One of the experts from the faith issue stated someting to the effect, and since I can no longer find the citation, I'm doing it from memory which may be imperfect: We don't believe that x is true and further cannot allow it to become true among the masses for it would have far reaching implications regarding our values and culture.
That statement has troubled me for some time. We can't allow something that is true to become true?
Again, I wish I knew where and when I read it so I could reference it.
Some people believe you have you're truth, I have mine.. which in effect makes truth an opinion.. and they are O.K. with that.. Its a variation on the, If a tree falls in the forest.. sophomore'ism.. all totally logical to the logic impaired..
Probably they dropped out of engineering classes and majored in Journalism.. or Linguistics i.e. Noam Chomsky..
A similar scene occurs in Strindberg's "A Dream Play" during a dispute among the faculties of Law, Theology, Medicine.
God has revealed Himself in many ways: in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Scripture, in Creation (heaven and earth, spiritual and physical).
I expect Scripture and Creation to agree and I have never been disappointed.
IMHO, those who become disappointed have mis-interpreted something or, worse, have put their personal doctrinal template over their Spiritual eyes/ears. The most logical cause of a conflict is mortal interpretation - doctrine or tradition of men (Mark 7:7) or a misunderstanding of science/math/philosophy.
[joesbucks reacts to the statement]: We can’t allow something that is true to become true?
Obviously, joesbucks, such statements are troubling. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the idea that truth “cannot be allowed” among the masses. But I do understand the speaker’s concern respecting values and culture. Two observations:
WRT Darwinian evolution, the problem is that many of its earliest “boosters” -- e.g., Julian Huxley and Ernst Haeckel -- promoted it as “proof” of either the nonexistence, or the irrelevance of God. This trend has continued to our own time; for many of its modern boosters -- e.g., Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin -- find it appealing for the very same reason. And they promote it as fundamentally “atheist.” Dawkins, for instance, claims the theory has allowed him to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Yet I have no evidence that Darwin himself regarded his theory as in any way denying or repudiating God. My point is, it is likely that the Left Progressives out there who wish to transform human society “into their own image” have hijacked the theory in support of their progressivist, socialistic goals. Historically, the greatest challenge the Left has had is to debunk God; for God’s moral law is designed to accord with the fullest expression of the dignity of the human individual. Collectivists don’t want “individuals”; they want “mass man.” So God must be repudiated, delegitimated, “killed,” on the (most probably correct) theory that atheists are more easily manipulated, more likely to give their absolute allegiance to the State than Christians or Jews; for they know of no higher authority than the State.
The “death of God” cult goes back at least to Nietzsche, and has been justified by the likes of Marx and Feuerbach. But really, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Darwin or his evolution theory per se. It’s a situation analogous to the way in which the Islamofascists have hijacked the Koran in support of their political goals.
But here we are dealing with a situation of untruth being promoted as if it were true. That’s the first observation.
The second observation goes to scriptural interpretation. Different religious confessions regard the scriptures differently. Some say sola scriptura -- the Holy Scriptures are the only revelation God gave to man; and they alone are truthful, for they are the Word of God. Such confessions tend to say that the Bible must be interpreted strictly, literally. In which case, Darwinist theory must be assumed to be wholly untrue, because the theory does not jibe with Genesis. Faith alone is what saves.
Other Christian confessions, however, believe that God gave man two revelations of Himself: the Holy Scriptures, and the “book of nature.” And they say that there is no conflict between the two revelations, for God is the Author of both, and “Truth cannot contradict Truth.” As Francis Schaffer put it, in the Bible, God has told us of Himself and His creation “truly, but not exhaustively.” Christians are invited to seek God in scripture, as well as in the world of creation: God reveals Himself in both. Such Christians tend not to be biblical literalists. To them, the Holy Scriptures are written in symbolic, not literal language. Such Christians tend to be more open to all the knowledge disciplines, most definitely including science. And they tend to notice the tension between faith and reason, which results in what has been called fides quarens intellectum, of “faith in search of its reason.”
In short, one might say that individual Christians may stress either the pneumatic or spiritual dimension, and others the noetic or intellectual dimension of the Christian confession. It’s the difference between simple faith and an inclination to theology, which St. Justin Martyr called the perfection of metaphysics, of philosophy. Yet every man is characterized by both faith and reason in varying degree. And it’s my belief that neither one of these approaches to God is “superior” to the other.
But all this is by way of background, to finally get to the issue you point out, joesbucks. Which is the desire of many religious leaders to protect their flocks from subversive ideologies that destroy the moral foundation of the human person, and thus his relationship with God; and also undermine the well-being of free societies based on the moral law established by God.
The United States historically has been such a society. Indeed, the principal difference between the U.S. and most European nations is that, from the time of the Founders, we have understood ourselves as a people “under God,” not as a people “under a secular monarch” -- the State. The Framers designed a constitution that made the government the servant of the people, where Europe makes the people the servants of the State. In the U.S., we call ourselves “citizens.” In Europe, people are “subjects.” And the reason for this unique distinction of the historical American self-concept is that we have seen ourselves as responsible (and accountable) to God alone. Therefore, the State cannot legitimately assert that its prerogatives against individuals are preeminent, or must take precedence over all other considerations, nor may it command our allegiance, because God already commands it; and God is the higher authority.
But when religious leaders try to protect their flocks from subversive ideologies, I don’t think evolutionary theory per se is the real target; rather I think the target is the abusive treatment it has received in the hands of ideologists.
I very much admire what Christoph Cardinal Schonborn had to say about such matters:
“Evolution happened, … and our biosphere is the result. The two sets of facts correlate perfectly. …[The] modern biologist … is free to define his special science on terms as narrow as he finds useful for gaining a certain kind of knowledge. But he may not then turn around and demand the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self-limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality, such as the clearly teleological nature of evolution.”Sorry to run on so long. Just my two-cents, FWIW.
BTW, if you ever track down the source for your paraphrase at the top, I’d like to know it. Thanks for writing, joesbucks!
Perhaps you're referring the Council of Trent and the Index of Prohibited Books?
One class of prohibited book was bibles in the vernacular, the justification being " ... that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, ...".
Accepting the Bible is true and the translation is faithful, regardless, a bible in the common language would undermine the authority of the Church.
Sermons and tracts in the common language were permitted (with permission of the bishop), but bibles had to be the Latin Vulgate.