EO & evolution

gzt · Jul 2, 2014

As we've been over before, I'm quite comfortable saying these various modern post-Darwin saints are dead wrong when they make claims that the earth is only thousands of years old and similar other claims. Their attacks on Darwinism and scientism have some value. I also don't really doubt that there will later be saints who affirm the age of the Earth and assent to the broad outline of evolutionary theory. We'll just have to wait a bit, though.

jckstraw72 · Jul 2, 2014

since when are Saints in the business of spouting opinions though, that we can just say are wrong? doesn't sound like the mark of a Saint to me. they speak much too forcefully on this topic to pass it off as their opinions. either they are illumined or they are deluded. they speak too forcefully to leave opinion as a viable option.

for instance, Elder Joseph the Hesychast told a young theologian that he had an awful spiritual stench because he had written in defense of evolution. if Elder Joseph is wrong then he's not just wrong, but he's actually deluded - thinking something is a spiritual stench when it's not.

jckstraw72 · Jul 2, 2014

and regarding Fr. Seraphim - plenty of people that knew him are still alive. If people want to know about Fr. Seraphim then they should seek those people out and speak to them. I have over 4 hours of audio from people that knew him personally for years. The story they consistently tell has nothing to do with the hogwash you sometimes read on the internet about him. or go live at St. Herman's for a bit and see what kind of life he lead. often people are so ignorant as to blame him for things that happened AFTER HE DIED. i've seen this many times. i had to correct a fellow Seminarian that no, Fr. Seraphim was never schismatic. too many people like to talk about things they have no idea about.

gzt · Jul 2, 2014

Who knows? Perhaps the theologian had written something very wrong about evolution. After all, he wrote an entire book. There are definitely ways a theologian could write about evolution that I would wholeheartedly agree would cause a spiritual stench.

gurneyhalleck1 · Jul 2, 2014

Hieromonk Damascene, a long time member of our parish and regular visitor, agrees with you, Jesse!

jckstraw72 said:
and regarding Fr. Seraphim - plenty of people that knew him are still alive. If people want to know about Fr. Seraphim then they should seek those people out and speak to them. I have over 4 hours of audio from people that knew him personally for years. The story they consistently tell has nothing to do with the hogwash you sometimes read on the internet about him. or go live at St. Herman's for a bit and see what kind of life he lead. often people are so ignorant as to blame him for things that happened AFTER HE DIED. i've seen this many times. i had to correct a fellow Seminarian that no, Fr. Seraphim was never schismatic. too many people like to talk about things they have no idea about.

ArmyMatt · Jul 2, 2014

gzt said:
As we've been over before, I'm quite comfortable saying these various modern post-Darwin saints are dead wrong when they make claims that the earth is only thousands of years old and similar other claims. Their attacks on Darwinism and scientism have some value. I also don't really doubt that there will later be saints who affirm the age of the Earth and assent to the broad outline of evolutionary theory. We'll just have to wait a bit, though.

again, I imagine if it fit, there would be some saint somewhere that would have said something in the positive. this theory has been going on for more than a century, so one would think it would be somewhere.

I also find it a bit ironic, that at least within the Church as far as patristics goes, in this one field it is those who are for macroevolution that can only speculate.

ArmyMatt · Jul 2, 2014

gzt said:
Who knows? Perhaps the theologian had written something very wrong about evolution. After all, he wrote an entire book. There are definitely ways a theologian could write about evolution that I would wholeheartedly agree would cause a spiritual stench.

no, Elder Joseph said it was evolution. when the scientist took it back, the stench was removed. plus, Elder Joseph had at least one theoria where he experienced creation in it's pre-Fallen state.

gzt · Jul 2, 2014

When Elder Joseph was still living at the skete of St. Basil, one day he went to a neighboring church to visit Fr. Gerasimos. That day there happened to be a certain layman visiting from the world. When Elder Joseph saw the man, he approached him and said: You have a mistake, a serious problem.
The layman asked: What mistake do I have?
I dont know, replied Elder Joseph. All I know is that there is
something seriously wrong with you.
Can we find out what it is?
We cannot determine this now during the day. If youd like, come
down to my hut tonight.
I will be there after midnight, Elder.
Indeed, during the middle of the night the laymen went to visit him. They started talking, and eventually Elder Joseph discovered that this person, who had obtained a college degree in theology, had written an entire book in support of Darwins theory of evolution of the species. Elder Joseph advised him, When you want to support a theory or opinion, why dont you draw from the writings of the holy Fathers? A theory or viewpoint is confirmed when it is validated by either the Holy Scriptures or the holy and God-bearing Fathers.
The theologian ultimately admitted that he had made a mistake to believe in this theory. He then asked Elder Joseph to tell him how he knew he was mistaken.
Yesterday, as I approached you, explained the Elder, I sensed a foul odor and smelled a bad stench coming from you, and from this I realized that there was something wrong with you.

Saying the theory of evolution could connote many things, again, some of which I would agree as well could emit a foul stench. But, otherwise, who knows? I suspect we will all be surprised at the end of time when we find out that I'm right.

truefiction1 · Jul 2, 2014

There are many saints amongst the laity who fully accept the reality of biological evolution. To say that the only people who are saints are those few who the Church has honored with canonization gives a false and lopsided view of the Body of Christ, because it gives too much credence to the monastic, especially the hermetic life, and craps all over the laity who live and work in the world. The real Church does not just consist of monastics who choose to live within the artificial environments of the prayerful and meditative cultures they have constructed for themselves. The real Church also contains physicians of the body and the soul who fully embrace the theory of evolution, so that they may offer the best knowledge and care possible to the benefit of their patients, whom God has entrusted with their care. Canonized monastics and clergymen are generally not people who ever studied or practiced modern science and medicine. It is understandable therefore that they might forcefully reject any scientific claim that is not in keeping with their mental constructs of the nature of existence. But, it's irresponsible to suggest that one kind of saint is more informed than another in all matters. It's more responsible to understand and teach that everyone is perfectly capable of being incorrect about certain things.

The Elder Joseph skit is easy... the author had an issue with evolution, probably the elder Joseph did too. Things get made up and become pious legends. The Virgin Mary supposedly appeared to Roman Catholic believers and stated, point blank, "I am the Immaculate Conception". Personally, I'm not buying it. I'm more inclined to say that this is one of those pious legends created in order to give "saint power" to someone's agenda. In their case, the Immaculate Conception. In Your case, denial of Evolution.

ArmyMatt · Jul 2, 2014

no it doesn't. and there are many lay saints. Elder Joseph was one of them. and while we cannot know the number of who is and who is not, from the ones that we do know, what they have written that the Church has approved, not one that has been named as affirmed evolution.

The Elder Joseph skit is easy... the author had an issue with evolution, probably the elder Joseph did too. Things get made up and become pious legends.

outside of your opinion, I would love to know what evidence you have to support this, or what standard shows what is an actual miracle and what is a "pious legend."

Protoevangel · Jul 2, 2014

gzt said:
Saying the theory of evolution could connote many things, again, some of which I would agree as well could emit a foul stench. But, otherwise, who knows? I suspect we will all be surprised at the end of time when we find out that I'm right.

Yea. Mmm hm. You're right, but you couldn't discern Elder Joseph's real point.

"When you want to support a theory or opinion, why don't you draw from the writings of the holy Fathers? A theory or viewpoint is confirmed when it is validated by either the Holy Scriptures or the holy and God-bearing Fathers."

Oh, except for your pet subject. Riiiight.

gzt · Jul 2, 2014

I suggest we wait and see.

truefiction1 · Jul 2, 2014

ArmyMatt said:
no it doesn't. and there are many lay saints. Elder Joseph was one of them. and while we cannot know the number of who is and who is not, from the ones that we do know, what they have written that the Church has approved, not one that has been named as affirmed evolution.

outside of your opinion, I would love to know what evidence you have to support this, or what standard shows what is an actual miracle and what is a "pious legend."

Doesn't the fact that the RCC has declared that the Theotokos appeared and stated that she is the Immaculate Conception give evidence enough that such pious legends do develop? Obviously, we do not agree that Mary was immaculately conceived, so we cannot agree with their story. Why then should it be inconceivable that some of our own stories be regarded with similar suspicion?

There are many lay saints. They do not get canonized because it would be neither possible or useful to canonize them all... there are simply too many. They are generally recognized, however, on certain days of the year. In the OCA, we just this past month commemorated all such unknown saints along with the canonized saints of North America. Most saints in the Church are actually never canonized.

ArmyMatt · Jul 2, 2014

Doesn't the fact that the RCC has declared that the Theotokos appeared and stated that she is the Immaculate Conception give evidence enough that such pious legends do develop? Obviously, we do not agree that Mary was immaculately conceived, so we cannot agree with their story. Why then should it be inconceivable that some of our own stories be regarded with similar suspicion?

because we are the True Church, and therefore our dogmas are not legends but true.

There are many lay saints. They do not get canonized because it would be neither possible or useful to canonize them all... there are simply too many. They are generally recognized, however, on certain days of the year. In the OCA, we just this past month commemorated all such unknown saints along with the canonized saints of North America. Most saints in the Church are actually never canonized.

I know that. however, the saints that we do know have pretty much all said that evolution does not work with the Genesis account. what you have is no evidence, so you have to say that some unknown MIGHT believe in evolution, so it is therefore permissible. what you are arguing for is that we listen to you in this issue and not the Church.

rusmeister · Jul 2, 2014

Just to clarify a little, I have no problem imagining an earth created one hundred thousand - or even a million years ago, and man being created only ten thousand years ago. I DO have a problem with a very old race of men, because I believe that man has always been intelligent, and that we could not have a past of tens of thousands of years without any literacy or recording of events, so I don't accept the fantastic claims of hundreds of thousands of years regarding man. The Bilical record makes sense to me with historical record being pretty much entirely post-diluvian. My objections re: the Earth are specifically to the interpretations of data that conclude with cosmic evolution, and corresponding death in the world before the Fall. And no, pre-Fall plants did not die.

rusmeister · Jul 2, 2014

I can't take your idea seriously, TF, because in saying that many people today accept evolution, and MIGHT be saints, you are trying to reject objectivity, things we can say we all know to be verifiable facts, in order to support the view of the primacy of scientism in the Church (ie, that science has the power to correct Church teaching of truth). In order to even claim to be members of the Orthodox Church, we have to agree that there is a definite corps of canonized saints, people who we can KNOW ran the course, finished the race, kept the faith, and are lights that we should follow - and I would add that whatever truths of the natural universe science may have, they are NOTHING next to the spiritual truths those saints teach us.
And we OUGHT to agree that where there is consensus - where most or all of them agree on something - anything - we ought to accept it as truth, and it would be much better to do so and believe that storks deliver babies to homes, than to deny their right to teach us, though we know every step of the reproductive process. So if you don't accept the consensus of the Church, specifically of those verifiable saints, then all of your science is dust and ashes.

rusmeister · Jul 2, 2014

Dorothea said:
Just my observations reading over the whole of the conversations in this thread is that some folks are taking things said personally as if others who disagree with them are attacking them personally. What I've seen is those people who don't believe in death before the Fall don't believe it because they have read many of the CF's/Saints that are against death before the Fall. It has nothing to do with judging a person's heart or saying those who do believe in that or something else regarding the Fall and how old the earth.

I've seen a few posts by Greg saying we don't know him and being judgmental. Again this feels like the conversations in GT to a certain extent of misunderstanding theology versus personal faith. Greg, nobody said they know you and whether we personally know you or not has nothing to do with the convo. What is the focus is what people are saying they believe about evolution and different aspects of it and that some people choose the writings and opinions of the Saints over other writings and people's opinions. That's it.

What she said.

truefiction1 · Jul 2, 2014

ArmyMatt said:
because we are the True Church, and therefore our dogmas are not legends but true.

They make the same claim and it is no less valid a claim than ours with regards to supporting evidence

ArmyMatt said:
I know that. however, the saints that we do know have pretty much all said that evolution does not work with the Genesis account. what you have is no evidence, so you have to say that some unknown MIGHT believe in evolution, so it is therefore permissible. what you are arguing for is that we listen to you in this issue and not the Church.

There is far more evidence that evolution is the reality and that the Genesis narrative is strictly "literary". A lack of awareness regarding that evidence on the part of some does not mean that the evidence does not exist. It merely means that some people are unaware of it. I am thoroughly aware of it. That does not mean that I am not among the saints. For all you know, that evolution believing doctor who removed your child's infected appendix just in the nic-of-time, prior to it bursting and killing the child, is among the saints. Who's to judge who's a saint and who's not? Is Seraphim of Sarov more valuable to us than and ER doctor who routinely saves lives and relieves peoples pain? And what about the poor slug who spent his life working in the hellish environment of a steel mill or foundry in order to support his family, his commnity, his Church, and to make available the product used in the construction of roads, bridges, health care facilities, schools, etc... only to die in the agonizing grip of cancer of some other horrendous ailment prior to retirement? Is such a person any less a saint than say, Father Herman of Alaska? Not likely, in reality. Most saints are canonized because of what they did for the Church, but the others are not because what they did was for everyone else: for "the life of the world, and its salvation". But they are saints, and they do believe in the theory of evolution.

jckstraw72 · Jul 2, 2014

truefiction1 said:
But they are saints, and they do believe in the theory of evolution.

from my research and travels, it seems to be moreso an American Orthodox phenomenon to believe in evolution. as Met. Jonah said to me - you're harder pressed to get the Americans to reject evolution, but for the old-country Orthodox people of course they believe in a more literal reading of Genesis. when i told my Russian ex-girlfriend that I was writing a thesis about Fr. Seraphim and his work against evolution, she responded "wait, there are Orthodox people who believe in evolution?!"

yes, i know there are people in Orthodox countries that believe in evolution, but this is certainly more an American Orthodox peculiarity.

truefiction1 · Jul 2, 2014

rusmeister said:
I can't take your idea seriously, TF, because in saying that many people today accept evolution, and MIGHT be saints, you are trying to reject objectivity, things we can say we all know to be verifiable facts, in order to support the view of the primacy of scientism in the Church (ie, that science has the power to correct Church teaching of truth). In order to even claim to be members of the Orthodox Church, we have to agree that there is a definite corps of canonized saints, people who we can KNOW ran the course, finished the race, kept the faith, and are lights that we should follow - and I would add that whatever truths of the natural universe science may have, they are NOTHING next to the spiritual truths those saints teach us.
And we OUGHT to agree that where there is consensus - where most or all of them agree on something - anything - we ought to accept it as truth, and it would be much better to do so and believe that storks deliver babies to homes, than to deny their right to teach us, though we know every step of the reproductive process. So if you don't accept the consensus of the Church, specifically of those verifiable saints, then all of your science is dust and ashes.

Reality does not work in this manner as you have described. First of all, saints are generally those who either naturally were, and/or by great efforts, masters of "affect regulation" (which means that they had learned to be in control of their emotions more often than being controlled by them, a.k.a. the "passions".) Affect and cognition relate to one another, but are significantly different. Being a genius in spiritual matters as such does not make one necessarily capable of great feats in the field of mathematics, physics, or medicine. This requires work of a different sort, as in "cognitive learning". A consensus of saints whose cognitive learning did not include thorough grounding in biological principles based upon repeatable, empirical observation means practically nothing in relation to evolution. All of the saints you cite were grounded in the cognitive understandings and symbol-isms they'd received through their religious culture, so this is the system they relied upon in order to define and describe their "affective" experiences. The science, however, is not dust and ashes. The science is for real. It is God's gift to us, like in the Book of Genesis when God gave Adam the gift of the "skins of animals" to protect them from the harsh environmental elements.

EO & evolution

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Reader

Regular Member

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Fool

Regular Member

Smash the Patriarchy!

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Fool

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Fool

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Fool

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency