Where Did Humans Come From?

[FaithT]

A well wishing evangelical in-law got me a subscription to Answers in Genesis. So for a year I read it. It was a mix of fact and ‘hypothesis’. Not that what passes for real science isn’t the same but good science can separate out hypothesis from fact. I have on rare occasions observed and even participated in good science. I didn’t find AIG to be that even though they obviously tried mightily. Kind of like a lot of science popularizers that really don’t get the story they are trying to tell who nonetheless tell us how revolutionary some discovery is.

There should not be a conflict between science and faith. Even Francis Schaeffer made that point in his book ‘No Final Conflict’. It’s complicated stuff. What I like about the Catholic position is the freedom to be a creationist or (within some bounds) an evolutionist. I have to respect others of either view while waiting for the Church to perhaps some day weigh in one way or the other. We are not irrevocably evolutionists but for me as an evolutionist (within certain bounds) it fits me while I await my final homecoming where it all gets explained. I can marvel at how wonderfully we are made and then I will see even more.

I’ve heard that about AIG before in other peoples posts.

 

[FaithT]

A well wishing evangelical in-law got me a subscription to Answers in Genesis. So for a year I read it. It was a mix of fact and ‘hypothesis’. Not that what passes for real science isn’t the same but good science can separate out hypothesis from fact. I have on rare occasions observed and even participated in good science. I didn’t find AIG to be that even though they obviously tried mightily. Kind of like a lot of science popularizers that really don’t get the story they are trying to tell who nonetheless tell us how revolutionary some discovery is.

There should not be a conflict between science and faith. Even Francis Schaeffer made that point in his book ‘No Final Conflict’. It’s complicated stuff. What I like about the Catholic position is the freedom to be a creationist or (within some bounds) an evolutionist. I have to respect others of either view while waiting for the Church to perhaps some day weigh in one way or the other. We are not irrevocably evolutionists but for me as an evolutionist (within certain bounds) it fits me while I await my final homecoming where it all gets explained. I can marvel at how wonderfully we are made and then I will see even more.

Pope Benedict is an evolutionist, IIRC.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My Lutheran pastor has welcomed me and assured me that I fit in there but there’s always that part niggling at me, saying that I don’t fit in. Because my beliefs differ from theirs. But I’ve tried to keep an open mind, which has led me to my confusion.

... there will always be something about which we can disagree on with other fellow Christians.

Maybe just consider which of the two churches you're comparing offers you the more comfort, growth and potential for healthy relationships?

 

[FaithT]

... there will always be something about which we can disagree on with other fellow Christians.

Maybe just consider which of the two churches you're considering seems to offer you the more comfort, growth and potential for healthy relationships?

Honestly, the main reason I go to the LCMS church is because of its awesome, vibrant music and (sometimes) good sermons. As for as my beliefs, they line up more with Catholicism. Not that I agree with everything but as far as the Sacraments, Eucharist, their stance on scientific discoveries etc. I agree more with them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

... there will always be something about which we can disagree on with other fellow Christians.

Maybe just consider which of the two churches you're comparing offers you the more comfort, growth and potential for healthy relationships?

Comfort is overrated. The thing to look for is whether the barrier between heaven and earth is thin or thick. Heaven should break through at least from time to time. Those moments are not ‘comfortable’ but they are profound. Growth and relationships are ok too.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Honestly, the main reason I go to the LCMS church is because of its awesome, vibrant music and (sometimes) good sermons. As for as my beliefs, they line up more with Catholicism. Not that I agree with everything but as far as the Sacraments, Eucharist, their stance on scientific discoveries etc. I agree more with them.

I am a liturgical music snob. I have experienced St. Louis Jesuit music by the same Jesuits pretty much hot off the pen in St. Louis. Then Catholic charismatic music. Then an energetic Catholic contemporary music near a university. Then a well directed classical choir. And sent my kids to a conservative Catholic high school where they got into music and sang some awesome traditional Catholic music that was to die for. Then Covid hit and I moved and yuck. They try at this new place, but they seem to like the St. Louis Jesuit stuff and I am so over that. I have always, since college, managed to find better than average homilies, but the music has been variable, from sublime to drudgery. I try to not make that the main thing and focus on the Eucharist. But once a liturgical music snob always a liturgical music snob. We have a music director position open and I am tempted to apply even though I can’t play even a kazoo.

 

[FaithT]

I am a liturgical music snob. I have experienced St. Louis Jesuit music by the same Jesuits pretty much hot off the pen in St. Louis. Then Catholic charismatic music. Then an energetic Catholic contemporary music near a university. Then a well directed classical choir. And sent my kids to a conservative Catholic high school where they got into music and sang some awesome traditional Catholic music that was to die for. Then Covid hit and I moved and yuck. They try at this new place, but they seem to like the St. Louis Jesuit stuff and I am so over that. I have always, since college, managed to find better than average homilies, but the music has been variable, from sublime to drudgery. I try to not make that the main thing and focus on the Eucharist. But once a liturgical music snob always a liturgical music snob. We have a music director position open and I am tempted to apply even though I can’t play even a kazoo.

I’m from St. Louis.

 

[FaithT]

I am a liturgical music snob. I have experienced St. Louis Jesuit music by the same Jesuits pretty much hot off the pen in St. Louis. Then Catholic charismatic music. Then an energetic Catholic contemporary music near a university. Then a well directed classical choir. And sent my kids to a conservative Catholic high school where they got into music and sang some awesome traditional Catholic music that was to die for. Then Covid hit and I moved and yuck. They try at this new place, but they seem to like the St. Louis Jesuit stuff and I am so over that. I have always, since college, managed to find better than average homilies, but the music has been variable, from sublime to drudgery. I try to not make that the main thing and focus on the Eucharist. But once a liturgical music snob always a liturgical music snob. We have a music director position open and I am tempted to apply even though I can’t play even a kazoo.

The music they play at my church is contemporary. Sometimes hymns but with a rock/pop feel to it. Most of the songs I don’t even know but they have screens on the walls with the lyrics.

 

[FaithT]

Deleted

 

[FaithT]

I am a liturgical music snob. I have experienced St. Louis Jesuit music by the same Jesuits pretty much hot off the pen in St. Louis. Then Catholic charismatic music. Then an energetic Catholic contemporary music near a university. Then a well directed classical choir. And sent my kids to a conservative Catholic high school where they got into music and sang some awesome traditional Catholic music that was to die for. Then Covid hit and I moved and yuck. They try at this new place, but they seem to like the St. Louis Jesuit stuff and I am so over that. I have always, since college, managed to find better than average homilies, but the music has been variable, from sublime to drudgery. I try to not make that the main thing and focus on the Eucharist. But once a liturgical music snob always a liturgical music snob. We have a music director position open and I am tempted to apply even though I can’t play even a kazoo.

I’m not musical either. I wish I was, or at least I wish I could sing because I love singing and do it all the time, much to other peoples suffering, LOL.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The music they play at my church is contemporary. Sometimes hymns but with a rock/pop feel to it. Most of the songs I don’t even know but they have screens on the walls with the lyrics.

My musical snobbery runs this way: Twin Cities Catholic Chorale: Twin Cities Catholic Chorale

But when I am in a more ordinary mood it runs this way:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUcFFMw0cxUkGfqcjo_7f9Rg

Give the latter a listen. But you might get addicted. Just warning you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I’m not musical either. I wish I was, or at least I wish I could sing because I love singing and do it all the time, much to other peoples suffering, LOL.

I was a good singer at least but since an accident I have some issues and it can hurt. My heart is there even if my lungs are complaining. So mostly I listen now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Comfort is overrated. The thing to look for is whether the barrier between heaven and earth is thin or thick. Heaven should break through at least from time to time. Those moments are not ‘comfortable’ but they are profound. Growth and relationships are ok too.

Needless to say, I go in for the more "comfortable" churches, with comfort here comporting with a more charitable definition and application.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Okay, I'm misreading you, then. Sorry about that. But I'm still not sure where I went wrong.

I appreciate the humility of this concession, thank you.

Allow me to explain, if I am able. Where you went wrong was with the statement about "dead particles coming alive." No, dead particles remain always dead. They don't come alive. Rather, these particles that aren't alive constitute things that are alive. How is it that I am alive when all the atoms and molecules which constitute me are not themselves alive?

It is a fascinating mystery—a fact, to be sure, but a mystery. As I said in an earlier response, right now I lean toward emergentism as an explanation, or the start of one anyhow.

My monistic materialism regards all matter as alive/sentient.

See, this is where you lose me to confusion. And it's not that you lack eloquence but rather that you so frequently contradict yourself. You also equivocate at least three separate terms—alive, sentient, and soul—differentiating them in one place but then equating them a few sentences later. Is there a distinction between them or are they interchangeable? I can't tell. All of this makes it very hard to track what you're saying.

For example, you say that all matter in the universe (apart from souls) is "negligibly alive." But then you immediately contradict that by saying, "For all practical purposes [such matter] is dead." Which is it? I'll say it again: Something that is "negligibly alive" is alive. Someone horribly wounded in a tragic accident and "negligibly alive" is heroically saved by ER doctors because she is precisely not dead.

Given the law of excluded middle, either something is alive or it is not. Have the courage to state your beliefs clearly and ditch the adverb "negligibly." It just confuses things needlessly. Own your belief confidently. Say, "All matter in the universe is alive." Sure, there are degrees of being alive; however, at the end of the day, it's all "alive" in one sense or another. So, be clear and just say "alive."

And if, on your view, alive and sentient are interchangeable terms (and you said they are), then use just one of them—the most helpful and meaningful one—and ditch the other. You pick. I don't care which, but pick one. Up to this point you have been using "alive" in one context and "sentient" in another, but if they are interchangeable terms then by using them in distinct contexts you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Following this advice, your view could be expressed thus: "All matter in the universe (apart from souls) is sentient to one degree or another, including the human body—but only the human soul is fully sentient." Clear, concise, consistent, and comprehensible. It is intelligible, it makes sense to me. I could interact with that. (If the terms alive and sentient are basically interchangeable, and if the term alive is essentially meaningless apart from sentience, I inferred the latter to be the most relevant term and ditched the former.)

Simple organisms, in my view, are barely sentient ...

By the way, the same principle applies here. Something that is "barely sentient" is sentient. So, ditch the adverb: "Simple organisms, in my view, are sentient—although, without a brain or sufficiently sophisticated nervous system, their bodies are not conducive to helping their soul flow its thought-currents" and so forth (whatever that means).

Anything classified by biologists as life or living, in my view, probably has a soul (assuming that biologists are competent).

I am still experiencing some confusion here. Earlier you said that innate life is a soul. Specifically, you said that all living things have innate life (sentience), and that "this innate life must be a God-given soul." If that is the case, then it's not just biological life that has a soul. It turns out that anything constituted by matter has a soul. Rocks have souls, plasmids have souls, even atoms have souls—because all matter in the universe is alive/sentient, and this innate life must be a soul, you said.

But then if everything and anything has a soul, the term is rendered fundamentally meaningless, for it can't be distinguished from anything else.

A simple organism, then, is almost as dead as a rock, ...

There's no such thing as "dead as a rock" when not even rocks are dead. Again, this continued pattern of inconsistency betrays the inherent weaknesses of your view.

It's a matter of perspective. Is my body alive or dead? Yes and No, right?

No. Your body is alive. It is not dead.

The soul is a living entity merged to every cell (albeit divinely hidden from human instruments of detection).

If the soul is divinely hidden from human instruments of detection, then in what sense is it tangibly material?

The protoplasm, left on its own, would be dead (negligibly sentient), ... [emphasis mind]

That is a self-contradicting term. If something is dead, it does not have life—not even negligibly. Something that is "negligibly alive" is alive, something that is "barely sentient" is sentient. These adverbs are demonstrating that your view lacks intelligibility.

Protoplasm "has the appearance of life" because it actually is alive. It must be, for all matter in the universe is alive.

Life exists where God has chosen to place a soul. He has opted to do this for select arrangements of matter that we call "species".

No. Life exists everywhere, remember? If life exists where God has placed a soul, and if all matter in the universe is alive, then he chosen to place souls absolutely everywhere, not just in biological species. Continued patterns of inconsistency here. When God sees a human zygote, he places a soul there. When he sees a pebble, he places a soul there. Again, the term soul is rendered fundamentally meaningless if it can't be distinguished from anything else.

In fact, the sperm and egg themselves might already have souls, for all I know.

They do, on your view. Even the molecules and atoms which comprise them have souls—because, on your view, all matter in the universe is alive and that innate life is a soul.

They are alive if they have a soul, otherwise they are dead (negligibly sentient).

Of course they are alive if they have a soul, because innate life IS a soul—remember? Or is this more patterns of inconsistency?

I don't believe that the term "alive" has any valuable meaning unless it refers to at least a primordial sentience.

And since everything is more or less sentient, there is never a time when the term alive doesn't refer to at least a primordial sentience.

Suppose I'm wrong that bacteria have souls.

Here is a good question: How would you know whether or not you were wrong about that? In other words, is your belief falsifiable? (Avoid further inconsistency by keeping in mind that you said souls are divinely hidden from human instruments of detection.)

 

[JAL]

See, this is where you lose me to confusion. And it's not that you lack eloquence but rather that you so frequently contradict yourself. You also equivocate at least three separate terms—alive, sentient, and soul—differentiating them in one place but then equating them a few sentences later. Is there a distinction between them or are they interchangeable? I can't tell. All of this makes it very hard to track what you're saying.

Given the law of excluded middle, either something is alive or it is not. Have the courage to state your beliefs clearly and ditch the adverb "negligibly." It just confuses things needlessly. Own your belief confidently. Say, "All matter in the universe is alive." Sure, there are degrees of being alive; however, at the end of the day, it's all "alive" in one sense or another. So, be clear and just say "alive."

And if, on your view, alive and sentient are interchangeable terms (and you said they are), then use just one of them—the most helpful and meaningful one—and ditch the other. You pick. I don't care which, but pick one. Up to this point you have been using "alive" in one context and "sentient" in another, but if they are interchangeable terms then by using them in distinct contexts you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Following this advice, your view could be expressed thus: "All matter in the universe (apart from souls) is sentient to one degree or another, including the human body—but only the human soul is fully sentient." Clear, concise, consistent, and comprehensible. It is intelligible, it makes sense to me. I could interact with that. (If the terms alive and sentient are basically interchangeable, and if the term alive is essentially meaningless apart from sentience, I inferred the latter to be the most relevant term and ditched the former.)


By the way, the same principle applies here. Something that is "barely sentient" is sentient. So, ditch the adverb: "Simple organisms, in my view, are sentient—although, without a brain or sufficiently sophisticated nervous system, their bodies are not conducive to helping their soul flow its thought-currents" and so forth (whatever that means).


I am still experiencing some confusion here. Earlier you said that innate life is a soul. Specifically, you said that all living things have innate life (sentience), and that "this innate life must be a God-given soul." If that is the case, then it's not just biological life that has a soul. It turns out that anything constituted by matter has a soul. Rocks have souls, plasmids have souls, even atoms have souls—because all matter in the universe is alive/sentient, and this innate life must be a soul, you said.

But then if everything and anything has a soul, the term is rendered fundamentally meaningless, for it can't be distinguished from anything else.

There's no such thing as "dead as a rock" when not even rocks are dead. Again, this continued pattern of inconsistency betrays the inherent weaknesses of your view.

No. Your body is alive. It is not dead.




If the soul is divinely hidden from human instruments of detection, then in what sense is it tangibly material?




That is a self-contradicting term. If something is dead, it does not have life—not even negligibly. Something that is "negligibly alive" is alive, something that is "barely sentient" is sentient. These adverbs are demonstrating that your view lacks intelligibility.

Protoplasm "has the appearance of life" because it actually is alive. It must be, for all matter in the universe is alive.




No. Life exists everywhere, remember? If life exists where God has placed a soul, and if all matter in the universe is alive, then he chosen to place souls absolutely everywhere, not just in biological species. Continued patterns of inconsistency here. When God sees a human zygote, he places a soul there. When he sees a pebble, he places a soul there. Again, the term soul is rendered fundamentally meaningless if it can't be distinguished from anything else.




They do, on your view. Even the molecules and atoms which comprise them have souls—because, on your view, all matter in the universe is alive and that innate life is a soul.




Of course they are alive if they have a soul, because innate life IS a soul—remember? Or is this more patterns of inconsistency?




And since everything is more or less sentient, there is never a time when the term alive doesn't refer to at least a primordial sentience.

Sorry this nitpicking critique of my terminology is shallow. Also I suspect you aren't familiar with my cosmogony summarized at post 15 on another thread - Yahweh is perhaps not what you presume Him to be.

Why do you find "negligibly sentient" a confusing term? Consider a man stuck in minimal brain activity, hooked up to a life-support machine. The family terminates life-support because he is negligibly sentient. Or consider pro-abortion philosophy - the argument is that a zygote is negligibly sentient. A rock is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less sentient than these two examples - therefore negligibly sentient. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

More than that, in my view God is determined to PREVENT the rock from achieving significant sentience because He has purposed most of the matter in this universe to serve as machinery. I use the term soul in reference to a piece of matter cognitively advanced beyond machinery, advanced for one or both of the following reasons.
...(1) God (possibly) awakens it to a higher degree of sentience than a machine before placing it in a species.
....(2) The physiology of this species helps to flow the soul's currents of thought in ways conducive to sentience.

You're saying that I should apply the same term "soul" to both machinery (such as the body), on the one hand, and the sentient inner man on the other. Seriously? And you claim this conflation would make my ontology more clear? Newsflash: Blurring and abolishing vital distinctions doesn't help surface them and clarify them, it only obfuscates them.

And just because you dislike my terminology, please don't falsely accuse me of a contradiction.

For example, you say that all matter in the universe (apart from souls) is "negligibly alive." But then you immediately contradict that by saying, "For all practical purposes [such matter] is dead." Which is it?

Amazing. How is that a contradiction? Do you NOT understand the word "practical" here? You understand anesthesia, right? Even a highly sentient person can be numbed into a state free of pain - a state of extreme insensibility. A rock is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less sensible than an anesthetized human and thus is, for all practical purposes, dead. The rock has no awareness of pain, sensory experience, or cognition. That's death. That's machinery. If you tell me again that this kind of simple distinction makes no sense and is inherently self-contradictory, I will doubt your sincerity. Just being honest.

Here is a good question: How would you know whether or not you were wrong about that? In other words, is your belief falsifiable? (Avoid further inconsistency by keeping in mind that you said souls are divinely hidden from human instruments of detection.)

Descartes believed that animals are machines that can't feel pain. Can I prove him wrong? I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. I certainly don't need to prove that simple organisms have souls. When I developed my ontology, I wasn't trying to prove it 100%, mostly I was trying to be the first one to find a system that WORKS - has consistency and can explain things like the Incarnation, regeneration, cosmogony, divine knowledge, divine merit, and divine holiness. Since I haven't found that degree of cogency in alternative systems, I believe that mine is the most plausible choice to date.

There's no such thing as "dead as a rock" when not even rocks are dead. Again, this continued pattern of inconsistency betrays the inherent weaknesses of your view.

Baloney. Death is a highly unconscious state. There are degrees of consciousness, likewise degrees of unconsciousness. Thus "dead as a rock" is a relative expression, and a useful one for understanding my view. Your EITHER-OR attitude is garbage (EITHER dead OR alive, EITHER conscious OR unconscious). You said, "either something is alive or it is not." And yet today, if a person passes out, you'd call him unconscious. You are not insisting that he is COMPLETELY unconscious - there may be some brain activity. You are using a relative term. RELATIVE to a normal person, the man who is passed out is unconscious.

People would TOTALLY misunderstand me if I took your advice and said, "The whole universe is alive." They'd think I'm some kind of pantheist. The universe, in my view, is dead as a rock (with divinely ordained exceptions called "souls"). It's machinery. I want people to understand that point when reading my posts.

 

[JAL]

Allow me to explain, if I am able. Where you went wrong was with the statement about "dead particles coming alive." No, dead particles remain always dead. They don't come alive. Rather, these particles that aren't alive constitute things that are alive. How is it that I am alive when all the atoms and molecules which constitute me are not themselves alive?

The irony here is unbelievable, if you reflect on your nitpicking charges of contradiction. You just made these two statements:

"No, [my] dead particles remain always dead. They don't come alive."

"I am alive"

Yet you're accusing ME of contradiction? Wow. What are you? In your view:
....(1) You're not a soul separate from your body.
....(2) You're (apparently?) not your body either - that's dead particles according to you. So if that body is not you, can we dispense with it? And if we do, where now is this "you" ?

You're asking me to believe that these dead particles, if properly assembled, somehow create a "you" ex nihilo? Sorry I just can't seem to make that leap. I don't even believe God can create something ex nihilo.

If you die, and God, on the last day, resurrects you by reassembling the particles, would the particles re-recreate the same "you" ex nihilo? I can't see how identity would be preserved.

 

[JAL]

@DialecticSkeptic,

Simple way to summarize your nitpicking of my terminology: ultimately you're implying that the word "negligible" shouldn't exist in any language because, in your view, a situation is EITHER fully black OR fully white and thus never a light shade of grey. Of course you vacillate on this point when you admit to "degrees" of something but somehow you object when I MYSELF am so granular.

 

[The Barbarian]

Simple way to summarize your nitpicking of my terminology: ultimately you're implying that the word "negligible" shouldn't exist in any language because, in your view, a situation is EITHER fully black OR fully white and thus never a light shade of grey.

I don't see how something could be somewhat sentient. But it is true that we do have some fuzzy boundaries for "alive."

Viruses have some of the characteristics of living things, and some of them come pretty close to having metabolism:
Giant virus - Wikipedia

I guess people occasionally speak of someone as "semi-conscious." But if so, that person is conscious or they'd have awareness whatever.

 

[JAL]

I don't see how something could be somewhat sentient. But it is true that we do have some fuzzy boundaries for "alive."

Viruses have some of the characteristics of living things, and some of them come pretty close to having metabolism:
Giant virus - Wikipedia

I guess people occasionally speak of someone as "semi-conscious." But if so, that person is conscious or they'd have awareness whatever.

You don't believe in degrees of sentience? Weird. I once heard a pro-abortionist argue that an adult ape is more intelligent/sentient than a human fetus.

Seems to me we NORMALLY think in terms of degrees. I'm not doing anything unusual here.

Perhaps the issue here is that you are very science-minded, which holds to strict terminology. My only education to speak of, a few decades ago, was Philosophy 101. That's where I learned about Plato's Greek philosophy. Anyway I learned that every professional philosopher coins his own terminology, even using old words in new ways - so the only way to understand him is to read him carefully.

That's how I write. Since I write simple stuff, I don't think I should have to master all things science and all things philosophy to come up with the "exact correct terminology". People should be able to figure out what I mean.

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't believe in degrees of sentience? Weird. I once heard a pro-abortionist argue that an adult ape is more intelligent/sentient than a human fetus.

So he conflated intelligence with sentience? Odd. You know the difference, right? And I would say you were wrong to consider intelligence to be the definition of personhood. I don't know if apes are persons or even if they have immortal souls. They are persons in the sense of being intelligent and having feelings of love, fear, hatred and compassion. I know I would not harm one except to protect another person.

Would you consider an ape to be a person, but not a human in the last stages of Alzheimer's dementia? Why or why not? The ape would clearly be more intelligent. The ape is clearly sentient.