[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!
Fester, I meant to ping you to this.
Jeepers, betty boop! What a magnificient essay-post! You have again left me speechless. I have nothing at all to add.
Similarly, the principles of mechanical engineering could be used to demonstrate the nonexistence and irrelevancy of Detroit.
Which is fine with me, since I don't live there.
I haven't tracked it down, but it's not a new sentiment:
As you are aware, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the center of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can tolerate that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek.Source: The Trial of Galileo: Selected Letters.
-- Cardinal Bellarmine to Foscarini (April 12, 1615)
I saw first betty boop's reply to this, joesbucks, but I also wanted to comment - more in brief and with less logic than she has demonstrated seemingly effortlessly! (Mine might be called "insight".)
The statement above which you recall from a long-ago reading is the exact philosophy or reasoning used by the Pharisees to crucify Christ Jesus. It was the human justification for the killings of all martyrs to the Word and His Cross. The enemies of Righteousness are from Cain onward in history; the Righteous in Christ existed both before and after His appearing. Their very existence, much less their spoken or written testimony, brings judgement to the unregenerate - think of Noah building the ark, Hebrews chapter 11, and how the so-called fragrance of our lives is "life" to some and simultaneously "death" to others.
As long as the world has existed since the Fall and as long as it will exist in its present form there will be enemies of the Truth (His Name is Jesus). While this appalls us, it need not surprise us. Nor ought we to fear any but Our God. Amen.
Acts 26:9 gives us comfort, for it is the Apostle Paul's testimony:
"I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."
It was Paul's own mentor, "one in the council [who] stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people" who offered this sage wisdom in Acts 5:35-39
“Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”Not all men have this wisdom (: