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