How do we explain Neanderthals?

[JackRT]

are you contending that St. Pasios is not qualified to discern what is and isn't blasphemy?

I do not know what St. Pasios is qualified to discern. Blasphemy is a most nebulous term and depends very much on one's preconceptions.

 

[rusmeister]

The way I see it, there are really only three ways to approach this challenging situation. The first is to be naturally in a position of ignorance. I hate to be so blunt but many church fathers and even saints were, and perhaps even now to a lesser degree, are ignorant of what science and the plentifully available evidence have to show us about human origins. To them there never was a challenge as they were raised in and their views fostered by a Christian culture that simply had no insight into evolution and therefore suffered no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. This is a 'luxury' many modern Christians do not have anymore.

The second way to deal with these things is through a kind of wilfull ignorance, often involving a dismissal of scientific discovery in this domain of knowledge altogether. This way is untenable or undesirable for many modern Christians. This is perhaps the most dangerous position to take regarding one's faith because, well, one can't deny or hide from the facts forever.

The third way, I would suggest, is one that takes into account the best (and worst) of both science and religion, holds tentatively to both to make room for future discovery, and pursues a Christian life that is experiential, practical, and ultimately and hopefully transformative. The inner subjective world IS different than the outer world best examined through science and natural history. NOMA as outlined by biologist Stephen J. Gould offers a kind of solution here. But if one's entire faith is based on the second way, that of denial or wilful ignorance employed in order to protect an ancient worldview, I fear that if something gives, they may be prone to outright atheism when their faith collapses under the weight of scientific evidence.

Many Christians, Orthodox and otherwise, hold to the third way (or something akin to it) and manage (in my case, this has admittedly been with some difficulty) to acknowledge the findings of science while still trying to discover and manifest in one's life those things that are perhaps most essential to being a Christian.

This is my view, for what it's worth. I see that other thoughtful people have their own ways of doing and seeing things.

Please, be blunt.
You are saying that you know better than the fathers. That is absolutely clear. Your faith in modern science exceeds your faith in the Tradition of the Church. It is scientism. It is consistent, and it is at least clarifying that you do not deny it. It is worse when people pretend that they do not deny it.

Holding onto Tradition at all costs? (Your words)
That is the only way to be Orthodox to the end.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

"I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age....it was "not supported by the evidence"--Darwin

When he married Emma Wedgwood in 1839 he confessed to her that he was an agnostic. It broke her heart.

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian."--Darwin

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."---Charles Darwin

So, your argument that he was a Christian is thin. If you want to address his earlier days as a younger man, he was Anglican, yes. But he grew into atheism and agnosticism fluctuating. He was at the very best, an agnostic, not a Christian.

I'm not saying evolutionary faith MUST imply a jungle mindset to societies, but we must admit it can. Hitler is a great example.

The idea that evolution comes from atheists is patently false. Why, Charles Darwin himself was a Christian!

Believing that evolution happens does not immediately imply that we should apply the law of the jungle to our societies. Even biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins admits this would be a terrible idea.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

With respect, it isn't for you to determine if our beloved saint is "qualified." You're not Orthodox, but a visitor to our forum. Remember this is an Orthodox subforum. Blasphemy to you, a more liberal Protestant, means little to us.

I do not know what St. Pasios is qualified to discern. Blasphemy is a most nebulous term and depends very much on one's preconceptions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The key problem I see in your thinking is that you separate the body and the soul almost like a Manichee or Gnostic. For we Orthodox Christians, the body and the soul are uniquely linked. And the creation story is not just a cozy tale for campfires and entertainment. It is theologically-grounded in a God who created Man WITHOUT DEATH, and that through the Fall we encountered death. Through Christ it is conquered wholly.

Also as to your question 'why have monogomy'? Human cultures throughout history have not always practiced monogomy. Many cultures still do not. In many cases it made more sense for survival of the species to conform to... other arrangements.

Also, evolution does not not automatically imply that humans are selfish or soulless. It merely demonstrates how life has diversified over time. It says nothing of souls whatsoever.

 

[JackRT]

The way I see it, there are really only three ways to approach this challenging situation. The first is to be naturally in a position of ignorance. I hate to be so blunt but many church fathers and even saints were, and perhaps even now to a lesser degree, are ignorant of what science and the plentifully available evidence have to show us about human origins. To them there never was a challenge as they were raised in and their views fostered by a Christian culture that simply had no insight into evolution and therefore suffered no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. This is a 'luxury' many modern Christians do not have anymore.

The second way to deal with these things is through a kind of wilfull ignorance, often involving a dismissal of scientific discovery in this domain of knowledge altogether. This way is untenable or undesirable for many modern Christians. This is perhaps the most dangerous position to take regarding one's faith because, well, one can't deny or hide from the facts forever.

The third way, I would suggest, is one that takes into account the best (and worst) of both science and religion, holds tentatively to both to make room for future discovery, and pursues a Christian life that is experiential, practical, and ultimately and hopefully transformative. The inner subjective world IS different than the outer world best examined through science and natural history. NOMA as outlined by biologist Stephen J. Gould offers a kind of solution here. But if one's entire faith is based on the second way, that of denial or wilful ignorance employed in order to protect an ancient worldview, I fear that if something gives, they may be prone to outright atheism when their faith collapses under the weight of scientific evidence.

Many Christians, Orthodox and otherwise, hold to the third way (or something akin to it) and manage (in my case, this has admittedly been with some difficulty) to acknowledge the findings of science while still trying to discover and manifest in one's life those things that are perhaps most essential to being a Christian.

This is my view, for what it's worth. I see that other thoughtful people have their own ways of doing and seeing things.

That was both eloquent and powerful. Thank you.

 

[gzt]

Who knows? When somebody is acknowledged as a saint, it doesn't mean we think they were right about everything. This would of course be a logical impossibility, because the saints of the Church say a lot of things and there is quite a lot of disagreement.

 

[gzt]

Hmm, it seems we've gotten to that part of the conversation where people start coming out and calling people heretics. We managed to go for so long without that happening.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That was both eloquent and powerful. Thank you.

The problem is, that it assumes one knows with perfect certainty how things came to be.

I really prefer to stay out of discussions like this.

Honestly, I COULD synthesize evolution and Genesis but for one thing, and that being the Scripture that says by one man death entered - referring to Adam's sin. One must not only allegorize Genesis completely (which wouldn't deal a theological death-blow to Christianity as a whole) but one must also discount explanations for death and correspondingly, victory over death and eternal life, which becomes much more serious.

But what I'd really like to say is this. I would suggest getting an education in biology/zoology under preeminent evolutionary doctorates, then set yourself the task of demonstrating and proving evolution within a curriculum that you design. Not just a "this is what we are teaching you - memorize it" curriculum (such as is now offered everywhere), but PROVE and DEMONSTRATE it. That was the task I set for myself and I was very invested in it, and in the education I'd received. I was at best an agnostic at that time (thanks to said education). When you've done all that, reassess how ironclad that theory is.

(I'm not saying I can prove none of it happened, but I am saying the proponents fail to prove much of anything, and further, that certain claims are wholly insupportable, so at the very least, the theories contain some falsehoods.)

This leaves one understanding that EITHER side (or any synthesis thereof) requires a certain amount of faith ...

 

[stavros388]

That was both eloquent and powerful. Thank you.

Thank you for the kind words!

 

[stavros388]

With respect, it isn't for you to determine if our beloved saint is "qualified." You're not Orthodox, but a visitor to our forum. Remember this is an Orthodox subforum. Blasphemy to you, a more liberal Protestant, means little to us.

"I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age....it was "not supported by the evidence"--Darwin

When he married Emma Wedgwood in 1839 he confessed to her that he was an agnostic. It broke her heart.

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian."--Darwin

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."---Charles Darwin

So, your argument that he was a Christian is thin. If you want to address his earlier days as a younger man, he was Anglican, yes. But he grew into atheism and agnosticism fluctuating. He was at the very best, an agnostic, not a Christian.

I'm not saying evolutionary faith MUST imply a jungle mindset to societies, but we must admit it can. Hitler is a great example.

Come on. Several scientists approach science and evolution as Christians. Darwin made a discovery that greatly challenged his faith at the time. Many people grow atheistic from an understanding of evolution by natural selection, alas, and many are taken in by the atheistic philosophy that often uses evolution as ammo against theism. But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While I agree with you, we Orthodox are a holistic lot. It's the nature of the Church. When we have several Orthodox saints condemning evolution, shouldn't that weigh heavily with us? If it were just one, meh, you might be right. But if you speak with most bishops, priests, patriarchs, and deacons nowdays, they are more incompatibalists. And if you read the saints, they overwhelmingly are opposed to evolution. You get a priest here and there that is into evolution, but not many. Consensus and holistic approaches....

Who knows? When somebody is acknowledged as a saint, it doesn't mean we think they were right about everything. This would of course be a logical impossibility, because the saints of the Church say a lot of things and there is quite a lot of disagreement.

 

[gzt]

There are quite a lot of theologians, bishops, and priests who work from the understanding that the earth is old, life is old, etc. Some of them might be intelligent design folks rather than evolution folks, I don't know, but it's not negligible. There are a lot of them.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You go on telling yourself that, brother stavros. The overwhelming numbers of atheists in the scientific community simply dwarf the tiny minority of the faithful. And the faithful in science usually are creationists who are lampooned and chided.

Darwin approached science as a theist, came out the other end as an atheist. End of story. It was said in here that he was a Christian. I proved that false. Simple math.

The last part of your post is of most concern---But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist

Christianity and science SHOULD co-exist! When we are told by the Fathers, the Church, by the Holy Spirit that there is a Creation and Man made in God's image without death, then the Fall creates death only to be then contradicted in the 19th century onward that we came from a primeval soup and ascended onto land into a simian form dying and being born, dying and being born already in our very matrix having death, no first parents, death abounding, we SHOULD BE giving a "whole lot of thought" to it!

I

Come on. Several scientists approach science and evolution as Christians. Darwin made a discovery that greatly challenged his faith at the time. Many people grow atheistic from an understanding of evolution by natural selection, alas, and many are taken in by the atheistic philosophy that often uses evolution as ammo against theism. But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The earth being old and evolution are not the same thing.

I accept the first. The second is more problematic.

 

[JackRT]

Hmm, it seems we've gotten to that part of the conversation where people start coming out and calling people heretics. We managed to go for so long without that happening.

That is easy because every single Christian in this world is a heretic to some other Christian in this world. Seems to be a tradition.

 

[gzt]

I'm far more concerned with what we might call the fact of evolution - what we see in the fossil record (and more) in terms of chronology and descent and change - than with the theory tying it all together. I think it's a problem to dismiss the latter, but I don't care about getting into a fight with the ID people, they're at least attempting to deal with the record and accept the fact of evolution.

 

[gzt]

That is easy because every single Christian in this world is a heretic to some other Christian in this world. Seems to be a tradition.

Well, in the Orthodox Church we have a specific set of criteria. But, yeah, I think it's a major problem when people leave rational discourse and start calling other Orthodox Christians in the thread Manicheans and what-have-you.

 

[YCGP]

While I agree with you, we Orthodox are a holistic lot. It's the nature of the Church. When we have several Orthodox saints condemning evolution, shouldn't that weigh heavily with us? If it were just one, meh, you might be right. But if you speak with most bishops, priests, patriarchs, and deacons nowdays, they are more incompatibalists. And if you read the saints, they overwhelmingly are opposed to evolution. You get a priest here and there that is into evolution, but not many. Consensus and holistic approaches....

So we should pay no mind to evolution, and to a history that is different than the one that is traditionally taught to us?

 

[gzt]

I think we need to pay attention to evolution and live with the truth of it alongside the theological truths taught in Genesis. Evolution happened, it's that simple. So we need to live with it.