EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

No, because my understanding of Church authority is not the one that is lacking and built upon false presuppositions, which is why I am not excommunicated, but rather pointed in the direction of leadership by those who know that I understand the true nature and meaning of authority.

TF, you have openly said that in the event of conflict between the Tradition of the Church and modern science, that modern science has the power to correct the Church, clearly implying that theology and established dogma must be modified to fit what is seen as modern scientific truth.

You can't be received into the Church with that kind of attitude, and if you HAVE been received, you need to either admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, which you accept, being the consensus of all who went before and constituting our Holy Tradition, or accept that you re not in communion with us. I don't think gzt, Greg, or any of the others would go so far as to say what you have said. That's why they are trying to synthesize the concepts and ignore the contradictions. That in itself is not heresy, just error. But from everything you've said, I have to say you've fallen into actual heresy.

 

[jckstraw72]

TF, you have openly said that in the event of conflict between the Tradition of the Church and modern science, that modern science has the power to correct the Church, clearly implying that theology and established dogma must be modified to fit what is seen as modern scientific truth.

You can't be received into the Church with that kind of attitude, and if you HAVE been received, you need to either admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, which you accept, being the consensus of all who went before and constituting our Holy Tradition, or accept that you re not in communion with us. I don't think gzt, Greg, or any of the others would go so far as to say what you have said. That's why they are trying to synthesize the concepts and ignore the contradictions. That in itself is not heresy, just error. But from everything you've said, I have to say you've fallen into actual heresy.

QFT

 

[truefiction1]

no, or else we would not be human. your statements that the soul evolved into existence and that it receives it's existence from the body are both gross errors. the soul did not evolve into existence (it is breathed into man), and the body is not where it receives its existence, God is. seriously, this is in the Philokalia.

Scientifically speaking (and this is supported by empirical as well as easily observable evidence), a person (or soul, if you will) is made possible by the physiological substrates that enable it to exist. These substrates are contained within the body and include the various components of the nervous system, internal organs, sense organs, and very importantly, the brain. Human emotional and cognitive capacities are the product of evolution, and there remains variation in the capacities between individual members of species.

My statements are not gross errors. Souls can be seen evolving into existence at the micro-level everyday. Upon conception, neither a workable nervous system or brain exist yet. As the stem cells begin to divide and multiply, some of them, according to evolutionary design (found in the blueprint, DNA), differentiate into various types of cells which will later become distinct bodily cells. Eventually, the cells which constitute the elements of the nervous system develop and grow, along with the brain, and these systems are what give us our ability to experience emotion, to experience the world around us, and to attempt to define, explain, and even verbalize those experiences. It is the body that brings life to the soul. Other mammals share our primary emotions as well, though most of them lack our cognitive facilities (because we have an extremely large forebrain as compared to most of them).

Notice that I did not say that God did not "breath" the soul into man. If God is the architect of human evolution, and humans evolved into self-awareness, then God is still the one who breathed the souls into us, by creating by means of biological evolutionary processes a being that knows it's alive. What, exactly is your conception of how God (a being beyond comprehension) breaths a soul into each person? Do you envision a giant humanoid or Spirit being approaching a fetus and physically breathing a breath of its own into the mouth and lungs of the new person? What makes such a conception any more tenable than the one I disclosed?

Still, because there is a strong mythological character to Biblical narratives, and because those who produced the sayings in the Philokalia relied heavily upon those narratives, one cannot rely upon them for the study of physical medicine, rather, their purpose is to provide spiritual medicine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

theologically speaking, your statements are gross errors. God breathed the soul into man at the moment of creation. the soul did not evolve overtime. the fact that you began with how "scientifically" the soul came to be, shows how you are not looking to the Church. there is no science that can show a soul. then all you say is that we should trust science and not the Fathers, since they were influenced by mythology. you sound like a Protestant who likes Orthodoxy most, and you can flake off what you don't like. no saint would support what you are saying.

total gross error

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

TF, I love ya, brother, but I just ask you to take a minute and take in what Rus and Matt are saying. These aren't fanatics or nutters, but very common sense Orthodox posters whom I consider a great help in my own Christian walk. We are all fallible, but sometimes when people are all telling you the same thing, you have to back up and pray about it, opening your heart to the real possibility that you are not in line with the Holy Orthodox Church. Like Rus said, you're entitled to the evolution opinions, despite the fact that I find them flawed and potentially dangerous in affecting one's mindset, but the problem is your conception and approach to authority. Just sit back and pray and meditate on what people here have said. I think you're diverging....

Doesn't sound Orthodox because the statement uses language that is not the conventional language of Christian Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean it's a false statement.

 

[truefiction1]

theologically speaking, your statements are gross errors. God breathed the soul into man at the moment of creation. the soul did not evolve overtime. the fact that you began with how "scientifically" the soul came to be, shows how you are not looking to the Church. there is no science that can show a soul. then all you say is that we should trust science and not the Fathers, since they were influenced by mythology. you sound like a Protestant who likes Orthodoxy most, and you can flake off what you don't like. no saint would support what you are saying.

total gross error

Scientifically speaking, the Genesis narrative that speaks of God breathing the soul into man at the moment of creation has a mythological character to it, so that while it is true, it is also not literally true in the sense of describing actual historical incidents. The fact that I started out with the qualifier "scientifically", shows only that I can speak of things that are true and what makes them true scientifically, but because I have also lived devoutly according to the Orthodox Christian Tradition from my infancy I am able to speak of such things that are true spiritually as well, and can readily identify the synthesis between both traditions with regard to the functioning and activity of the psyche (soul).

Your presumption that no saint would support what I am saying seems somewhat rash. Perhaps no saint ever understood as well as I do about the physiological substrates underlying human behavior, experience, and psycho-physiological development, or the proven processes of biological evolution, or comparative religion/mythology. If they did they would support it. In all likelihood they would even add greater scientific and spiritual insights on top of it.

Your statement about there not being any science that can show a soul is also inaccurate. Consider this: Is it the soul that experiences the emotion that we commonly identify with the label "Rage"? I think that this emotion is something we will all identify as a function or aspect of our soul. Most of us would deem it an inappropriate, negative emotion that tends to injure relationships and even leads to physical harm to self and/or others.

Point* A neurologist can cause you to experience (feel) this emotion by stimulating the exact location within your brain that is known to be responsible for the production of this particular feeling. They can do this to force the experience of other emotions as well, so that we now know that human and animal emotion, and hence, the affective experiences of the human psyche (soul) has a definite physiological basis. Knowing this, my statement regarding the integration of body and soul, the soul actually existing because of the equipment that physically enables it to exist, should not be too difficult to accept once one becomes well acquainted with these discoveries and their implications.

 

[truefiction1]

TF, I love ya, brother, but I just ask you to take a minute and take in what Rus and Matt are saying. These aren't fanatics or nutters, but very common sense Orthodox posters whom I consider a great help in my own Christian walk. We are all fallible, but sometimes when people are all telling you the same thing, you have to back up and pray about it, opening your heart to the real possibility that you are not in line with the Holy Orthodox Church. Like Rus said, you're entitled to the evolution opinions, despite the fact that I find them flawed and potentially dangerous in affecting one's mindset, but the problem is your conception and approach to authority. Just sit back and pray and meditate on what people here have said. I think you're diverging....

Thank you. And I appreciate who Rus and Matt are. I'm not who they are, though, which is why I don't share their presuppositions regarding authority.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My training was (first) in evolutionary biology. When I decided to later change fields, I studied psychology, and went into advanced brain/behavior studies. I'm sure the field has advanced tremendously in just the time since I've left, but I am aware of all of these kinds of things.

I do not find them incompatible with the Church's teaching, however. We are physical beings. God obviously had to create us with processes that have a physical basis. The working of those processes does not negate the possibility of spiritual aspects.

And our finally being able to understand a part of those processes does not (or should not) supersede the wisdom of the Church.

I went through a period of putting my knowledge in that position. I found it to be a tenuous foundation though.

 

[truefiction1]

TF, you have openly said that in the event of conflict between the Tradition of the Church and modern science, that modern science has the power to correct the Church, clearly implying that theology and established dogma must be modified to fit what is seen as modern scientific truth.

You can't be received into the Church with that kind of attitude, and if you HAVE been received, you need to either admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, which you accept, being the consensus of all who went before and constituting our Holy Tradition, or accept that you re not in communion with us. I don't think gzt, Greg, or any of the others would go so far as to say what you have said. That's why they are trying to synthesize the concepts and ignore the contradictions. That in itself is not heresy, just error. But from everything you've said, I have to say you've fallen into actual heresy.

Nay. I believe according to what is stated in our Creed, and worship according to our Tradition. The creed is not specific about the nature of the Church or wherein one will find its true authority. It only states that it is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Where the authority lies, as we know, is a debate that has raged for as long as the Church has existed, and is the real reason behind the creation of the biblical narratives delineating the unique treatment of the apostle Peter, (because he was the leader of the early Church) as well as the schism, and also the highly visible, hopeless division of the Orthodox East, each division questioning the level of authority, the validity, worthiness, or canonicity of the other. The Church may often be theorized to be well defined, but the reality does not correlate with the theories. Most of us feel, or presuppose that someone or something is an infallible authority concerning the important matters of our existence. We transfer infancy feelings we had toward our mothers onto the new protector, the Church. But our mothers were not infallible. Nobody and nothing is God but God, not even His Bride, who continues to discover new things about Her Husband and His creative genius, even through the lenses of science, even the science of evolution.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just so I'm clear, succinctly put, what presuppositions do you not share with these gentlemen? Just a simple Power Point style bullet form, what do you disagree with them on?

Thank you. And I appreciate who Rus and Matt are. I'm not who they are, though, which is why I don't share their presuppositions regarding authority.

 

[gzt]

I have found one modern saint who, at the least, does not oppose the old earth: St Mikhail Cheltsov, an archpriest martyred under the Bolshevik yoke:

“Deeper and more thoughtful and spiritual explanation and understanding of many places of the Bible have contributed not a little towards the overcoming of animosity between science and religion. It sufficed to read the biblical account of the creation of the world to realize that the Bible gives no support to understanding of the days of creation as 24-hour intervals, and the wall between biblical accounts and scientific data on the indefinitely long period of Earth’s existence prior to the appearance of mankind collapsed.”

I haven't seen the original source, but it was quoted in this text which some may have undoubtedly seen already: Orthodox apologetic theology: text - IntraText CT

More about the holy martyr St Mikhail: http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804009714?lc=en

However, this does not touch directly on evolution.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Scientifically speaking, the Genesis narrative that speaks of God breathing the soul into man at the moment of creation has a mythological character to it, so that while it is true, it is also not literally true in the sense of describing actual historical incidents.

I would love some evidence from the Fathers to support this

Perhaps no saint ever understood as well as I do about the physiological substrates underlying human behavior, experience, and psycho-physiological development, or the proven processes of biological evolution, or comparative religion/mythology.

yeah, no saint understood this as well as you do......

Your statement about there not being any science that can show a soul is also inaccurate. Consider this: Is it the soul that experiences the emotion that we commonly identify with the label "Rage"? I think that this emotion is something we will all identify as a function or aspect of our soul. Most of us would deem it an inappropriate, negative emotion that tends to injure relationships and even leads to physical harm to self and/or others.

the soul is noetic, and not material. therefore, material things, while they can be affected by the soul and vice versa, do not show the soul. you cannot use materialistic measurements to quantify something that is materialistically unquantifiable.

Point* A neurologist can cause you to experience (feel) this emotion by stimulating the exact location within your brain that is known to be responsible for the production of this particular feeling. They can do this to force the experience of other emotions as well, so that we now know that human and animal emotion, and hence, the affective experiences of the human psyche (soul) has a definite physiological basis. Knowing this, my statement regarding the integration of body and soul, the soul actually existing because of the equipment that physically enables it to exist, should not be too difficult to accept once one becomes well acquainted with these discoveries and their implications.

counterpoint, if the soul needed the physical body to continue to exist, it would cease to exist when a person died. death is the separation of soul and body, but neither is destroyed. if the soul were bound up in our physical or mental faculties, then the soul would cease at death. the soul does not.

all you are saying is you know more than the Fathers, and whatever contradicts what you think is myth or influenced by myth. and I am not gonna buy it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have found one modern saint who, at the least, does not oppose the old earth: St Mikhail Cheltsov, an archpriest martyred under the Bolshevik yoke:

I haven't seen the original source, but it was quoted in this text which some may have undoubtedly seen already: Orthodox apologetic theology: text - IntraText CT

More about the holy martyr St Mikhail: http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804009714?lc=en

However, this does not touch directly on evolution.

well, I would say that doesn't deny the young earth, he merely says that the days of Creation are not as literal. so he could still support a young earth (certainly younger than billions of years) just not as young as others.

 

[gzt]

He's specifically talking about the reconciliation of science and religion, or at least the end of animosity: ...the wall between biblical accounts and scientific data on the indefinitely long period of Earth’s existence prior to the appearance of mankind collapsed.

 

[jckstraw72]

who wrote that article? it says I. M. Andreyev at the top, but then it quotes him in the text ... Andreyev does say that the days were indefinitely long periods, but it's clear from what else he says in his Apologetic Theology that he is not an evolutionist.

and this link is interesting, if you move up to #17, on the primary state of man, it says this: "Of the primitive life of man, science has no data at all. According to the remarkable expression of the famous French anthropologist Katrefage: “Neither experience nor observation give us the slightest facts concerning the very beginning of mankind. Strict science must therefore leave inviolate this problem. He who acknowledges his ignorance in the given case recedes less from the truth than he who does not acknowledge it and strives to press it on others," which is precisely what we have been saying. It also says: " Physically, they were free from sorrows, illnesses, and death." This writing seems to contradict itself - it says there is no scientific data for pre-fallen man, but also earlier tells us that there's no reason not to accept evolution ...

 

[ArmyMatt]

He's specifically talking about the reconciliation of science and religion, or at least the end of animosity: ...the wall between biblical accounts and scientific data on the indefinitely long period of Earth’s existence prior to the appearance of mankind collapsed.

yeah, I don't have any animosity to science. and I am down with folks agreeing, but it has to be true. just because I reject the earth being billions of years old, does not mean that I am against science.

 

[jckstraw72]

it'd be interesting to see the full work from St. Mikhail. Some people have used St. Luke of Simferopol as a compatibilist, because he says this:

"[FONT=verdana,geneva]So says Haeckel that every enlightened man must chose between science and religion and should follow either one or the other. He considered it necessary that such men should deny religion because a logical man cannot deny science.[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,geneva]Truly, is this necessary? No, not at all, for we know that many and great scientists were at the same time great believers."

But in a fuller version of the same work which exists in Russian, he goes on to say this: "[/FONT]Darwinism, which declares that man, by means of evolution, has developed from the lower species of animals, and is not a product of the creative act of the Godhead, has turned out to be merely a supposition, a hypothesis, which has become obsolete even for science. This hypothesis has been acknowledged as contradictory not only to the Bible, but to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and knows of no transition even from a sparrow to a swallow."


so i wonder what else St. Mikhail says ... i've honestly never heard of him before, thanks for finding this.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have found one modern saint who, at the least, does not oppose the old earth: St Mikhail Cheltsov, an archpriest martyred under the Bolshevik yoke:

I haven't seen the original source, but it was quoted in this text which some may have undoubtedly seen already: Orthodox apologetic theology: text - IntraText CT

More about the holy martyr St Mikhail: http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804009714?lc=en

St. Mikhail was a very dynamic individual and thank you for bringing his work up - I am surprised no one did this earlier since he is someone that is not hidden or obscure. But glad someone addressed his work.

 

[rusmeister]

Unfortunately, I do not have time, but in extreme brief I'll say that the response to people like St Mikhail (I'm taking your word for it here) is that they are in error in thinking there to actually be a conflict between science and religion. I'll see if I can link to what I am talking about later.

However, the issue of authority and TF is much more important; it is the single most important issue I can imagine. It is by authority that we have a Creed, and there is no actual debate (except in the minds of people like TF) about what that authority is. We can know nothing and believe nothing without that authority. The effect, be it intended or not, of seeking to propagate argument about it is to try to make the individual the ultimate authority. It is Protestantism in Orthodox clothing, and heresy and schism.

Either we accept that there are identifiable truths that a definite consensus can be established, enabling us to have a Creed, and certain understandings of Scripture and (thecrest of) Tradition and not others, in which case we can have a common Orthodox faith and actually be in communion, or we have only a myriad of individual opinions about what is true, and have nothing certain in common with the people we worship with.

Once that authority is accepted, we find that it states a lot of things, some of which Make us uncomfortable. I am STILL uncomfortable when I find prayers speaking of the Theotokos as a mediatrix, because it looks Catholic, and not Orthodox to me. But I have learned to be patient, and to expect that in time it will become clear to me (and no, I'm not going to let this change the subject). The vital thing is that the only principle that can meaningfully unite us is that when our ideas conflict with those of the consensus of the Church, it is WE who are somehow actually wrong, NOT the Church. And this is what TF rejects.

 

[gzt]

St Mikhail is saying there is not, in fact, a conflict between the two, though there would be in certain readings of Scripture and certain interpretations of science, to be sure. By the way, given that you're in Russia and speak Russian, you may have more ready access to what he says than we do - I'm working off an excerpt in translation, after all, and I doubt anything by him has made it into English.

I 100% agree with jckstraw that it would be interesting to see the whole context of what he is saying.