"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[jckstraw72]

I'm not talking about an intepretation of genesis I'm talking about the conflation of humanism with evolution and how you guys cannot seem to keep the two separate.

again, feel free to EXPLAIN the difference and how they can actually be separated.

and that's the problem - we're all talking about how to understand Genesis, but you want to remain aloof or somehow above that discussion.

 

[truefiction1]

TF, my question still is - what makes your interpretations Orthodox?

My interpretations result in the same exact conclusions regarding what each of us must do with ourselves in relation to our God and to all His other children -- LOVE. This kind of love is often never discovered by those very well versed in the dogmatic theology of the fathers, while radiating forth in abundance from the theologically illiterate and even from mentally impaired people. And the accumulated writings of the saints are so abundant and voluminous that they could barely be read in an average lifespan.

 

[rusmeister]

"FTR, I don't even really believe in psychology. I think there are true understandings of he human soul, and an Orthodox psychologist is most truly in touch with those truths, but that it is in the main pseudo-science based on observations and theories whose foundations are[bless and do not curse]
largely not founded in the truth"

Once again, this statement reveals a very popular, one sided, and skewed idea of what psychology is. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior. What you are describing is a very particular aspect of psychology that involves therapy based on Freudian ideas of human development, which most modern psychologist reject as not having basis in solid scientific inquiry and research. Before anyone dismisses what I said as foolishness, I have a BA in psychology and have developed and enacted behavior modification therapies for children with Autism.

This why I asked the question about who here has done actual scientific research and experimentation, and interestingly enough, no one answered it and or it was dismissed.

I DO admit some valid knowledge in psychology; I don't think it completely useless; I think that, all other things being equal, the Orthodox psychologist to proceed from the best and most correct understandings. I know my thoughts will be unpopular among psychologists; as soon as I ask what the word "psyche" means and where it came from, it is clear that it is inextricable from the understandings and teachings of the Church, and non-Orthodox psychology achieves truth only insofar as it agrees with the truth the Church teaches about the human soul.

But more importantly, I reject the appeal to "experts" who "know better' than the common man, because the considerations we have raised are philosophical, META-physical and SUPER-natural, the experts in the natural have no special advantage or authority that the rest of us do not have. I respect authority - in its proper place, and one of my main complaints is the tendency of modern science to usurp the place of the philosopher, metaphysician and theologian, to speak from authority it does not have.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm not talking about an intepretation of genesis I'm talking about the conflation of humanism with evolution and how you guys cannot seem to keep the two separate.

The theory has a philosophy behind it whether you will or nill, Greg. The philosophical assumptions of evolution are generally always founded in humanism. Theism has no place in those general understandings. I realize some Christians see a difference because they have decided that evolution is true, and unscientifically decided that it was instituted by God.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Christians see a difference because they have decided that evolution is true, and unscientifically decided that it was instituted by God."

Some may have, but not all. Some just accept it as the secular creation myth and if they are a scientist by trade and and evolution for some reason applies to their research, then they use it as applicable and then that's the end of it.

 

[jckstraw72]

"Christians see a difference because they have decided that evolution is true, and unscientifically decided that it was instituted by God."

Some may have, but not all. Some just accept it as the secular creation myth and if they are a scientist by trade and and evolution for some reason applies to their research, then they use it as applicable and then that's the end of it.

you're failing to distinguish between observations and the extrapolations from those observations. no one disagrees about what is observed. but as soon as you say "and this is what these observations mean for the past" you have now necessarily invoked philosophical presuppositions. one's worldview necessarily comes into this question.

 

[jckstraw72]

My interpretations result in the same exact conclusions regarding what each of us must do with ourselves in relation to our God and to all His other children -- LOVE. This kind of love is often never discovered by those very well versed in the dogmatic theology of the fathers, while radiating forth in abundance from the theologically illiterate and even from mentally impaired people. And the accumulated writings of the saints are so abundant and voluminous that they could barely be read in an average lifespan.

thank you for this answer. you are of course correct that love is of paramount importance and does not necessarily follow from knowledge of Patristics, but then again, that's not a reason for us to separate the two. it sounds to me like you drawing a dichotomy between dogmatics and praxis, which is surely not an Orthodox dichotomy. If I am misreading you please explain further. but, I mean, any brand of Christian could have given this answer. Protestants can talk about love, Catholics can talk about love, Monophysites can talk about love - but that doesn't mean we accept their bad theology. perhaps this issue does not effect your praxis, but you and I are not the only ones in this thing. the whole Church is involved - bad theology will eventually rear its head as bad praxis too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What might be lacking from this argument, to play devil's advocate, is concrete examples. If I am from the pro-evolution side, I would point out how Neanderthals were buried with simple jewelry and trinkets that seem to point to a religious burial or belief, ritual, the idea of something higher than themselves. This shows, obviously, that these hominids were not quite human and yet they showed intelligence. This has been found on many occasions. Who are these folks and where do they fit in to the Genesis narrative?

That's what I would ask....if I had this viewpoint...

 

[Gwendolyn]

The theory has a philosophy behind it whether you will or nill, Greg. The philosophical assumptions of evolution are generally always founded in humanism. Theism has no place in those general understandings. I realize some Christians see a difference because they have decided that evolution is true, and unscientifically decided that it was instituted by God.

I don't understand what the bolded statement means. You cannot scientifically prove God exists. You cannot intellectually reason your way to the existence of God as Christianity knows Him. Therefore I don't understand how someone could "scientifically" decide that evolution is instituted by God. Is there a scientific way to study God?

Also, just popping in to make a comment about psychology - I know your comments about psychology being bunk are vague, so I am not sure precisely what it is about psychology that you do not think is valid; but psychotherapy and certain methods of exploring my inner life, my past, and my present gave me my sanity back. So I cannot say it is worthless.

Note: none of the methods were "new age" or any such garbage.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What might be lacking from this argument, to play devil's advocate, is concrete examples. If I am from the pro-evolution side, I would point out how Neanderthals were buried with simple jewelry and trinkets that seem to point to a religious burial or belief, ritual, the idea of something higher than themselves. This shows, obviously, that these hominids were not quite human and yet they showed intelligence. This has been found on many occasions. Who are these folks and where do they fit in to the Genesis narrative?

That's what I would ask....if I had this viewpoint...

well, knowing you are playing devil's advocate, I would say that just because they are not human beings does not mean that they do not have communion with their Creator. elephants are known to find areas where members of their herds have died, and it almost looks like they mourn over the skeletons. the fact that Neanderthals buried their dead ritualistically simply could mean that they had a unique knowledge of their Creator. but that does not say anything for or against evolution.

 

[truefiction1]

thank you for this answer. you are of course correct that love is of paramount importance and does not necessarily follow from knowledge of Patristics, but then again, that's not a reason for us to separate the two. it sounds to me like you drawing a dichotomy between dogmatics and praxis, which is surely not an Orthodox dichotomy. If I am misreading you please explain further. but, I mean, any brand of Christian could have given this answer. Protestants can talk about love, Catholics can talk about love, Monophysites can talk about love - but that doesn't mean we accept their bad theology. perhaps this issue does not effect your praxis, but you and I are not the only ones in this thing. the whole Church is involved - bad theology will eventually rear its head as bad praxis too.

Bad theology is what happens when a person doesn't repent and spiritually grow without ceasing, resulting in spiritual death and dogmatic rigidity, resulting in the offering up of others in sacrifice because they do not agree with the rigid doctrines. Orthodox Christian history certainly contains many examples. It is a repeat of what the "Orthodox" religious leaders did to Christ, Who refused to bow to their worldviews.

I don't believe in infallibility. I don't trust Popes, nor do I trust the consensus of the fathers. If anyone is infallible it is God and His Christ. The rest of us are still learning and will continue to do so as best we can. If I accept biological evolution as reality over the speculative designs of the fathers based upon the Bible it is because the scientists "found the bones" and have been able to perfectly demonstrate by means of DNA analysis that evolution by speciation has occurred. It makes sense to me, not because I possess a darkened nous, but because I don't feel the need to subject the findings of my own experience and learning to the notions of people of an earlier time, regardless of their saintly status and any supposed authority they are often thought to have. I have also studied the religious writings of many different peoples from around the world and from diverse times, and found that their religious literature, strikingly, contained story motifs identical to those found within the Bible. I've also studied human psychology, and have discovered a most convincing explanation as to why these same motifs are found in the writings of people who have had neither direct nor indirect contact with each other (it is not a copycat thing). And so, It makes far more sense to me that the Bible does not represent a literal history. I have accepted this and yet I still believe in God and in His Christ. I am Orthodox even if I choose not to see the Fall as a historical event, choosing rather to understand it as a present and very real problem which I must overcome through my faith and repentance.

I stand by this statement, and I've not much more to say at this time because this is very time consuming. Thank you all for taking the time to engage in this discussion. It would seem that you've all behaved well and respectfully throughout the discussions, which I'm sure we can all feel good about. I do. Thanks again.

 

[truefiction1]

@Rus, I spent a good deal of time making a point by point reply to your last post that was directed at me, only to lose it all when nearly finished when I somehow accidentally palmed the keyboard. What a waste of time that was. I can't spend any more time on this thread though, so I'm afraid I have to be finished here.

 

[jckstraw72]

truefiction, thank you as well for the friendly discussion. I appreciate that you have put a lot of time and thought into this whole question. I can respect that you recognized the issue and cared enough to settle it, at least for yourself. I agree, there's probably not much more we could say, because we simply have two very different ways of looking at the sources, both on the religious and scientific side, and I suspect that's not something that could be easily dug into on a forum. Anyhoo, it's been real.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Exactly! I just want the discussion to have more specifics. It seems like, to get back to my OP that I started in this thread, people just take adaptations as a TOTAL 100% given, and it has reached the level of faith. If you question evolution or adaptations, you're a dullard living in a type of stone age. Pro-evolutionists have a "duh! it's obviously true!" approach that has few details. I just for once wish they'd give a series of examples and try to argue it rather than generalities of saying it's plain as the nose on one's face...

well, knowing you are playing devil's advocate, I would say that just because they are not human beings does not mean that they do not have communion with their Creator. elephants are known to find areas where members of their herds have died, and it almost looks like they mourn over the skeletons. the fact that Neanderthals buried their dead ritualistically simply could mean that they had a unique knowledge of their Creator. but that does not say anything for or against evolution.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't understand what the bolded statement means. You cannot scientifically prove God exists. You cannot intellectually reason your way to the existence of God as Christianity knows Him. Therefore I don't understand how someone could "scientifically" decide that evolution is instituted by God. Is there a scientific way to study God?

Also, just popping in to make a comment about psychology - I know your comments about psychology being bunk are vague, so I am not sure precisely what it is about psychology that you do not think is valid; but psychotherapy and certain methods of exploring my inner life, my past, and my present gave me my sanity back. So I cannot say it is worthless.

Note: none of the methods were "new age" or any such garbage.

Hi Gwendolyn,
I realize that all such comments, being brief, can give the impression that there is nothing else behind them, that they are naked thoughts complete and entire, that that's all there is to the thought.

On psychology, I refer mainly to the origins of the idea, and the root of what it means to try to scientifically study the soul. I certainly admit that psychologists can and often do help people, and when they do (when it is really help), it is because they have something right, that not all in their understandings of what the soul is is false. I think pretty much everybody is right about something. BUT, I also believe that the further their views are from the truth about the human soul, the more corrupt and dangerous their "care". What does "work" (whether it is actually better for the soul or not) will do so because what is wrong is mixed in with what is right. So I don't doubt that good (or relatively good) psychology helped you.

On theistic evolution, I did not mean that anybody can or ought to be able to scientifically prove God. What I meant is that they synthesize their faith with their belief in evolution. Since I do not believe in human evolution, I think it a matter of error not in science, but in theology. It is the contradiction of mutal exclusivity, that if man Fell from an ideal state, he could not have been only "progressing" toward that state (and, under the idea of evolution, is to this day merrily progressing back toward that state on his own steam, no God required). Either he was created good, as we find in Scripture, or he was only developing - and obviously not "good enough".

 

[rusmeister]

@Rus, I spent a good deal of time making a point by point reply to your last post that was directed at me, only to lose it all when nearly finished when I somehow accidentally palmed the keyboard. What a waste of time that was. I can't spend any more time on this thread though, so I'm afraid I have to be finished here.

I know how that feels. I have lost many a post when my browser "reloads" the page against my will; I have learned to type important stuff in my Notepad app, outside of the browser. A PC with Word is best, but usually not convenient.

I hope you get that the disagreement has serious foundations, that we actually understand your premises and disagree. We may think each other wrong. But we should not think each other stupid. I echo Gurney, too, that for most people (to which you may be a gallant exception), it is a matter of heresy to question evolution, that it HAS reached a level of blind faith.

I echo what Jack said, too. Thank you, and I appreciate your good will!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Exactly! I just want the discussion to have more specifics. It seems like, to get back to my OP that I started in this thread, people just take adaptations as a TOTAL 100% given, and it has reached the level of faith. If you question evolution or adaptations, you're a dullard living in a type of stone age. Pro-evolutionists have a "duh! it's obviously true!" approach that has few details. I just for once wish they'd give a series of examples and try to argue it rather than generalities of saying it's plain as the nose on one's face...

they do. it's what happens when we are taught what to think and not how to think. atheists that I know always say that evolution is merely "the best that we know now," but whenever it is questioned at all, the kid gloves come off and they fight for its validity like it's their Gospel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I also third what rus and jckstraw said. although I disagree, you have been positive to this thread.