EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

Part of the issue going the other way is that you folk are very eager to lay the hammer down and say that we are, simply put, not being Orthodox.

What Gurney said.
I have no trouble imagining a person believing all sorts of goofy things, including myself, and being a member in communion with the Church.
I do think the IDEA of evolution is not Orthodox, just as I think astrology is not Orthodox. But a lot of receiving Orthodox Christians walk around reading horoscopes and even believing in them. They're not in rebellion against the Church. They just believe something that actually contradicts our teachings, and don't realize it.

But saying that we do not accept the consensus of all who went before as Holy Tradition really does mean that I need not accept any teaching that I don't like, from the doctrines on the Theotokos to the teaching that sodomy is sin. So I asked a question in my last post. I wonder if you would be so kind as to give a straight answer. (I realize you may deny that there is consensus on evolution, and I'll go along with that for now. I want to know whether there IS identifiable Holy Tradition or not, and whether I'm wasting my time being Orthodox.)

 

[gzt]

I believe there is a Tradition and I deny there is a consensus on evolution. I imagine my bishop does as well, as do other academic theologians. HTH. HAND.

I also don't think the Church will deny evolution ever because it is, of course, guarded in its Tradition from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[rusmeister]

He that chooses to humbly submit to any authority has chosen that authority to be his master, and hence the core self is the only authority that one ultimately submits to even in masochistic submission to someone else. This is the fact of existence that cannot be escaped from, only hidden from. Freedom is, whether we can stand to live free or not. I understand obedience, but what you wish for me to do is to check freedom at the door of the Church, to relinquish personal responsibility, which is to live according to falsehood instead of freedom. Paul, Peter, and Maximus were just little fellows in the wide world, just like you and me. They learned about freedom and then they obeyed freedom, opening their arms to embrace the life that was their and theirs alone to fulfill, stretching them out like Christ on the cross in order to live life fully, not shrinking back from the pain and suffering that living freely as one's true self always requires. They believed Christ and freely chose to follow Him from one moment of their lives to the next. But they did not relinquish their freedom in doing so, they fulfilled that freedom by doing so.

But the real issue here, for me, is evolution and not authority. Authority would become an issue if I were doing something wrong. But I am not doing anything wrong by accepting evolution, along with an allegorical approach to understanding the creation narratives. On the contrary, I am obeying God's will, by my own free choice, and accepting whatever comes because of it.

You sure have outfoxed yourself, TF. You take a simple thing like submission to authority, something any good pupil would do to a teacher, accept correction and learn, and make it into this twisted idea that you are actually only submitting to yourself. The whole point is that you are your own teacher, and will accept no teaching unless you feel like it (which would get you failed as a student in any difficult discipline). So no, what you call "obeying God's will" becomes obeying your OWN will. It's a very Screwtapian attitude. You don't seem to see that St Paul didn't "obey freedom", he was struck blind and obeyed the direct voice of Christ, which was not his own voice in his head. Peter made a terrible mistake and endured the shame of it and corrected himself because of it. Maximus knew what was true, what Orthodoxy meant in spite of a local popular error - that the consensus of those who went before in the earlier Councils was the Orthodox teaching and was willing to suffer horribly for the teachings of that consensus.

What you are doing wrong is saying that you need not accept the consensus of the Church as to what Holy Tradition is; that you can decide for yourself what you will accept as Tradition and what you will freely ignore.

The essence of Orthodoxy is that you and I DON'T get to decide what Holy Tradition is for ourselves, that we must accept what others give us, and bow our heads and accept it when we don't like it or think it contradicts something we always thought true. There may be issues that are not clearly pronounced, but if they are, if we find clear and consistent teaching we are bound to accept it, even if we still have doubts.

Yes, there IS a point where we must all "check our brains at the door" - I might add that our brains, in general, need checking - and that is that we are not the ultimate authority in the universe; that there is a ton of things that we don't know, that we need to learn, and that some things we may have thought were true are not as true as we thought. Of course, we may ask why a teaching is. You are always free to question. But not to reject doctrine, which we only know by the consensus of Tradition.

 

[gzt]

At a certain point, we do check our brains at the door, but, thankfully, thus far, crucifying our minds has not required a literal nail through one of the lobes.

 

[rusmeister]

I believe there is a Tradition and I deny there is a consensus on evolution. I imagine my bishop does as well, as do other academic theologians. HTH. HAND.

I also don't think the Church will deny evolution ever because it is, of course, guarded in its Tradition from error by the Holy Spirit.

This didn't really answer my question, g. I'm going along with evolution for now. (IOW, forget evolution vs YEC or whatever. This is far more important.)

I asked if that Tradition can be identified by the consensus of Church history. CAN we say (for instance) that sodomy is sin? Is that part of our Tradition or just a goofy, backward, outdated idea? Does the consensus that clearly condemns it part of our Holy Tradition or is it just an optional preference?

 

[gzt]

This didn't really answer my question, g. I'm going along with evolution for now. (IOW, forget evolution vs YEC or whatever. This is far more important.)

I asked if that Tradition can be identified by the consensus of Church history. CAN we say (for instance) that sodomy is sin? Is that part of our Tradition or just a goofy, backward, outdated idea? Does the consensus that clearly condemns it part of our Holy Tradition or is it just an optional preference?

I don't quite know what you mean by consensus of Church history or what method you are using to produce a synthesis of the it and draw conclusions from it. If by sodomy, you mean homosexual intercourse (I got warned earlier for referring to it too lightly), I think it's fairly clear from Scripture and directly contained in the canons. See our previous discussion earlier. And, hey, the Synod has conveniently issued a statement on it.

Again, pick up the phone and call me when the Synod rules against me. Until then, I don't deal with counterfactual conditionals, especially when they won't pan out.

 

[truefiction1]

You sure have outfoxed yourself, TF. You take a simple thing like submission to authority, something any good pupil would do to a teacher, accept correction and learn, and make it into this twisted idea that you are actually only submitting to yourself. The whole point is that you are your own teacher, and will accept no teaching unless you feel like it (which would get you failed as a student in any difficult discipline). So no, what you call "obeying God's will" becomes obeying your OWN will. It's a very Screwtapian attitude. You don't seem to see that St Paul didn't "obey freedom", he was struck blind and obeyed the direct voice of Christ, which was not his own voice in his head. Peter made a terrible mistake and endured the shame of it and corrected himself because of it. Maximus knew what was true, what Orthodoxy meant in spite of a local popular error - that the consensus of those who went before in the earlier Councils was the Orthodox teaching and was willing to suffer horribly for the teachings of that consensus.

What you are doing wrong is saying that you need not accept the consensus of the Church as to what Holy Tradition is; that you can decide for yourself what you will accept as Tradition and what you will freely ignore.

The essence of Orthodoxy is that you and I DON'T get to decide what Holy Tradition is for ourselves, that we must accept what others give us, and bow our heads and accept it when we don't like it or think it contradicts something we always thought true. There may be issues that are not clearly pronounced, but if they are, if we find clear and consistent teaching we are bound to accept it, even if we still have doubts.

Yes, there IS a point where we must all "check our brains at the door" - I might add that our brains, in general, need checking - and that is that we are not the ultimate authority in the universe; that there is a ton of things that we don't know, that we need to learn, and that some things we may have thought were true are not as true as we thought. Of course, we may ask why a teaching is. You are always free to question. But not to reject doctrine, which we only know by the consensus of Tradition.

The theory of evolution is true, and Tradition will integrate that Truth, and then it is you who will have to decide whether you wish to submit to Tradition. May we be granted the humility to freely choose rightly.

 

[gzt]

Though it really is odd to me how we keep somehow coming back to the idea of homosexuality in this thread - a moral issue the Church has spoken clearly about, Synods are issuing statements about, and evolution, which is a question of fact, not morals. And somehow assenting to evolution implies the other - I just don't see it. I recommend that you get over the obsession with it. See the beginning of this thread.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Theories and truth don't necessarily go hand in hand, right? Take Alfred Wegener's Pangaea theory. Well, you can say, "look at how the continents fit together like puzzle pieces! Look at how rock strata across continents lines up in many places! Look at how similar dinosaur fossils are situated thousands of miles apart indicating they were once together! Look at coal deposits in frozen parts of the world where coal could NEVER be formed since we know that coal cannot be created in frozen conditions! Look at....." You could keep going with the clues that can add up nicely. But until I have a time machine visual image of continents moving apart, it remains a theory no matter how convicted I am of the rather generous evidence therein.

But with evolution, things are much sketchier, and radio carbon dating as well as other newer and more 'reliable' dating methods don't take into account climactic and other weather, heat, and freezing conditions, and all the conflicting evolutionary theories out there, and add to that the fierce atheism of most evolution-minded scientists, and there is PLENTY of doubt. Therefore, it remains a theory.

I am just a tad concerned when you put a capital T on Truth in the context of evolution with regard to Tradition. I only put a capital T on the word "Truth" when it is related to the fundamental real Truth of the Galaxy--that Christ is the Son of Man who was made incarnate of the Theotokos, taught us the Gospel, was crucified, died, was buried, and resurrected conquering death and taking away its sting as per Paul's descriptor. That is TRUTH. Even if you we're talking about obvious scientific givens like gravity, I still keep that with a small t to denote the gravity of how penetrating and universally awesome and fundamental the Truth is of Christ Himself. Pontius Pilate asked what "veritas" was when it was standing right in front of him. For we Orthodox Christians, keeping that capital T only on the Most Holy Trinity and the revelations of God as well as conciliar-taught truths is best for me.

The theory of evolution is true, and Tradition will integrate that Truth, and then it is you who will have to decide whether you wish to submit to Tradition. May we be granted the humility to freely choose rightly.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't quite know what you mean by consensus of Church history or what method you are using to produce a synthesis of the it and draw conclusions from it. If by sodomy, you mean homosexual intercourse (I got warned earlier for referring to it too lightly), I think it's fairly clear from Scripture and directly contained in the canons. See our previous discussion earlier. And, hey, the Synod has conveniently issued a statement on it.

Again, pick up the phone and call me when the Synod rules against me. Until then, I don't deal with counterfactual conditionals, especially when they won't pan out.

You say "It's fairly clear fom Scripture". Well, "male and female created He them", the creation of two sexes, not as an error or Fall, but divine intent, yet to Macarius it's not clear at all. Or the authority of a consensus of the Church over history to determine what Holy Tradition is is precisely what drove the Seven Councils seems fairly clear, but it's not at all clear to TF. "The evening and the morning were the first day" seems like a refutation of the idea of longer periods to me, fairly clear, though it's not at all clear to you. You decide that this passage is to be interpreted liberally or figuratively, someone else decides that the passages on sodomy that are clear to you should not be interpreted as written, and lo and behold! Tradition becomes "not Tradition".

To be clear, I think you in error, but the very fact that you would submit if you clearly saw the Church ruling against you is why you are not being heretical (though I think that there are logical conclusions from your ideas that lead to heresy, again, if evolution implicitly denies Church teaching on the Fall, as I think it does). So the first issue is really one of authority, and what Tradition is. That's why I say we should hash that out before we try to get anything across about our views on evolution.

 

[prodromos]

The theory of evolution is true,

The theory of evolution is a theory. Period.

 

[gzt]

Well, that's certainly your opinion.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, that's certainly your opinion.

It is what all actual scientists I have ever seen admit when pressed. Not just an opinion. An observable fact. It is admittedly a theory, and you are in the position of a flat-earther in trying to claim otherwise.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not so. I am taking MY side

and that's your problem

 

[ArmyMatt]

The theory of evolution is true, and Tradition will integrate that Truth, and then it is you who will have to decide whether you wish to submit to Tradition. May we be granted the humility to freely choose rightly.

aside from the open speculation, our Tradition does not INTEGRATE Truth, our Tradition IS Truth because it has been, from day one, guided by the Spirit of Truth.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The theory of evolution is a theory. Period.

But it is a scientific theory, which is different then the normal usage of the word "theory".

And the definition is, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Gravitational theory is also a scientific theory. Does not mean that Gravity is not true.

Also a Germ theory of disease is as well, and many more scientific theories that are considered truth (I'm sure you would not deny that and state that the germ theory is just a theory)

So please don't deny evolution simply by saying, "its just a theory".

 

[jckstraw72]

but there is also a clear difference - the effects of gravity are experienced first-hand, all the time. Evolution, on the order that anyone disagrees with, has never once been observed. Nothing even close has been observed. What we do see is a stability of natures (no matter how hard Dobzhansky tried he still had fruit flies), as all things are defined by their logos in the mind of God.

 

[Kristos]

but there is also a clear difference - the effects of gravity are experienced first-hand, all the time. Evolution, on the order that anyone disagrees with, has never once been observed. Nothing even close has been observed. What we do see is a stability of natures (no matter how hard Dobzhansky tried he still had fruit flies), as all things are defined by their logos in the mind of God.

This is a bit silly. There are more ways to make observations and collect data than with laboratory experiments that recreate the phenomenon. It's always a challenge to determine how best to observe a phenomenon without any other variables being introduced. Gravity, I would say is very difficult to study beyond the overly simplistic effect that things fall when dropped. Of course this isn't observing gravity at all, rather the effects of gravity at a given time and place on a specific object. Darwin's observations have been corroborated by others so you can't just dismiss them as spurious, but you can take exception to his conclusions. We have even more information today in fossil remains. Is it natural selection that causes different species to come and go through history or is it something else - that can be asked, but it's really not very plausible to say that this data does not exist or is somehow not valid because the base process can't be repeated in the laboratory. If gravity was so easy to generate I suppose we would have already done it, but certainly no one would propose that our lack of artificial gravity in the lab indicates that gravity cannot be studied.

 

[Kristos]

Thank you!

I have a general question for everybody:

Can one say "No, I don't need to admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, neither do I have to accept that the consensus of all those who went before as being what constitutes our Holy Tradition" and be received and in communion with the Orthodox Church?

I could post this in a separate thread, but I'm especially interested in the opinions of Kristos, gzt and Greg.

To my mind this goes to the heart of what it means to be Orthodox.

I feel like I'm answering the question "have you stopped beating your wife?"

No.

 

[rusmeister]

I feel like I'm answering the question "have you stopped beating your wife?"

No.

I take it "No" is the answer to my question?

If so, then could you admit that TF is in fact saying that he doesn't need to admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, neither does he have to accept that the consensus of all those who went before as being what constitutes our Holy Tradition?

Without conceding anything about evolution, can you admit that TF's position is definitely un-Orthodox? (saying nothing about his standing before God, only that he HAS said these things here)

This is a much much bigger issue than evolution. I'm done with evolution for now until we get a consensus that admits we can say some views are not Orthodox. If we don't have that, then this forum is just Protestantism in disguise.