Theological Dialogue 8.5: A Brief Commentary

*This response was written by one of my students as commentary regarding the previous post: Theological Dialogue 8. It is some well thought out work, and I wanted to share it. My answer to his response follows.

Dear Mr. Degitis,

I read your responses to the questions and have some responses of my own. Enjoy.

1.

If you are going to argue that an animal such as a panda abandoning its young is excusable because of the lack of a soul, then how is the one child policy and the killing of female children in China in favor of male children in order to provide more opportunities for their children explainable? This would be an extremely wicked act and thus, based on the panda example, would mean that morality isn't innate or that humans don't have souls. Alternatively, this could mean that pandas have souls.

I think the ease people have in denouncing the possibility of animals having soul lies in the ignorance of human cruelty. Humans are the only creatures which would enslave an entire species (chickens) and force them to spend their lives immobile, crammed together, inside a building perpetually filled with around 3 feet of their own fecal matter, and then using them as nothing more than food. This really isn't any less cruel than what the wasp does. And yet this behavior feeds millions and greatly helps to sustain the species (similar to the wasp). Additionally, from an outsiders perspective the human race would be seen as mere beasts considering we are the only species which kills its own kind on such a grand scale (through war, terrorism, etc). These actions could all be seen as a means of survival of the race but not as moral actions.

2.

You stated that you believe evolution was not totally random, but this was already common knowledge because random evolution contradicts the very process of evolution through natural selection which is the most common type. Evolution is the gradual selection of beneficial traits to the continuation of a species. In some rare occasions evolution can be random when there is little to no competition whether it be from predators, resources, or other members of the species. Several sources tell us that this could not have been the case during the process of the evolution of the human race. With this knowledge, we can tell that evolution's lack of a random pattern is explainable by the natural course of evolution rather than a puppet master controlling it. Additionally, the genes in a single celled organism are not useless, they provide the information for the creation of the organelle within the cells and the ability of cellular reproduction. Genes also have a use in multicellular organisms, but aren't useless in single celled organisms. Finally, how did God not correct his plan if he created humans without souls initially and then gave them souls? Why not create them with souls initially if that was actually his plan?

You stated that God perfectly timed the creation of life, but life in the form of single celled organisms were around for millions (and possibly billions) of years before they began to evolve. This would suggest that God's timing was not so perfect after all, because life had to wait for quite some time before it could really start evolving. Additionally, if God didn't set things up from the get-go, why does the bible pretty plainly state that he did? If it is because the Genisis story is not to be taken literally but figuratively instead, why then should we take the gospels for their word directly?

The statistical probability of each person as an individual existing is very low even if we just look at the process of conception. However this low statistical probability is just the result of an evolutionary advantage. In terms of life existing as a whole, it is maybe not so unlikely as it may seem. With the vast amount of matter existing within the universe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and with recent research showing the relative ease with which life can spontaneously be created, it is probable that life does exist elsewhere.

Thanks.

As I noted in class earlier: This is the critical thinking that I am looking for. Impressive. However, I think you have somewhat misunderstood my commentary on the amoral nature of... nature. I don't know that I am so much excusing the actions of the Giant Panda because that would require that the actions needed to be excused, but instead, I am noting that based on the fact that morality does not seep into nature, these action are neither moral or immoral, they are without morality in their totality. The panda, the wasp, the fungus, none of these things need be justified because they are not held to a moral standard. Their job is to survive, and they are doing simply that. And there in lies the difference. Humanity is held to a moral standard. For this reason, China's choice to implement a strict one child policy, and the wickedness that stemmed from that, is absolutely unacceptable. Yes, in some ways, the laws were put into place with survival and the preservation of resources in mind, but, as noted in an earlier response, we have evolved beyond that. We are no longer mere animals contending for survival, so actions that are entirely driven by that notion are not necessarily acceptable. Ultimately, the two events (pandas and people in china) are not analogous.Furthermore, just because humans do not behave morally, that does not mean that morality is not innate, nor does it indicate that humans do not have a soul. We commit horrible actions in spite of these things. There exists a deep seated knowledge of right and wrong; we just do not always succeed in choosing right. Animals outside of the human race do not operate along the same lines. Their limited free-will does not center around right and wrong but rather survival or the lack thereof. 

Additionally, I couldn't agree more. If viewed from the outside, humanity's actions would be absolutely horrifying. Wars, terrorism, these are misguided actions that can not be justified. That is not to say there isn't reason for them, but the two notions are not one in the same. 

Furthermore, in response to you last assertions, you are somewhat arguing semantics. Evolution as a whole may not be "random" in that it is based on mutations favored in a particular habitat, but even that notion requires a random mutating of genes, and not any genes, but genes that will help a species thrive in particular environments. If you look at the statistics required for that type of mutation and the fact that even the slightest variation of the mutation would instead result in the death of the animal, it becomes abundantly clear that these mutations occur by design, not simply random chance. The statistical evidence is staggering. You can contend that overall, evolution is not random, but if you remove the presence of design, then you are actually still relying quite heavily on random chance. Furthermore, I realize that genes in general are not useless in single celled organisms, but the theory of the latent library suggests that there are certain genes that are not used in any way whatsoever. The later realization (and consequent use) of these genes in multi celled organisms suggests that the genes were always there with evolution in mind.

Regarding God's timing, the fact that life had to "wait around" is not indicative of any fault in the timing of events. Who says that life had to start rapidly? What if earth was preparing during that time to sustain more complex life. The connections between the two concepts are not exclusive. Perfect timing can still take a long time. For example, if you were to meet the girl that you are supposed to marry when you are in middle school, you would have to fight through a lot to eventually tie the knot. However, if you met her when you were 25, you might be ready, and face far fewer obstacles in the process. In that respect, the amount of time it took to meet her (in the latter scenario) would have been longer, but perfectly longer and perfectly timed nonetheless.

Lastly, your suggestions regarding the statistical probability of life are interesting ones, especially in regard to the immense amount of matter. However, I feel the need to remind you that we are talking specifically about human life. And maybe they will find more of that somewhere in the universe, but from what we know now, the amount of factors that needed to come together in order to  sustain human life leave us with a massive statistical improbability. Additionally, the research does not show us the relative ease with which life can be created. There are components that suggest that life could have spawned randomly, but even this research is incomplete. We have yet to prove anything of the sort. And we certainly have no way of showing how we have gotten to the point at which we've arrived. Again, random chance is not a good enough defense.

As always, your thoughts are so fascinating. Keep them coming. 

Theological Dialogue 8: The "A"morality of nature

This response has been a long time coming, so I apologize for that. Hopefully I can provide you with some interesting insight that will make the wait worthwhile though. We'll see.

(Question)

A follow up question to my follow up question. You said "Most likely, it [Morality] was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man." In reference to the origin of morality.

When you say this are you also consequently also saying that humans i.e homosapiens are the only animals with souls and morality? If so how can you explain animals taking care of young that is not their own? These appear to be moral actions. 

(Response)

Your questions, as always, are interesting ones. I'll try to take them on one by one and see if I can do them any justice. For starters, yes, ultimately I do think that humans (homosapiens) are the only animals with souls and a sense of morality. From a biblical perspective at least, humans are the only animals into which God breaths life, or the nashema (soul), which we've talked about in class. The other animals that inhabit the earth are not created in the same fashion, at least not according to Genesis. Furthermore, humans are the only animals to have developed to the extent that we have. Part of this is obviously due to our capabilities, but part of it is also due to our innate sense of morality, or at least that is my belief. 

But you present a good point when you talk about the seemingly moral actions conducted by animals other than humans. And your example is a good one. However, I think that we are mistaking instinctual actions for moral ones and that is what makes the difference. Using the example that you provided, when we look at a mother taking care of "babies" that are not her own, we are not so much witnessing a moral act, but the execution of both a survival tactic and the animals instinctual tendency to nurture. In other words, the animal isn't doing it because it is the right thing to do, rather they are doing it because innately they know that it will contribute to the survival of the species, but also because they, at least in some circumstances, can not help it. They are designed to nurture, so that is what they will do. I offer a counter example to further my point. When it comes to giant pandas (an animal you know that I love) in the wild, when a mother gives birth to twins, she will abandon the weaker one for the stronger one, nurturing it and allowing the other to die. I bring this up in order to show that if we are going to claim that the mother who takes in young that are not her own is performing a "moral action" then we must also claim that the giant panda is performing a terribly wicked one. But in reality, she is not. She is simply acting in accordance with her survival instincts.

There is an essay called "Amoral Nature" that is quite dense, but it deals with this topic specifically. To save you the time, essentially the drive of the essay is to show that nature (and the animals within it) is/are without morality. Its primary evidence revolves around a particular wasp that has a stinger fashioned like a large syringe. When the female is ready to lay her eggs, she finds a nice, plump, caterpillar, and paralyzes it with her stinger while simultaneously depositing her eggs, which will soon turn into hungry larvae. The caterpillar remains paralyzed by the poison administered in the initial injection while the larvae proceed to feast on the caterpillar's insides, all the while growing stronger. What is particularly horrific/fascinating/phenomenal depending on how you view this event, is that the larvae begin with the non-vital elements of the interior, not moving on to the vital organs until they are ready to burst forth from their pseudo womb. The consequence of this extremely strategic growth pattern is that the caterpillar remains alive until the very end, providing its very self as the perfect host for the larvae. In other words, it is eaten from the inside out until it finally experiences what I would imagine is a long awaited death. All of this is simply to show that if nature in fact does have some sense of morality, it is without question the most wicked and terrible place imaginable. Did you know that there is a fungus that grows inside ants that actually tricks them into returning to their colony so that it can spread? Entire civilizations (???) are decimated by this fungus, and it uses the very species that hosts it in order to accomplish these ends. And these are simply a couple examples! Nature is a horrifying place. But not intentionally so. In each one of these cases, these species are simply doing what they have always done, fighting for survival. We can not pick and choose events and say that some a moral and others are not. Either nature is a moral place, far more wicked than humanity could ever be, or it is without morality. Most likely it is the latter. Action in nature is driven by instinct and surveil, that is all. 

(Question)

If evolution is in fact true as many people believe and that it was kickstarted by something. Why would God let nature run its course entirely until humans. Why even have evolution if he could've simply made humans from the "get go".

Stemming from my previous question and discussions in class. What makes us both in the human sense and us as individuals the desired outcome? You say we are walking arguments for the existence of God but aren't we just random biological chance? Any one person has an extremely low chance of existing but if all the same events were to happen in our ancestors time line with exceptions in the sperm and egg of an individual's parents. Someone else would exist. Not nobody. 

(Response)

To address this initial question, I think that we first need to discuss this notion of allowing nature to "run its course". In a way, your phrasing suggests that God simply let things run randomly until He decided to get involved and breath some life (and probably a soul) into what we now know as human beings. I think that this notion is somewhat inaccurate though. While I do not contest that the species that occupy our planet evolved over time, I would content that their evolution was not in fact totally random. I think you got my last email, but in it, I briefly discussed the notion of the latent library. Essentially, the existence of a latent library (the presence of genes that are entirely useless to single celled organism that nonetheless appear in their genomes and then are later activated in more complex species) proves, in a lot of ways, that evolution was not running a random course, but rather a designed one. Like Aquinas suggests in his fifth way, the arrow was always headed toward the target. It did not end up there on accident. And furthermore, God did not simply correct it's course at the last minute.

As for why God would not just create humans immediately, I do not entirely know. But what I do know is that the Earth underwent a series changes, it too evolved and prepared itself to sustain life. Could God have simply set it up from the get go? Of course. But that isn't how He chose to do things. He created in the fashion that He did because it was best (for reasons beyond our understanding) and thus His timing was undoubtedly perfect when it came to the creation of humanity as well. He did not create us before we were ready. When it comes to God, His timing is impeccable. 

Regarding our status as the desired outcome, the only viable explanation is simply that God designed it that way. The notion is objective in nature. There isn't a "because" followed by a long list of qualities and traits that make us worthy or deserving of this status, we are simply the desired outcome because God chose us to be. He wanted to be in relationship with us, and created us for that purpose. 

Lastly, your assertion that the existence of someone consequently increases the statistical likelihood of someone else (not necessarily you) is somewhat accurate, but not entirely. When I said that you are a walking proof of the existence of God, I was asserting the fact that you, specifically, are a miracle. The statistical likelihood of your existence is outrageously low. Furthermore, the statistical likelihood of humanity in general, and the fact that there are so many of us, is even lower. You see, the chances of a random generating of life are nearly impossible and for that random spark of life to have led to us is a claim that is simply outlandish, to put things lightly. Maybe you could assert that you specifically are biologically random (and even if that is the case, your existence in my opinion still proves the existence of God, whether you are supposed to be you, or not), so all that would then suggest is that there is no purpose for you, specifically. And that is a claim you are entitled to, but it is a bleak one. There is no question that humanity did not end up here by random chance. You won't find any viable argument for that. However, whether humanity has a purpose, now that is a question that is slightly more difficult to answer. We most likely do, but that is more a question of faith than statistics. All I can say is that the design seems to point toward us, which would suggest that there is a reason everything moved in this direction, and if there is reason, there is purpose. 

I promise to get to your last question soon. I miss having you in class!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 7: Prayer and The Plan

(Questions)

How are we supposed to pray? If God is truly all-powerful, and He has a plan for us, doesn’t that make our prayers kind of pointless? Or even a distraction from the goal at hand? Should we just let life unfold in the way it is supposed to and stay out of the way?

(Response)

These are questions that I have actually wrestled with for a long time. It isn’t easy to figure out how to pray, and considering that most of the time we only do it when we are in need, it makes things increasingly more difficult, consequently making these questions all the more prevalent.

First and foremost though, I think that it is important to remember that prayer is not designed solely as a petitioning of the Lord. If we only look at it that way, we truly might be asking for the wrong things, and worse yet, we might be fighting, although probably in vain, the Lord’s plan for us.

When it comes to prayer, the best basis we have, by far, is the Lord’s Prayer given to us by Christ. However, I think that Jesus’ words in these moments are often times misunderstood. He tells us what we shouldn’t do, and then goes on to tell us that if we pray, we should pray like this:

 Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

What is often missed is that Jesus is not simply implying that when we pray, this is the only prayer we should make. Instead, he is actually providing us with a “template” of sorts as we pray. When we look at the first couple of lines, it becomes readily apparent that all prayer should begin by worshipping the Lord. This is vitally important because before all else, we need to acknowledge that God is the great “I am” and we owe all things to Him. Then you’ll notice that the next component of the prayer enlightens us to the fact that we should be praying for God’s will to come to fruition. Both the nature and the placement of this are important. Next, we will petition to the Lord, but before that ever happens, it is essential to put His will above our own. In this way, if they align, fantastic, but if they do not, we are placing priority on the will of the Lord. As noted above, we are then given the opportunity to ask the Lord for our “daily bread” and probably the “daily bread” of others ;) But it is important to remember that Jesus does not, in the famous words of my old priest, tell us that we should be asking for cake. I believe that “daily bread” is meant to imply the things we need, not simply the things we want, which are not always easy to separate. After that, the end is pretty straightforward. We ask for forgiveness, we ask for the strength to forgive, we ask that He keep us from temptation, and we ask that He keep us within His protection. All of these things are things that we should ask for on a daily basis if not multiple times per day.

So what does this all mean regarding the sovereignty of God and whether or not we will interfere with “the plan” with our numerous petitions? To this I would say that ultimately our prayers do not have the potential to alter the course of God’s plan, but they do have the capability of allowing us to play an active role in that plan. You see, when we pray, we are establishing a bond with the Lord. We are actively pursuing a relationship with Him. And our involvement in this relationship will inevitably involve us in God’s plan. Prayer allows us to be both privy to God’s work in our lives, but it also helps us to be okay with it.

At the end of the day, God’s Kingdom will be established here on earth. We cannot stand in the way of that, but we can certainly play a role in making it a reality. Our prayer is an essential component of that. The more you seek to align your will with God’s, the more active He will be in your life. Sure, you can sit idly by and let things unfold around you, and they most certainly will, but you can also take an active roll. Either way every piece of the plan will fall together perfectly, the only question then becomes whether you did anything to help it along. You do have that power.

In closing, I want to share with you something that I heard at retreat this week that I think sheds some interesting light on these questions. It is a simple prayer, and it goes like this: “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you. For everything to come, yes.”

Now I understand that this can seem a little dreadfully all-encompassing. I actually think that our first inclination is to fight this, how can we offer our gratitude for everything that has happened in our lives? I could give you all the theological arguments surrounding this question, but that isn’t what I want. All I will say is this: This week I met young men who have been through the darkest of storms and still manage to offer overwhelmingly powerful gratitude for the lives they have been given. If they can find this gratefulness in their hearts, then I too can say, “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you.”

Theological Dialogue 6: Destruction, Desolation and again... The Soul

I apologize for the delay in response, but rest assured, your questions are always fascinating, so keep them coming. I promise  to answer them to the best of my ability, eventually ;)

As for this round, I'm going to try to knock all of them out (including a couple from the previous email) so I apologize for the lengthy replay. If you have to read it in a couple parts, I totally understand.

1.If some catastrophic event were to take place which brought the human population to a drastically small number, wiping out society as we know it and wiping out science and religion, science would inevitably be repeatable and thus the knowledge amassed today would eventually return. However, religion and specifically Catholicism would likely be rebuilt with a much different image and could quite likely turn out polytheistic. How would God be able to keep people on the path of Catholicism without revealing Himself? If revealing himself is an exception God would make in order maintain faith in this circumstance, why would God not show himself to those who have no interaction with Christianity today in order to guide them to faith?

This is quite an interesting scenario, and to some extent, I think you are correct about the possible conclusions of this population decimating catastrophe. We have every reason to believe, that given enough time, and enough resources, humanity would probably have a relatively similar view of science as it had pre-disaster. Or at least science would reveal itself in the same ways (assuming the disaster did not radically alter certain dynamics of our planet) and so the thought would be that we, after numerous mistakes and misguided hypotheses, would end but with a similar outlook or understanding of scientific principles.

Regarding religion though, I think you are right in that the traditions of Catholicism might end up looking very different, assuming that there was no one left who had previously been a member of the faith in addition to the Catholic church losing all of its guiding resources (the Roman Missal, etc.) In fact, if that was the case, there might be no religion at all, and certainly no Christianity, at least to start. You do know my thesis about humanity and our desire though, so I would contend that once again, we would seek a relationship with God. However, we would most likely make many of the same mistakes we made the first time around. 

For this reason, and the scenario at hand, although at this point things would be getting a little redundant, I do believe that God would once again reveal Himself to humanity. Maybe in the same fashion as His revelation to Abraham, Moses and the patriarchs, or maybe this time He would simply come down in the form of Christ. Either way, I think that He would provide guidance and inevitably, I think that we would make a number of mistakes in our efforts to follow that guidance. 

But that is not really your question. It appears that you are more concerned why God fails to reveal Himself now. Ultimately, I think the answer to this is somewhat straightforward: Because He already has. We've talked about the impact on free-will and revelation (especially if it were to occur in our day in age) but what we rarely talk about is the fact that God is constantly revealing Himself on a daily basis, we are simply too blind to see it. Furthermore, when it comes to revelation regarding those who do not have access to Christianity, we have to remember that it is our responsibility to share the good news with those who have yet to hear it. Remember in class when we talked about the fact that humanity is walking proof of the existence of God? Well, if you combine this thought with the fact that we were truly made in God's image, then every time we reach out to someone that does not know God, He is revealing Himself to that individual, through us. God has billions of tools on this planet, perfectly designed to guide one another to the faith, and we still sit around asking where He is... He is in every one of us. Revelation today is ridiculously prolific, our skepticism and pride just stand in our way of noticing it. 

2. Finally, you have stated several beliefs you have about the theory of evolution, such as the idea that evolution happened in large jumps, and that the species of humans differed from earlier species due to God breathing the soul into us. I am curious to know your beliefs on the idea that, without respect to the soul, humans evolved from single-cell organisms. Additionally, if the idea of giant leaps taking place to facilitate evolution holds true, why is there evidence of evolution for the current species of human such as previous civilizations having shorter people, or why is there the evidence of Darwin's finches having different beaks?

First and foremost, I do think that species can adapt and evolve in micro fashions. You see it in some animals and even some humans, particularly civilizations or cultures that have been subject to devastation or tragedy. But I also think there are a number of factors at play here. When we talk about human begins being taller, stronger, faster, and healthier, we are, in some ways, dealing with an evolution of sorts, but we are also dealing with a change in environment that has provided us with more resources, nutrients, etc. I say that only to point out that human beings may have always had the capacity to be what they are now, they simply lacked the resources. If this is the case, then it really isn't an evolution, it is more a realization of potential. What we mistake for evolution might be the product of other environmental changes.

With all of that said, my theories surrounding the nature of "big jumps" correspond more with the explosion of various species. About 530 million years ago, the Cambrian explosion gave way to the 34 phylum that we have today. Previous to that point, as far as I understand, we have no evidence of a slow evolution of these species, and since that time, we have not found any new phylum. I am of the belief that this explosion was a directed result of the latent library theory. This is a theory that states that all the genetic material necessary for species today actually existed in the small organisms that preceded them, even though that material was utterly useless for those particular organisms. In other words, the building blocks for each species has always been around since the very beginning. This would suggest some element of design. 

As always, I do not wish to contend with evolution, I simply want to show how it is not in conflict with the existence of God, and if anything, it actually, in my opinion, supports the likelihood of a creator. One who is creative, and omniscient in the unfolding of His plan. 

Furthermore, and kind of as an aside, but interesting nonetheless, the Rosetta Stone of evolution has always been fossil evidence of a cross species organism, something that shows the existence of a species in translation, if you will. To my knowledge, there is one type of fossil that fits this description. It is part reptile and part bird, I believe. Interestingly enough, when God is revealing the Torah to Moses, He spends a little bit of time talking about the various animals and what categories they fit into (you know, so the Israelites know what they can eat and sacrifice) and there is one animal, mentioned twice, that fall into both categories. So what does this mean? Only that this species in translation was accounted for long long long long long before science found their "holy grail". Again, I do not wish to content with evolution. We are evolving as humans every day. It is a product of knowledge and education. However, I do want to show that evolution does not replace God, or prove that He does not exist or even that we do not need Him. If anything, it does more to support His involvement in the miraculous history of life. 

3. There is evidence that the world can and with almost absolute certainty, will end. This could happen from our sun becoming a red giant near the end of its life and scorching the earth, the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own which would very likely destroy earth, and if these don't destroy Earth the expansion of the universe will inevitably leave our would cold and alone in space without the ability to sustain life. Why would God create a world which will eventually not be suitable for life?

Well, this is a rather bleak question. ;) The inevitable destruction of our planet seems to be a recurring theme here, and one that certainly suggests that we should make the most of the time we are given, even though none of these scenarios will likely occur in our lifetime. The philosophy is a good one nonetheless. 

As for the creation of a planet that will, at some point in time, no longer be able to sustain life, my thoughts are essentially twofold. My first and immediate assumption would be that the terminal nature of our planet is not really something to be dwelt upon because God's sovereign plan will come to fruition long before our planet's demise. Ultimately, we are working with two different time lines: one that represents God's plan, and one that represents the lifespan of planet earth. In theory, if the first timeline is complete prior to the end of the second, then the latter timeline is actually rendered irrelevant. For example, if you pull someone out of the way of a moving vehicle, the vehicle remains on course, and the person remains safe. 

My second thought regarding this matter is similar to that concerning the notion of natural disasters. In our universe, we've seen evidence that stars (and the "planets" that surround them) have some sort of natural course from "birth" to "death". Could God have created a solar system that was not subject to this natural flow? Certainly. Did He? It would appear, from our predictions, that He did not. I can't necessarily explain the reasoning here, other than simply surmising that when God made the universe, He did so in-line with the natural laws and thus Earth is just as subject to those laws as everything else. 

When we put these two premises together, all I can suggest is that what needs to get done, will get done, prior to the time that our planet runs its natural course. Ultimately, the finite nature of our planet is not an issue for an infinite God.

4.I was wondering if Animals had free will.
If not then species pre homosapien could not have had free will. During this time God would have just been a puppet master. Why would He decide to so drastically change his plan for the world. This would indicate that He didn't really love his early children, our ancestors, and so would not be wholly benevolent.
On the other side of the spectrum, if animals have free will, God very nearly risked the entire human race which, as far as I understand, He loves above all His other creations. In history, our ancestors in Africa, far from the top of the food chain, quite nearly reached extinction due to predation and other factors. Why would God leave the fate of the human race to chance and allow them to nearly die out if He loves us? If it was divine intervention that saved us from extinction didn't that inhibit free will?

Now this is a really interesting question! I think that animals have limited free-will. Not necessarily because it has been hindered by God, but rather because they are only capable of so much. It is similar to the notion that your free-will is limited by your capabilities. You couldn't go and fly a 777 to Hawaii, but only because you don't know how. You of course have the free-will to try, but your ability will inevitably limit you. Ultimately, if free-will is the ability to do whatever you what, whenever you want, then it can be limited by a number of different elements. 

Regarding pre homosapien humanoid creatures, the same ideas would apply. They had free-will to some extent, but they were also limited by their ability to execute that free-will. The introduction of the soul, in a lot of ways, widened the scope of capability. Whether is was a catalyst for in-depth reasoning, critical thought, or something else entirely, the soul changed humanity. It did not give them free-will, that was already in place, but it gave them a wider range with which to utilize it. 

On the other side of the spectrum, as you appropriately pointed out, there would appear to be some things left to random chance if animals and early humans were all operating with some limited degree of free-will. However, we can not, from a theological perspective, really suggest that God was taking a risk. The very nature of risk implies a lack of knowledge concerning the outcome of events and we have to believe that God always knew how things were going to work out. Sure, to us, it may have seemed as if "humanity" was under threat of extinction, but in reality, that was probably never the case. 

As for why God would subject pre-humanity to the challenges and adversity of life in early Africa, the answer is simple. At that point in time, prior to the bequeathing of the soul, humanoid creatures were animals like anything else. Furthermore, God's "intervention", and ultimately the gift of the soul, was not an inhibiting of free-will, but an extending of it. Humanity actually gained more free-will with the soul than they had ever had. So much so, it even led to the fall. In a kind of weird twist of events, it may have been the very giving of the soul that resulted in humanity's misguided attempt to be closer to God and eventually the severing of that relationship.

Anyway, hope this sheds some insight. 

MRD

Theological Dialogue 5: Freewill, The Soul, The Universe

(Response)

I wanted to write you back, but lacking the time to do justice to each question (which they undoubtedly deserve; they are fantastic) I am breaking them up into sections. Besides, the break seems somewhat natural anyway.

So, I'll start here:

(Question)

Firstly, in terms of Job, when God reveals Himself to Job in order to scold him for questioning Him, isn't that inhibiting Job's free will? Doesn't this show that Job didn't in fact remain faithful? Because instead of continuing to believe in God's judgement, Job questions His actions.

(Response)

Regarding Job, your question is a good one. But ultimately, when God reveals Himself, it is not an infringement upon Job's freewill because at the time of this revelation, it is not as if Job is questioning God's existence, he is more so questioning why he has had to suffer. If it was the former, then there might be a foundation for an argument, but there never seems to be any moment in those final chapters where the existence of God is ultimately in question. Job knows there is a God so His presence is not the surprising factor. Nor is that the intention of the book. We are not supposed to read the book of Job and consequently think to ourselves, "Whoa, there really is a God. He even came to Job to prove it." Rather, we should be focused on the fact that no matter how wise we believe we are, and no matter how much we think we understand about the workings of the world, our knowledge is but a fraction of God's. To quote, "Were we there when God laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:1 author translation)

Two further comparisons are appropriate here in order to better illustrate this point. Throughout the entirety of the Gospels, people are constantly begging Jesus to perform a "sign". Their requests are frequently met with admonitions by Jesus. This is due to the fact that Jesus wants them to know with their hearts instead of simply their eyes. This is the case for an assortment of reasons, but namely because we have a tendency to explain away the things that we see. Yes, in the moment we may believe, but after the fact, we often seek out a number of excuses and justifications for what we previously thought to be miraculous. However, to know with one's heart is completely different. What we know there is much more resilient. What is to be gained from this is an understanding of Christ's intentions. He wants to leave our freewill intact. He want us to choose Him.

Additionally, as we look further into the Gospels and the miracles performed by Jesus (and those that happen everyday for that matter), we are again forced to ask the question: Is this miraculous intervention an infringement upon our free-will? And again the answer is no, but for a very interesting reason. When we examine the miracles performed in the Gospels, they all share a fascinating theme. Jesus declares each time that the person's faith has saved them. What this tells us is that the faith precedes the miracle. Christ does not perform the miracle without the individuals first knowing (in their hearts) that He is able to do so. The miracles do not convert them. They are already converted and the miracles follow. The same is true of many miracles today. People seek out God's intervention (and in doing so, their belief is already evident), so God is not taking away free-will, people are choosing to be in relationship with Him and to place their trust in His power. 

With all of that said, Job certainly faltered in his trust in the Lord, but he never lost faith in Him. Job always knew the Lord was there, he simply wanted an explanation for his suffering, I think in this, we can relate a lot to Job. In many ways, we want to be privy to the plan.

(Question)

Additionally, you stated that souls are limited by the physical aspect of people which they are tied to. But how can a soul, which is the form of humanity be limited by that which is beneath it in terms of the divided line.  To put this in perspective, wouldn't this mean that your hand could be limited by the shadow it casts?

(Response)

Hmmm... this a a very interesting philosophical inquiry. In short though, I think if we examine the relationship between the body and the soul vs. the relationship between a hand and its shadow, the difference becomes quite clear. Unlike the forms as they are portrayed in Plato's theory, the soul, as you mentioned above, is intimately tied to the body, whereas the forms are not tied or linked to the things of the visible world. This is an important distinction. Since we are composed of body and soul, there is often a struggle for control. That is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the dynamic, but nonetheless, it works in that it illustrates how sometimes we give way to the body (or the flesh) while other times we adhere to the will of the soul. A hand and its shadow do not "battle" in the same way for control. Whatever the hand does, the shadow follows. But as we know, and talked about in class today, even though we may know the desire of the soul (what is right) we constantly fail to act in accordance with it. As an aside though, you created an interesting link between Plato's theory and Peter Pan. He is constantly struggling with his shadow, and sometimes it even dictates where his physical form seems to go. The dynamic of soul and body is similar. Yes, the soul is the form of humanity, but it is not separate in the way that the forms are separate from the things of Plato's divided line.

(Question)

If God created the universe, He would have to do so with His omniscience allowing his insight into the actions that all people would take. Doesn't this mean that predestination is inevitable and so, free will is not actually real?

(Response)

First of all, I don't necessarily believe that the creation of the universe was dependent on the actions of the people who would occupy it. In fact, in our time, the universe existed for billions of years before there were even any people at all. Thus, while God did create the universe and He is omniscient and therefore knew the path that all things would take, His omniscience did not threaten to inhibit the freewill of the people who would eventually come to inhabit earth. This is namely due to the fact that God experiences time in a much different fashion than we do. As mentioned in class, God is atemporal. He is outside of time and space. Therefore, whereas we see time chronologically, God sees all time as if it is the present and only time. He knows all things, past, present and future as if they simply are, as opposed to "have happened" or "are going to happen". By understanding this notion, we can also come to understand that God can know what we will choose to do without impeding our ability to choose to do it. As an individual, you are still actively exercising your freewill, making decisions and so fourth, God simply knows what that decision will be. This does not mean it is determined, remember, you chose it, it simply shows that while we have yet to decide, God knows the beginning middle and end because to Him it is all simply the now. 

To carry this point one step further, many theologians argue that we (in chronological time) are actually never in the present. Kind of like the notion that we can not truly know something in the visible world because it is constantly in flux, time (at least in the temporal realm) functions in a similar fashion. It is always passing. Therefore every moment is actually a past moment or future moment. With that said, God is the only thing that can exist in the present because for Him all time exists simultaneously. Outside the temporal realm, time simply is. Therefore God is actually the only true present.

Thanks for being patient with me and the fact that it took so long to reply. I hope you learned something interesting!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 4: The Evolution of Morality?

(Question)

I have a follow up question regarding humanity. Do you believe in the theory of evolution and if you do. Is morality an evolutionary advantage that was evolved or was it placed specifically in homosapiens? I have the same question for the 'soul'. If you don't believe in the theory of evolution how do you believe it was that we came to be?

Thanks.

(Response)

Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you! 

But to delve right into it, yes, in many ways, I definitely believe in the "theory" of evolution. I put that in quotes because I don't necessarily think that there is one theory surrounding evolution, in fact, there are multiple approaches to the notion of evolution, but if we are simply talking about the theory that we evolved into a species, and as a species, yes, I'm totally on board with that. And furthermore, I don't think there is any reason not to be. There is nothing from Genesis, especially if you view it through the lens discussed in the last email, to suggest that there was not some type of evolution that took place on earth. In fact, in its simplest form, Genesis points directly toward this idea. First, the sun broke through the atmosphere, the water gave way to sustainable life (plants) and probably some extremely simplistic "animals" or at least early blue prints of them, and then there was man (with a couple steps in between, obviously.). In a nutshell, our planet and its occupants have evolved, that fact isn't worth trying to deny. 

As for the idea that morality is an evolutionary advantage, that is where things get increasingly more complicated. Evolution seems to deal primarily in genes and their mutations. Something evolves due to a mutation that does not kill it and furthermore turns out to be beneficial in one way or another. Therefore, if morality was an evolutionary advantage, that would suggest that it is somehow tied into our genetic make up. And not only that, it would also suggest that morality was the product of a genetic mutation. If that were to be the case, then ultimately, we would have to assume that at some point in time, it was more advantageous to one's survival to live morally that to not. This has difficult and strange implications. Much of survival centers around the animalistic elements of our being. In fact, to kill for food and resources (although morally wrong) is entirely justified from a survival perspective. Therefore, one might argue that living morally has very few advantages until you get into a structured society where your survival actually depends on your ability to do so. Within the animal kingdom, there is really no place for morality. There, it does not go hand in hand with survival. 

However, if it is structure, stability and progress that you are looking for, then morality plays an enormous role in your ability to bring about those notions. In addition to rational thought, it is most likely what provides the foundation for civilization. But I do not think that in any way implies that it is an evolutionary trait that has been developed over time. In a lot of ways, evolution doesn't really point toward progress, at least not in the sense that we have achieved it. Evolution is designed to keep a species alive, but it does not create the circumstances in which it is ultimately nullified. Unlike humans, animals are still subject to the evolutionary demands of survival, and if they can not keep up, they will go extinct. Humans have proven that this notion no longer applies to them. We have adapted beyond the principles of evolution. 

So where does morality ultimately come from? Most likely, it was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man. Prior to that moment, what we now know as man, was probably a more animalistic version in the form of Cro-Magnon. Without the soul, Cro-Magnon would have most likely continued on an evolutionary path similar to that of most mammals. The fit would have survived, while the rest did not. There would have been no progress beyond simple capabilities, and we today would probably live more like animals than humans.. (And I understand that they are one in the same, but I hope you get my point.)

Since I do recognize the validity of evolutionary theory, and I have explained the impact of the soul on man, I think that last question is kind of accounted for. However, I will say this. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the name of the "first man" in Genesis is Adam, and that in the Hebrew, Adam actually means man. When he receives the soul from God, I believe this marks the beginning of humanity as we know it. Were there humanoid like creatures that existed prior? Probably, but they did not possess an innate sense of morality, they were not fitted in the image of God. This notion is what ultimately ties all of this together. Morality links directly to the soul. Without the soul, there is no morality. So was it an evolutionary development? Is it a component of our genome? Most likely not. It was given to man, by God, that he might recognize his full potential. 

Thanks!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 3: How did this all start?

(Question)

I have a question. What is your standpoint on the creation of the universe/earth/our coming into existence and how does this compare to other sects of Catholicism and/or Christianity? I'm just curious as I've heard conflicting view points on the subject.

Thanks.


(Response)

Hey,

This is a great question. Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you, but hopefully I can provide a little insight on this topic, or at least the best understanding/explanation that I've ever come across.

There are, for the most part, two major schools of thought surrounding this matter. First off, you have creationists who believe that God created the world, and that the account in Genesis is the literal portrayal of the creation story. In extreme circumstances, creationists believe that the world, and the universe for that matter, is some 6,000 years and 6 (if you will) days old. However, if you were going to track the genealogies to the "T", that number would probably be more accurately projected in the high 5000's. At that point though, the argument becomes somewhat irrelevant because a debate between a few thousand years is really nothing compared to science's projection of a universe that is some 15.5 billion years old, and an Earth that is somewhere in the ballpark of 4.5 billion years old. 

Thus, the other major school of thought. These ideas rely more on the scientific data and often times gives way to evolutionary theory. However, it is important to remember that while "creationism" touches on both the creation of the universe and the creation of man, evolutionary theory is, in many ways, mainly concerned with the origin of man (and most species that exist today). However, evolutionary theory carries with it certain implications that produce inevitable claims about creation. The theory uses fossil samples that are thousands, and in some cases millions, of years old. Thus, if the samples are in fact genuine, the world is bound to have been created far more than 6000 years ago. For this reason you often hear this debate as one that exists between creationist and evolutionists.

Ultimately, we have two sides of a very wide spectrum, and then many different theories and suggestions that fall somewhere in between. 

Personally, I do not think that the answer exists with either extreme, but rather that it can be found by taking pieces of each theory and recognizing the notion that science and theology need not be exclusive or in conflict with one another. (A concept recently reiterated by Pope Francis.)

Okay, so... I am going to try to do my best with this, but keep in mind that I am explaining some very complex theory and in some respects I might not be able to do it justice. However, I'll attach a youtube podcast that will allow you to listen to the theory from the actual physicists that proposed it, though you might find my explanation a little more approachable. 

For starters, I think two things: 1. That the universe is probably about 15.5 billion years old and that the earth has consequently been around for about 4.5 billion of those years, and 2. That time most likely does not relate to God and man in the same way.

These two concepts are important because they are the foundation of Gerald Schroeder's theory on creation, and consequently the one that I think is probably the most accurate account.

It all starts at the beginning (as it appropriately should) because that is where God is. Genesis states that God made the Universe and everything in it in stages. Each of those stages occur on different days of creation. Now, you will hear some people suggest that "days" in the bible are not real days or meant to be interpreted that way, but that isn't entirely accurate. According to the Talmud, the days in Genesis are exactly that, days. However, they are not days on Earth, but rather days at the center of creation and that distinction is extremely important. Remember how we talked about Einstein's theory of relativity and how gravity can act like friction for time? Well, the gravity at creation (the point of the big bang) is so strong that the time lapse between us and that point in space is a million million seconds. In other words, for every second that occurs at creation, a million million seconds have occurred here on earth.

This is the first thing you need to understand. Time for us is different than time for God. And furthermore (as noted by Moses in the Book of Numbers) time in the first chapter of Genesis is actually different than time throughout the remainder of the book. The best, and easiest, way to think about this is that one (at creation, in the beginning) is God's time and the other (the rest of biblical history) is Man's time. 

So, why is all of this important? Well, when you start to do the math you begin to realize that the conversion eerily aligns with the different days of creation, and the things that occurred on each day. If each day is an expansion of the universe, and consequently one day for God, but millions of years for man (remember, with each expansion, though smaller than the one before, the world is moving further from creation and thus time is ultimately "speeding up") then the six days of God's time correlate to about 15.75 billion years in Man's time. 

Check out this chart and what you'll find is that the biblical explanation of these scientific events mathematically aligns with the scientific dating of the same events. When the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (between day's 2 and 3) we were in the midst of our third expansion and while only

days had passed for God, billions of years had already passed at various points throughout the universe.

In short, I think that the big bang did in fact occur, but God was the catalyst for that big bang. He created the universe and everything in it, and the reason that He is talking in days and we are talking in billions of years is because time, quite literally, moves at different speeds relative to its location in the universe. Thus, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive; they are not in conflict with one another. The Bible is not suggesting that the universe is only 6000 years old, and the ancient Jewish commentary even says so. Did God create everything? Yes. Did He do it with a Big Bang? Yes. And did He do it in six days? Yes. The only difference is that what was days for Him (based on His "location") was billions of years for us, based on ours.

If this doesn't make any sense at all, try to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw

It is dense, but fascinating.

Hope this at least sheds a little light on everything or something...

Thanks.

MRD