was expanded on by other scientists and it has been tooled around with ever since. There is a lot of data that refutes the Big Bang theory. See: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html http://www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041227prediction-bigbang.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/02background/ http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ http://www.holoscience.com/mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

jbose Are your ears burning? http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/vatican_officia.html#comment-58872Renard_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

You can see in this bit taken from a wikipedia article and from a Lurianic Kabbalah site how the nature of God and the universe in Coyne's views are similar to a variant of Kabbalistic views: Ein-sof "Ein-Sof, the Infinite God, has no static, definable form. Instead, the Kabbalists conceive God, the world and humanity as evolving together through, and thus embodying, a number of distinct stages and aspects, with later stages opposing, but at the same time encompassing, earlier ones. The KabbalistÃ‚Â¹s God is both perfectly simple and infinitely complex, nothing and everything, hidden and revealed, reality and illusion, creator of man and created by man,. As Ein-Sof evolves it is progressively revealed as "nothing whatsoever" (Ayin), the totality of being, the Infinite Will (Ratzon) , Thought and Wisdom, the embodiment of all value and significance (the Sefirot), the wedding of male and female, and ultimately the union of all contradictions. Ein-Sof is both the totality of this dialectic and each of the points along the way. Ein-Sof must be constantly redefined, as by its very nature, it is in a constant process of self-creation and redefinition. This self-creation is actually embodied and perfected in the creativity of humanity, who through practical, ethical, intellectual and spiritual activities, strives to redeem and perfect a chaotic, contradictory and imperfect world. The Kabbalists used a variety of negative epistemological terms to make reference to the hidden God; "the concealment of secrecy", "the concealed light", "that which thought cannot contain" etc. (Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 88) each of which signifies that this God is somehow beyond human knowledge and comprehension. However, there are other terms, e.g., "Root of all roots", "Indifferent Unity", "Great Reality," (Scholem. Major Trends, p. 12) "Creator," "Cause of Causes" and "Prime Mover" (as well as the term, Ein-Sof, "without end") which signify that God is the origin of the world, the reality of the world, or the totality of all things. Yet in spite of the positive connotations, even those Kabbalists who utilized such terms held that they referred to a God who is completely unknowable and concealed. Of this God, the proto-Kabbalistic work,Sefer Yetzirah had earlier said "restrain your mouth from speaking and your heart from thinking, and if your heart runs let it return to its place" (Sefer Yetzirah. I. 8, as translated in Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar. Vol , 1 p 234). As explained in Symbols of the Kabbalah, Chapter Two, Ein-sof provides a rational/spiritual answer to the questions "Why is there anything at all?" and "What is the meaning of human life?" Ein-sof begets a world so that He, as the source of all meaning and value, can come to know Himself, and in order for His values, which in Him exist only in the abstract, can become fully actualized in humanity. Ein-sof is both the fullness of being and absolute nothingness, but is not complete in its essence until He is made real through the spiritualizing and redemptive activity of mankind. Ein-sof is mirrored in the heart and soul of man, but, more importantly, He is actualized in man's deeds." Sefirot "Most forms of Kabbalah teach that the Sefirot are not distinct from the Ein Sof, but are somehow within it in a potential manner. Kabbalists speak of the second aspect of God as being seen by the universe as ten emanations from God; these emanations are called sefirot. See also Kabbalistic use of the Tetragrammaton. The sefirot mediate the interaction of the ultimate unknowable God with the physical and spiritual world. Some explain the sefirot as stages of the creative process whereby God, from His own infinite being, created the progression of realms which culminated in our finite and physical universe. Others suggest that the sefirot may be thought of as analogous to the fundamental laws of physics. Just as gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force allow for interactions between matter and energy, the ten sefirot allow for interaction between God and the universe."mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply