Time Immortal

I mean, okay, let’s be realistic: Young Earth creationism and ID — at least of the Michael Behe sort — are patent falsehoods, so it makes sense that the Vatican wants nothing to do with them at the congress on the evolution “debate” that it is sponsoring. At the end of the day, the Church must strive to seek after the truth, and the discussion would become cluttered by the presence of those false viewpoints.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed rational Philosophy and Theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of [Young Earth] creationism and intelligent design.

…

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.

So atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, are also not invited. Which is consistent, to be sure.

Note: I’m not entirely sure I agree with the decision…I’m usually of the opinion that we shouldn’t block any particular viewpoint from being expressed. Having said that, I can understand the desire not to have a shouting match erupt, and I can understand the desire not to clutter discussions with useless and false viewpoints. Because ultimately, that’s what the ID movement and Young Earth creationism reduce to: falsehood. Oh, I can’t deny that the proponents of these viewpoints are people of good faith, whose first desire is to serve the Lord as they understand Him and His Word. But that’s just the problem: they don’t understand the Word of God as well as they should. And as a result, it might not be constructive, nor conducive to forward progress in terms of promulgating a cohesive theology which contradicts neither the Bible nor science, to invite the other groups.

Because, as Archbishop Ravasi notes later in the article, the theory of evolution “is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible’s message.”

Truth cannot contradict truth. Evolution, despite the controversy it has been associated with, is strongly supported by good evidence; it is, for all intents and purposes, true, in that it is a reasonably accurate description of the physical processes by which human life, and all other forms of life, emerged on Earth. At the same time, Scripture is true when it teaches us that God is creator of all things. We need to look past the ancient “history of the day” accounts as presented in Genesis, and not get caught up on the precise details of events related therein. What we need to take away from Genesis is not a message of history, but a message of faith: God is the creator of the Universe, the world, and all that live upon it. All of creation is “very good.” God made humanity in His own image. Humanity rebelled and, in sin, fell away from God.

Truth cannot contradict truth. These two truths — evolution of creatures and the creatorship of God — can be reconciled. They must be reconciled. And that, I think, is the main goal of this congress. At least, it can be so hoped.

Something for my misguided atheistic readers to consider.

During the year just past, much attention was paid to a spate of atheist tracts, notably Sam Harris‘ Letter to a Christian Nation, Christopher Hitchens‘ God Is Not Great, and Richard Dawkins‘ The God Delusion. Less attention was paid to a spate of books by scientists who happen also to be believers - biologist Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution and Christian Faith, astronomer Owen Gingerich’s , and geneticist Francis Collins‘ The Language of God.

Though the media buzz has tended to focus on the science-vs.-religion angle, it is worth noting that only four of the aforementioned books are by scientists and three of those argue against such a conflict. That said, it is also worth noting that none of the books is by a theologian, and Dawkins’ book suffers - as does Hitchens’ - not only from a relentlessly hectoring tone, but also from a tenuous understanding of both Philosophy and Theology. (In fairness, Dawkins seems to have read the Bible pretty thoroughly and is openly appreciative of the Authorized Version’s glorious language and literary significance.)

Christoph Schönborn’s Chance or Purpose offers a look from the theologian’s side. Schönborn, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, studied theology under Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Together, they edited the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Schönborn’s new book may be said to have evolved out of an article of his that appeared in the New York Times in July 2005 headlined “Finding God in Nature,” in which the cardinal seemed to place Catholic doctrine uncomfortably in alignment with intelligent design theory.

In his book, however, he goes out of his way repeatedly to differentiate between evolution as the best scientific explanation we have of how species come about and evolution as an ideology maintaining that natural selection has rendered all religious faith untenable.

In doing so, he says a number of quite interesting things, among them this: “. . . nowadays, whenever people talk about ‘design’ and a ‘designer,’ they automatically think of a ‘divine engineer,’ a kind of omniscient technician. . . . Here, in my view, lies the most profound cause of many misunderstandings - even on the part of the ‘intelligent design’ school in the U.S.A. God is no clockmaker; he is not a constructor of machines, but a Creator of natures.”

Schönborn does not regard “the methodical exclusion of divine involvement” - sometimes called “methodological atheism” - as amounting necessarily to a denial of God’s existence. It is, rather, “a straightforward method of science [which] cannot assume the existence of a ‘clockmaker’ who intervenes. [It] is looking for mechanisms and sets of conditions that can explain the way things happen.”

What the theologian’s perspective contributes most to this debate is that the term God, as theologians understand it, simply cannot be an object of scientific inquiry: God “is not just one cause among others. . . . He does not shape something that already exists. . . . [His] act of creation is not in time. . . .”

I think a lot of atheists make the — pardon me — dumb-ass mistake of assuming that the Universe is, for lack of a better term, a superset, with all things — including any notion of God they are willing to acknowledge — being subsets thereof. Everything has to be either empirically quantifiable or, at least, logically falsifiable according to the normal rules of the Universe and the workings of the human brain for it to exist, or for any discussion of its existence to have “meaning”.

Such an argumentative and analytical framework is unable to contemplate that the Universe itself might not be the superset, so to speak, but rather a large subset of something even bigger. The notion of a God that is external to nature, above creation, is an alien one, and dismissed out of hand anyhow because in such a case one could not hope to demonstrate God empirically or demonstrate that the idea of God can be adequately falsified.

Of course, it is incorrect for them to think that way — one needs not even launch into a convoluted example to demonstrate that. It’s easy to see how if we dismiss from consideration everything that cannot be revealed directly through the natural environment, we would of course fail to notice things external to that, and in fact cannot comment at all on whether or not such things exist.

More importantly, though, whether or not one believes in God is immaterial to one’s ability to conduct good science, and to accept the validity of scientific theory. It’s entirely possible for me, as a Christian, to accept the theory of evolution and the various evidences presented in support of it (and, in fact, I do accept it). It’s entirely possible for me to likewise believe that God is the author of all Creation. Like an artist and his brush, the two beliefs are not incompatible, but are actually compatible and to be expected. God is the artist behind Creation; evolution is the brush with which He painted mankind into being.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Mark Shea)

…here’s a long-winded and meandering example. Or perhaps multiple examples. I really can’t tell.

My aunt and uncle, and their three children, recently stopped attending services at their Catholic Church, in quiet protest over the Catholic Church of Canada’s response to Bill C-38, the recently-passed legislation that allows for same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license in Canada, and the Church’s ‘bias towards homosexuals’ in general. Well and good, and as free people in a free society, given the freedom to choose their own actions by God Himself, they are completely within their rights and power to do so. But as G.K. Chesterton once remarked, to possess a right is by no means the same thing as to be right in exercising it. This is as true for abortion as it is for ceasing to attend Church services in protest over the Church drawing a line in the sand over another morally contentious issue. Were I a little more strict in mind, I’d even go so far to say that it might qualify one for excommunication. But as conservative as I seem to be getting these days, I’m not that harsh.

In an increasingly secular society, it’s more and more common for people to leave the Church, or to leave any Religion really, because they disagree with some aspect of the Church’s moral teaching. This is not a new phenomenon, though — many have left the Church over moral, or other, disagreements. The various early heresies, and the Protestant Reformation, came about for these reasons. What is different in this day and age is the acceptance that goes along with such a separation, acceptance and even praise that is, in most respects, completely undeserved.

I am reminded of a passage written in the National Post — by an atheist — that basically began as a letter to Pope Benedict XVI. It’s no longer in their 7-day archive, but for the interested it was written by , and appeared in the June(??) 13th issue of the Post.

In it, he mentioned Benedict’s desire to see the ‘lapsed’ of the Church (some 20 million people) return to the fold, and the columnist’s response to that was ‘do you really want them back?’. It’s a valid question.

In reading some of posts on Angry’s blog that have been left in reply to one of his articles, it seems clear to me that the vast majority of people who have a beef with the Catholic Church disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control, abortion, sexuality prior to marriage, or homosexuality. In short…sex, sex, sex, and sex. Personally believing these things — all or just some of them — to be valid and not in any way immoral choices to make, the lapsed have taken to calling the Church to task for its incorrect stance on these issues (their stance obviously being the correct one!). It’s really quite a delicious arrogance, is it not?

So it goes in the age of moral relativism, really the ultimate in selfish ideologies: “I don’t agree with this teaching, but I think that this behaviour is right. I don’t have to be told how to live my life, and the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of old men, which means it has no relevance to my life. I think the Church is wrong on this issue.” And it goes even further than that. In many respects, it isn’t just the liberal attitudes of the lapsed coming through, but instead the completion of the pendulum-swing of society into the realm of moral relativism.

I had the opportunity to engage in a debate of moral absolutism vs. moral relativism with a young compatriot of mine recently. At the time, I was discussing morality with a friend, also a Christian, in the Computer Engineering ‘Club’ (read: Students’ Association) at my University. Another ‘CompE’ walked in during our conversation, just when I was getting into talking about moral absolutism with my friend. This unfortunate young man, whom we will call Josh, challenged me on this, asking how I could believe in moral absolutism. I asked if he believed in moral relativism, and his reply was a scoff and a “yes, doesn’t everybody?”.

Implication: I’m an under-educated, misguided neophyte.

“Okay“, I think to myself, “you’re on, buddy.“

At the time, there were two males (myself and Josh) and two females (my friend and her study partner) in the Club office, so I decided to fire with both barrels and chose a suitably relevant question. I asked Josh first if he’d be willing to engage in a little “outside the box” thinking and argue from a morally relativistic standpoint as to under what circumstances a certain action or sin I would name would be morally justifiable. When he agreed, I said one word: rape.

To his credit, he stuck to his guns* and tried valiantly to explain a situation in which rape would be morally justifiable:

JOSH: Well, if the person who…ah…got raped learned an important lesson from it.
ME: Yeah, we gotta learn them uppity womenfolk good, teach ‘em that they belong in the kitchen, right?
JOSH: No, not saying that. But if, you know, a person thought they were on top of the world, and the rape brought them down a notch…
ME: So…like…like it happens in some Middle Eastern nations, where a woman tries to, I don’t know…get an education? Or sleeps with a man outside of marriage…and then the local tribunal sends eight guys to rape her senseless for acting up?
JOSH: No, not like that at all!

And so on. In the end, having made a near-complete fool of himself and forever offended (and probably frightened) the two women I had previously been talking with, he hung his head and switched topics — still convinced his relativism was right. But I kept on. And he said something interesting then. I asked him: if he believed that people can decide their own morality and there is no overall arbiter thereof, whether or not it would be hypocritical for him to judge my actions as right or wrong if I did something…like rape someone. And his answer was that yes, he was allowed to judge me.

And therein lies the rub, as ol’ Bill might’ve said. The crux of the morally relative argument is just that: I am allowed to define my own morality, and I am allowed to judge the actions of others as moral or immoral according to the morality I define for myself. If there was ever a case of having your cake and eating it too, this is it. The ultimate selfish Philosophy. And this example above is no different…the supposed advocates of personal freedom of choice and action and morality are only too quick to impose judgment and restriction on those they disagree with.

* and no, I don’t think it’s right to rape someone. I think it’s a terrible violation of a person on all levels of their being. I credit Josh with sticking to his guns, as it were, because he didn’t back down from his relativism in the face of a difficult question. Other people I have so challenged have, in the past, defaulted to a selective absolutism when asked about rape, saying that in that case, it is never right. Josh did not stray into such hypocrisy.

It’s like Angry said in a recent post: “Me, me, me. It’s always about “Me” with these people.” And ultimately, it is folly, for it stacks the presumptuous moral posing of an individual angry at being told that the way in which they live their life is (dare I say it?) ‘wrong’ in some capacity against the long-established, age-and-persecution-tested, 2000-year evolved belief system and understanding of the Church. Who’s gonna win with that one?

O’Neill goes so far as to say that he, an atheist, would prefer to be seated next to an born-again evangelical Christian than to be seated next to a ‘recovering Catholic’ such as Marg, because while the former might provide some interesting conversation or a reasonably thought-out debate about the nature of religion…the latter will usually only whine about how the Church ‘done them wrong’ (to use the Southern vernacular).

How apt.

And so it is with my relatives. My cousin was only too happy to correct my understanding and curtly inform me that her family would no longer be attending Church services because of the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. All well and good, but it is hypocritical to criticize the Church as having the ‘wrong’ stance on the issue. Marriage, within the understanding of the Catholic Church, is an institution not solely designed to provide a forum for the consummation of passion between two people, nor is it solely about the two people getting married.

A priest whom I respect likened the divine nature of marriage to the divine nature of the Trinity, and I think his point is relevant. The Trinity is the ultimate embodiment of love, being that it is God, and within the human context marriage is the ultimate embodiment of love that a human being can experience in their mortal life on Earth. That is because marriage is a three-part arrangement as well. Certainly it involves, as is quoted in numerous places in Scripture, the unification of a man and a woman into a lifelong, monogamous relationship. But though marriage unifies, it does not complete. The completion of marriage, the culmination of the joining of two people, is in the fruits of their love, and the fruitfulness of their love. It is in children, the coming together to create a new life.

Adoption is wonderful, but even adoption does not cover this base. marriage is fully realized only when the couple that is married can partake of both its unitive aspect and the procreation that results from their sexual union. That is not something that is possible in a homosexual marriage. Two gay men cannot between them produce a baby, for neither has the necessary physical hardware to carry the child to term and deliver it. Likewise, two gay women cannot between then produce a baby, for though either one would be able to get pregnant, the child would not be the product of the sexual union of the two of them. That is not to say that either couple would not find some manner of fulfillment in adopting, artificially conceiving, or surrogating a child, but it IS to say that whatever fulfillment they might find, it is not a fulfillment that would justify the use of the term ‘marriage’.

This is the Church’s stance, and for all I can see it is the correct one. Marriage exists to provide the MOST STABLE framework possible for the rearing of children, because it is designed as a framework in which a man and a woman pledge monogamy to each other so as to facilitate the furthering of the species through natural procreative methods and the bringing of children into a household that is most ideal for raising a properly balanced (emotionally, mentally, spiritually…) child to adulthood. Anything that deviates from that should not be called marriage, for it does not contribute to the good of all humankind in the same manner. Call it something else.