Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

But I digress. At the very heart of the idea of complementarity is this: The two sides of the complementarity are only mutually-exclusive in an experimental situation, as conceived by an observer. This is not a question begging for a “true–false,” “yes–no” answer, á la Aristotle’s Third Law. For complementarity regards both “sides” as potentially true — under the given experimental conditions. Though you can’t have “both at once,” you need both to describe the total system which they together comprise.

So that’s why I suggested a while back, dear tacticalogic, that although machines and computers may thrive on maximal “computability” — which Aristotle’s Third definitely maximally promotes — this may not be a good model for biology.
----------------------------------------------

This discussion/dialog/symposium(thread) is like a convo between A BORG and a member of the Federation....

Both coming for two very different positions of "reality"...

One from the "HIVE"(collective) and one from an open society..

The Borg appreciate the beauty of the "machine"...

The other appreciating the beauty of raw random inspiration..

AND since all participants HERE are human one is playing an unnatural role.. wearing a mask of un natural efficiency..

To which to all I offer THIS as entertainment..
----ENJOY--

betty boop (#1,237): "Well I suppose it's easier for you to redirect me to the reexamination of our past back-and-forth statements than it is to simply answer a simple question: What is the foundation of science itself?"

But that was not the question you asked in post #1,210 and to which in #1,214 I referred you back to a previous answer in #1,196.

betty boop (#1,237): "Then there is the problem of: What "allegations" have I made?
Can you recite them back to me?"

One example was posted right there, in #1,214, along with my response referring you to previous answers.

"Whatever the case, BroJoeK keeps intoning the official mantra of Neo-Darwinism: All explanations of Nature must be predicated on "natural causes."
It doesn't ever seem to occur to him that "natural causes" can be downstream from a Cause that is not "natural" in the sense BroJoeK and his like-minded friends do not and cannot recognize, given their prior commitment — their epistemically prior commitment — to the theory of universal, reductionist materialism."

So here is the actual quote from my post #1,196:

Precisely how God accomplished (and accomplishes) all His miracles, we don't know, but science has suggested a very small number of theories.
By that I mean: the ratio of what we think we know versus what we don't know is still similar to that which Sir Isaac Newton reported 300 years ago when he said:
'I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' "

betty boop (#1,237): "What is the foundation of science itself?"

Natural explanations for natural processes, period.

betty boop (#1,237): "As ever, I would like to know: WHO defined "science" in this way?
(Would you just tell me???)"

Here is one question of which you, Ms boop, can be 100% epistemically and ontologically certain: it's not you.
You personally get no say, no vote, no influence or suggestions on the subject.
You can't define "science", you can't touch it, it's not yours.
Natural-science belongs to somebody else.
Who does it belong to?
Well, natural-scientists, of course -- people who understand that the word "science" means: natural explanations for natural processes.

Since you, Ms. boop, don't understand that, or won't accept it, you get no say in what science is, or where it's going.
In that sense, you have the same relationship to science that, say, an atheist has to Christian theology.
Your opinions are irrelevant.

betty boop (#1,237): "Certainly we can't blame Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the universal Church.
He never artificially divided the spiritual from the natural world; it was not he who proposed them as somehow mutually exclusive categories, such that "science" has to choose between them in order to do its business."

But of course, it was Aquinas who first drew our attention to the, ahem, difference, distinction, contrast or division between theology based on the Bible and "natural-philosophy" based on inputs from our senses.
As I posted in #275, my understanding of Aquinas comes, in part, from here:

"Aquinas was a Christian theologian, but he was also an Aristotelian and an Empiricist, and he substantially influenced these two streams of Western thought.

He believed that truth becomes known through both natural revelation (certain truths are available to all people through their human nature and through correct human reasoning) and supernatural revelation (faith-based knowledge revealed through scripture), and he was careful to separate these two elements, which he saw as complementary rather than contradictory in nature."

As I said from the beginning of this thread: after Aquinas, the "complementary nature" of theology and natural-science became increasingly disputed.
Do you not "get" that?

betty boop (#1,237): "Thomas never indicated the two realms were mutually exclusive.
Why do you, dear BroJoeK?"

FRiend, boop, across many posts here, I've been consistent from the beginning in pointing out what you've just said: that Aquinas himself did not consider theology and natural-science to be in conflict, but that since Aquinas in historical fact they often have been, at times resulting in bloody violence.
Aquinas showed us the difference between them, others changed difference to violent dichotomy.
Do you not remember that discussion?

betty boop (#1,237): "And I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the universe and everything in it "evolves."
What else could you possibly expect a cosmic-scale spatio-temporal process to do?"

Sure, the term "evolution" is used in any number of highly informal & imprecise senses such that virtually any change can be said to "evolve".
But the precise scientific definition of "evolution" is simply: speciation through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Science itself says that evolution is teleologically "purposeless" which only means that if we see a purpose in evolution, then that purpose is supplied from a non-scientific realm, i.e.: theology.

betty boop (#1,237): "When you asked me, 'So please tell us how such a simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?'
I definitely got the impression that you were trying to stage me as some kind of stoopid religious fanatic who, being "religious," is necessarily "stoopid."

Of course, you refused to answer my question, and instead changed the subject.
Does that make you "smart" or "stooped", FRiend?

Why not just give the answer to my question: simple, straight forward and to the point?

betty boop to tacticalogic: "You may be asking different questions than I ask; but in the end, you still have the problem of qualifying and validating the answers you receive, just as I do.
You cannot divorce science from Truth — of which God, not man, is the Measure."

Science itself insists on the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Both mean "natural explanations for natural processes", but while philosophical naturalism denies the existence of anything outside the scientific realm, methodological naturalism allows scientists to take off their "science hat" when they leave the laboratory, and put on their "believe in the super-natural hat" at home.

Methodological naturalism allows scientists to understand that science itself is not the be-all or end-all of reality.
It allows us to look at science itself as just another tool-box, capable of performing certain specific tasks, but incapable on many others.

Is that distinction something you can't grasp, Ms boop?

betty boop to tacticalogic: "What is striking about your and BroJoeK’s arguments is the evident agreement between you regarding the absolute separability of the “super-natural” from the “natural” world.
You see these “worlds” as mutually-exclusive domains according to the logic of Aristotle’s Third Law, and classical (i.e., Newtonian) physics.
Then you maintain that science has to pick one and reject the other in order to do its work.
So the “super-natural” gets dumped, never to be seen again...."

To Ms boop: as first pointed out by Aquinas, the super-natural realm is different from the natural realm in that our understandings of super-natural begin with the Bible, while those of nature begin with input from our senses.

Natural-science is simply the study of nature.
If you then decide to "dump" the super-natural, that is your choice, but it's not required by science itself.

betty boop to tacticalogic: "The idea of complementarity arises from Niels Bohr’s uncertainty principle.
I honor Bohr as one of the greatest epistemologists of all time IMHO and as founding father of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics."

The Uncertainty Principle was formulated by Bohr's student, Werner Heisenberg working at Bohr's institute in 1926.
That's why it's called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

It is often said that Isaac Newton's ordered universe of precise mathematical formulas was overturned by Einstein's relativity, Bohr's quantums, Heisenberg's uncertainty, and chaos theory with its strange attractors and butterfly effects to the point where today it's more true than ever -- Haldane's words from 1927:

"The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. "

betty boop to tacticalogic: "Well I suppose to you, dear friend, this thread has been about the defense of Darwin and of modern science itself.
For me, it’s been a plea for the restoration of sanity to modern science."

Science itself is merely a tool, which by its nature can be neither "sane" nor "insane", except as directed by the hands of those wielding it.
Tools either work, or don't work, a working tool is applied appropriately or inappropriately.
The tool itself doesn't care what you do with it.

If you build an alter to your tools, and worship them as God, then the tools themselves are not insane -- only you are insane.
Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp, Ms. boop?

The Uncertainty Principle was formulated by Bohr's student, Werner Heisenberg working at Bohr's institute in 1926.... That's why it's called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

I 'm already aware of this, dear BroJoeK. Unlike his friend Einstein, who mainly worked as a loner (and didn't take much interest in professional scientific journals), Bohr loved collaboration, and surrounded himself with brilliant younger thinkers, such as Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli. (Also a young physicist by the name of Abraham Pais was part of this charmed, dynamic circle. It was he who wrote the magisterial biographies of both Einstein and Bohr. From which one can learn a great deal of physics, indeed.)

The Copenhagen Interpretation was a group effort. The "uncertainty" principle was Heisenberg's great contribution. (Which caused Schrödinger to run for the exits.) And my account of Bohr's reservation WRT the term "uncertainty principle" is still correct.

To recap Bohr's critical insight, quoting from Post 1240. (In what follows, I'm inserting [bracketed material] to try to further elucidate my meaning):

Bohr himself did not like the term, “uncertainty principle.” He reasoned: A condition of “uncertainty” could be resolved by the acquisition of further relevant knowledge.

But that would not describe what Bohr found: The “condition” we are trying to describe here cannot in principle be resolved by any further acquisition of knowledge. We are speaking of a limitation on human perception (and thus apperception) itself. Bohr thought the problem is not one of “uncertainty”; it is a problem of [absolute] undecidability. [A sort of "cosmic censorship" principle seems to be at work here....]
An insight further supported by Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem….
A condition of “undecidability” is one in which no matter how much additional knowledge of the world one acquires, one will never be able to answer an “undecidable” question.
So Bohr preferred the term, “undecidability principle.” It did not stick.

You wrote:

...[A]s first pointed out by Aquinas, the super-natural realm is different from the natural realm in that our understandings of super-natural begin with the Bible, while those of nature begin with input from our senses.

I'm just not buying that, BroJoeK. I reason: Our understandings of the "super-natural" arise, not principally from Holy Scripture, but from movements of the apperceptive mind (which may or may not be inspired or influenced by the texts of Holy Scripture). It is considered virtually certain that neither Plato nor Aristotle ever read the Holy Scriptures, or were in cultural contact with Israel or Christianity (the latter did not exist in their time).

And yet Plato's cosmology describes one single, integrated, eternally living cosmos "possessing nous" whose generative cause is the Unknown God "beyond" the cosmos. In other words, the physical (natural world) has a metaphysical (super-natural) origin. Possibly to Plato's mind, it would exhibit a spectacularly beautiful piece of geometry.... [See: Max Tegmark's "Parallel Universes", and check out the section on the Level IV Parallel Universe — which should give you a very good idea about the shelf-life of the Platonist mathematical approach to describing cosmic reality unto this day.]

Aristotle speaks of a Prime Mover, the first uncaused cause of everything that exists in the natural world.

Consider these lines from Eric Voegelin ("On Debate and Existence," 1967):

...There is talk about a first mover of the universe — who must be assumed to be an intellect — from whom emanates somehow an order of being that is at the same time an order of truth. Why should we be concerned with a prime mover and his properties? — you will ask. And does the matter really improve when Aquinas identifies the prime mover with the God of revelation and uses the Aristotelian argument for the prime mover as a demonstration of the existence of God? At the risk of arousing the indignation of convinced Aristotelians and Thomists I must say that I consider such questions quite pertinent. The questions must be raised, for we do no longer live, as did Aristotle and even Aquinas, at the center of a cosmos, moved with all its content by a prime mover, with a chain of aitia, of causes, extending from existent to existent down to the most lowly ones. The symbolism of a closed cosmos, which informs the fundamental concepts of classic and scholastic metaphysics [and also, arguably, Newtonian physics], has been superseded by the universe of modern physics and astronomy.

Nevertheless, if we admit all this, does it follow that Aristotelian and Thomist metaphysics must be thrown on the scrap heap of symbolisms that once had their moment of truth but now have become useless?
You will have anticipated that the answer will be negative. To be sure, a large part of the symbolism has become obsolete, but there is solid core of truth in it that can be, and must be salvaged by means of some surgery.... [I]f we remove from it everything that smacks of cosmological symbolism, there remains as a pièce de résistance the argument that a universe which contains intelligent beings cannot originate with a prima causa that is less than intelligent....
Human existence, it appears, is not opaque to itself, but illuminated by intellect (Aquinas) or nous (Aristotle). This intellect is as much a part of human existence as it is the instrument of its interpretation. In the exegesis of existence intellect discovers itself in the structure of existence; ontologically speaking, human existence has a noetic structure. The intellect discovers itself, furthermore, as a force transcending its own existence; by virtue of the intellect, existence not only is not opaque, but actually reaches out beyond itself in various directions in search of knowledge. Aristotle opens his Metaphysics with the sentence: "All men by nature desire to know."...
With regard to things, the desire to know raises the questions of their origin, both with regard to their existence (I include under this title both the hyletic and kinetic arguments) and their essence (the eidetic argument). In both respects, Aristotle's etiological demonstration arrives ultimately at the eternal, immaterial prima causa as the origin of existent things. [I added some bolds there.]

I just don't see how you can "separate" mind — itself somehow "super-natural" — and sense perception — which seems "natural" enough — the way you seem to want to do. Among other things, mind is the "mill," to which sense perception delivers the "grist."

You act as if you did not know that you yourself are a very model or example of a super-natural/natural composite. Plato knew that the human being is a natural composite of physical (material) body and (noetic) eternal soul. Of death itself, he said: "Death is but the separation of body and soul; nothing more."

Plato believed in physical death right enough. He just also believed that souls are immortal.

Do you really you want me to accept that "super-natural entities" are irrelevant to the conduct of "science?" — science as historically understood, as a process promulgating, pursuing, and fulfilling the natural desire to know of natural human beings?

Must leave it for there for the moment, dear BroJoeK. Thank you so very much for writing!

betty: You cannot see what you are unwilling to look for.

Spirited: The natural condition of man is self-centeredness. Philosophically this is the idea of the Absolute One Substance, or monism. Since all that exists is the One Substance then everything else, including all human beings, are but aspects of the One Substance.

Pride (self-centeredness and covetousness) is the beginning of all sin, said Augustine. Self-centered men will covet against God (i.e., Nimrod, Buddha, Marx, Nietzsche, Teilhard), against mother and father, against brother and sister, against neighbor.

Operating beneath the politics and science of destruction-—socialism, communism, evolutionary atheism and adjuncts such as reductionism, naturalism, empiricism, redistribution of wealth, universal health care, depopulation schemes, Agenda 21,sustainable growth initiatives, and global change is selfishness and covetousness together with lust for power, greed, gluttony, envy:

“Pride is seldom delicate, it will please itself with very mean advantages; and envy feels not its own happiness, but when it may be compared with the misery of others.” (Samuel Johnson, British poet, critic, writer, 1709-1784)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (Winston Churchill, British orator, author and Prime Minister during World War II, 1874-1965)

“When I say that Marxism is based on envy, I mean that the glorious revolution of the proletariat...was really a promise to put a final end to all the conditions that make for envy.” (Joseph Epstein, author and former editor of The American Scholar, from Truths about Socialism, Coral Ridge Ministries, p. 66)

Self-centeredness/covetousness (envy)is the principle of negation (of truth, spiritual virtues, etc) and rebellion (against moral law, manners, authority, rules, etc)in the fallen soul of every man and woman and has played a part in human dynamics ever since the envy-bitten Cain murdered his brother Abel.

From the time of Adam and Eve men have been denying the existence of “self” (soul/spirit) in order to negate free will (it’s not my fault) and conscience (how was I to know?) even while expecting applause and approval for whatever “great thing” has been said or done.

Against natural man’s tendency to selfishness and covetousness His Creator commands man to,

“....love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.” Luke 10:27

The end of the commandment is selfless charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and unfeigned faith. (1 Thess. 1:5) He that loves his neighbor fulfills the law for he does not covet, negate truth by way of lies, nor try to spiritually murder brother by way of false witness, slander, gossip, libel, etc., which today is known as the politics of personal destruction.

Charity works no evil. It is not perversely puffed up with pride. It is not ambitious, does not serve ‘self,’ thinks no evil, does not covet, resent and envy and neither rejoices in another man’s misery nor derides, mocks, scoffs, and contends against truth and virtue as the envious do:

“When men are full of envy, they disparage everything, whether it be good or bad.” (Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

“Nothing sharpens sight like envy.” (Thomas Fuller, British clergyman and writer, 1608-1661)

The proud, covetous man is a hypocrite whose sharpened sight sees no evil in himself but sees it very clearly in others.

Pride, covetousness and hypocrisy (the principle of negation and rebellion) are at epidemic levels here in America: in the whole body of the Church, the White House, Congress, Hollywood, academia, science, etc.

Where ‘self’ is primary a culture of subjectivism and slander of other is the norm since ‘self’ deserves everything it can get, no matter the cost to other people and society.

In “Death by Envy,” Fr. George R.A. Aquaro points out that Christ’s earthly ministry centered on convicting the world of idolatry by provoking people (represented by the Pharisees) to envy and then murder. By becoming the scapegoat, Jesus Christ allows mankind to place their sins upon Him so that we might repent at the sight of His blood. (p. 101)

betty boop: "You act as if you did not know that you yourself are a very model or example of a super-natural/natural composite."

Dear Ms boop: Why do you act as if your reading comprehension were no greater than a small child's?
In fact, I've suggested no such misunderstanding.
I have merely reminded you ad nauseam that the word "science" refers to studies of the natural universe, and that anything outside nature -- anything super-natural, spiritual, teleological, theological, religious, metaphysical, etc. -- those are, by definition, simply non-scientific studies.
Of course, all of those studies have long and distinguished histories, shedding strong lights on truth and Truth.
But they are not natural-science, and should not be confused with science.

Indeed, that's the major point I've been hoping to make in all these hundreds of posts.

betty boop: "Do you really you want me to accept that "super-natural entities" are irrelevant to the conduct of "science?" — science as historically understood, as a process promulgating, pursuing, and fulfilling the natural desire to know of natural human beings?"

Relevant or irrelevant, vital or inconsequential, of all-consuming-importance or of no-importance -- it doesn't matter.
Whatever they are, they are not within the boundaries of natural-science and so cannot be studied as science.
Of course, anyone-anytime-anywhere is free to study and learn as much as they wish about such subjects, and to publish their considered opinions on them -- just so long as they don't call such opinions "science".

Seriously, is that hard for you to "get"?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.