The origins of Man

[genovese]

When did Creation of Man take place?

If we accept current Evolutionary theory, life seems to have started in the water around 4 Billion years ago.

° Probably between 3,5 and 3 billion year ago a symbiotic fusion occurred between mitochondria and the early eukaryotes.

° Around 1 billion years ago a symbiotic fusion occurred between chloroplasts and eukaryotes to form plants.

° Homo Sapiens emerges around 250,000 years ago.

At what stage in the evolution of Man does God appear to have created him?

If Creation occurred from the very beginning, then a major fusion of two species occurs around 3 billion years ago when mitochondria became an integral part of eukaryote cells.
For two species to “fuse” to form an improved species is not a common occurrence in Nature. (This almost falls into the realm of Science.Fiction.)

So at this stage of evolution I am inclined to ask “has God got Homo Sapiens in mind yet or is the fusion of these two species simply God playing with what he has already created to see what will happen? Could he not have given us oxidative phosphorylation without stuffing another species into our primitive origins? Is this a case of ” let’s use the bits that we already have working?”

2,75 billion years after this incredible fusion, Homo Sapiens finally emerges. Is this the stage when we should be saying that “The Creation of Man has occurred”? Is this the moment when the “soul and Free Will” were implanted into Man in the garden of Eden?

It seems a shame that Christianity ever became involved with Science. I suppose that before the age of enlightenment they were the Scientists and the Keepers of Morals of their time, for not many people were able to read or write or had the time to do anything but try to survive. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus. Why therefore did the church not keep to that and forget Genesis and the old Testament? It could, after all, concentrate on morals and keep out of pure science. It has been proved wrong on this subject on so many occasions, that it is a wonder that it still persists with it.

[alextemplet]

What, pray tell, is your point? Does it really matter what God was thinking when the first eukaryotes evolved?

And before you go knocking the Church’s role in science, remember that it was a Jesuit priest who came up with the big bang theory. The Vatican is one of the largest funders of scientific research in the world, and many clergymen have made many significant contributions to science. Remember Mendel? He was a monk, was he not?

For the Church to throw out the Old Testament would make about as much sense as the US throwing out the Declaration of Independence. The Old Testament is God’s first and original covenant with His people, and the foundation of all law and morality. In fact, Jesus did not add or change a single law; He only explained how the Old Testament laws should be understood and applied. The New Testament would be worthless without the Old Testament, since all we would have then would be explanations of laws we’d thrown out. Not very valuable, is that?

[genovese]

I accept the valid point that you make about the Old Testament.

alextemplet says "What, pray tell, is your point? Does it really matter what God was thinking when the first eukaryotes evolved?"

No, of course it doesn’t matter. But the CHURCH has always insisted differently; that we humans are something very special and not like any other animal. If we are so different and special, why are we totally dependent on another species for our own survival?

[alextemplet]

So being special means we have to be completely independent of all other life?

The Church does describe humanity as something special, mainly because we alone among the lifeforms on this planet are capable of controlling the environment and changing the world around us. No other species can shape the world the way humans have. In the eyes of the Church, this gives us a special status and also a special responsibility to protect and care for our planet. This view is backed up in Genesis when God gave Adam "dominion" over the earth. "Dominion" means "to rule," which means that we are free to harness the natural resources around us as long as we take responsible care of them.

I think it’s common sense that we are in fact special compared to other lifeforms on this planet, but I still don’t understand what this has to do with the evolution of eukaryotes.

[genovese]

"..but I still don’t understand what this has to do with the evolution of eukaryotes."

I must have a stronger imagination then if I am the only person to attach such importance to the fusion of one species with another, whilst at the same time maintaining that one half of that fusion is special (in the eyes of God) but the other half is there for us to use as we want to (but in a responsible manner).

To me it is a bit like, Hitler being told that his mother was Jewish, or a white racist finding out that his grandfather was coloured.

The implication of this event (to me) confirms that we are nothing special apart from our well developed brain compared to other species and that the existence of the supernatural is merely a function of our brain.

[alextemplet]

I think you must have a very strong imagination, as I am almost certain you’re stretching this too far. The evolution of eukaryotes was no doubt important in the story of life on earth, but to say "that one half of that fusion is special (in the eyes of God) but the other half is there for us to use as we want to (but in a responsible manner)." is to say that humanity existed as a species even at this early stage. This, of course, is false.

I suppose you would also imagine that saying that humans and apes share a common ancestry is like saying that Strom Thurmond and Martin L King, Jr. are first cousins.

And you explained my point perfectly: "we are nothing special apart from our well developed brain compared to other species" Exactly! Our intelligence and technology gives us an ability to control and manage our planet that, if we care about its future, we should use responsibly.

However, to say "that the existence of the supernatural is merely a function of our brain." makes about as much sense as saying that the existence of helium is only a function of our brain.

[genovese]

OK, for ease of comprehension, let me bring things down into their simplist forms.

The church (at least the Vatican) insists that Man has a soul whereas animals do not.
Unfortunately, having invented “the soul” they do not specify its location, which leaves me free to suggest that it resides inside the brain and since animals do not possess a soul then it probably resides inside that part of the brain which we possess but animals do not possess. ie in that part of the brain which can function at a higher level than could ever occur in an animal.

Mitochondria are related to certain bacteria rather than to man. Therefore mitochondria do not possess a soul. They are therefore sub-human or inferior to man in a religious sense.

Mitochondria represent a certain percentage of our body weight ( say 5, 10 15%?) but they probably represent 95% or more of our ability to function as human beings.

So, let us now see what happens if we remove the mitochondria from the "higher part"of our brains. What kind of animal or vegetable are we left with? What has happened to the soul?

I would suggest that the soul no longer exists. In other words, the whole concept of the soul and of God only exists thanks to mitochondria that gives us the energy to invent it in the first place. And then religion has the audacity to suggest that animals and all lower creatures are merely there for us to look after. From what I have just outlined, I would suggest the opposite- that if it wasn’t for a certain animal, religion wouldn’t exist.

That is the reason why, the theory of symbiosis with mitochondria , shook my imagination. It was a “revelation” in an anti-religious sense. Had Galileo produced it instead of his theory of the solar system, he would, no doubt, have been threatened with more than ex-communication by that body, which you claim to be very interested in science.

[alextemplet]

Your mistake is that you consider the soul to be a physical property. By its very nature the soul is spiritual, and thus is not tied to any particular physical location within the body.

I personally believe that all life has a soul, since it doesn’t make sense to me how it could possibly be any other way. In a scientific sense, there is no real difference on a chemical or molecular level between something being alive and something being inanimate; it’s all just chemical reactions of one sort or another. However, there is a very real distinction between life and non-life. Each part of a living thing, on its own, cannot in even the wildest definition be considered alive, but when put together in the right way, life exists. Also, consider a freshly-dead organism that has not yet begun to decay. It contains all of the cellular and molecular parts of life, but is not alive. There is a very fine line between life and non-life that cannot easily be explained by conventional means. That is why I think that all life must have souls. I consider the soul to be the essential spiritual component that makes something alive, makes all the assembled pieces spring to life. It simply doesn’t make sense to me how it could be any other way.

As for mitochondria, certainly we cannot survive without them, but on the whole our living bodies are comprised of very many non-living components. That doesn’t surprise me at all, and I still think you’re trying in vain to draw a theological conclusion that simply isn’t there.

As for Galileo, that is a perfect example of why the Spanish government should never have been allowed to interfere with Church affairs!

[genovese]

Alextemplet says "I consider the soul to be the essential spiritual component that makes something alive, makes all the assembled pieces spring to life."

I don’t really want to get into theological argument and would rather stick to biology, but to suggest that it is the soul that makes something alive is pushing things rather too far. Where in biology have you read this as a theory? Does this mean that plants have souls and presumably so must mitochondria?

Does the church actually support this theory?

If the difference between Life and Death is something to do with the soul then my 30 years of medicine must seem to be an awful waste of time. The cost of Health Care could be reduced dramatically, for if we cannot define or know precisely where the soul is we may as well close down the hospitals.

But coming back to mitochondria. That symbiotic fusion in the story of evolution is, to me, the greatest step that occurred. Even Darwin, with his great ‘eye-opening’ theory did not predict such a thing as being possible. Of course, it is just a theory as such, but if the theory is true it is truly amazing.

[alextemplet]

Once again I believe you are drawing conclusions that simply aren’t there. First of all, don’t pretend you mean this to be a biological discussion when your entire point from the beginning was to argue against the existence of a deity; this has been a theological debate from the start and remains so. Secondly, whether or not a soul exists has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine by its very definition works solely on the physical properties of life; the soul by its very definition is spiritual and thus another matter entirely.

I agree; the synthesis of early mitochondria-like bacteria with prokaryotic organisms to form the first eukaryotes probably was one of the most important events in the evolution of life on earth. Once again, however, I fail to see any theological implications.

[genovese]

"Once again, however, I fail to see any theological implications". If plants, mitochondria and all living things (whatever that definition is) have souls, as you seem to have suggested, then there would be no theological problem from my point of view. But are you sure of your theological facts? What does the church have to say on that subject? If only humans have souls, then I do see a problem from a theological point of view.

You haven’t clarified your point about life being attributable to a soul. Where do you get that bit of information from and what does it mean?

"Medicine by its very definition works solely on the physical properties of life…" Where did you get that bit of information from? Ever heard of the placebo effect, bed side manner, counselling, advice on Health matters, Preventitive medicine, Psychological Medicine, etc. etc. etc.?

[alextemplet]

I already told you why I think all life has a soul; it simply doesn’t make sense to me any other way.

I concede your point as far as medicine having to do with more than just the physical. Surely it can have emotional and mental effects as well, but certainly not spiritual. As the soul is spiritual by definition, it lies outside the reach of medicine.

[genovese]

"Surely it can have emotional and mental effects as well, but certainly not spiritual."

So are you saying that if a priest comforts a sick person with words – it is a spiritual effect, but if a doctor comforts that same person using those same words, then it is only having an emotional/mental effect? My problem trying to follow your line of logic is, I suppose, that you haven’t and don’t seem to be able to define what you mean by the Spirit. If you cannot define what the Spirit is, then I cannot begin to understand it, using current methods of logical thinking. This I submit is probably something peculiar about me, for I acknowledge that there are millions of people out there happy to believe in something that they do not understand what it means. (It’s probably those old genes at work on all those carriers of information).

Lacking much detail knowledge about theology, let me try another way to show you why the theory about Mitochondria makes me believe that there is a theological problem with it:

¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6

You may not see any theological problems with Mitochondria but I now tend to think of Genesis along the following lines:

And God created man in his own image but in order to enable Man so that he could be loved and worshipped he had to add the soulless animal known as mitochondria which enriched man and let the spirit enter.

Could Mitochondria itself be the Spirit? It is after all an important biological entity which seems to have given Man the possibility of a Spiritual dimension.

If Man works along the lines laid down by biology, I cannot see how Spirituality can work in Man on non-biological lines.

[alextemplet]

You’re right; I have not yet adequately defined what the spiritual is. In you example of a priest comforting a person, it would be the same emotional/mental effect as a doctor doing the same. But if the priest prays for or with the person, that is a spiritual effect.

It’s hard to define but to me spirituality generally means invoking divine or miraculous power that is clearly not of the physical world. For example, when I speak to God in prayer, I know I am not talking to anything physical. It’s hard for a non-believer to understand, since to an atheist it is impossible for something to exist without being physical in nature. Of course, to a believer, the spiritual is just as real as the physical. I normally tend to think of it as two parallel and intertwined worlds: a physical world and a spiritual world.

As for your scripture quote, that passage is from Genesis, not 1 Corinthians, as you labeled it. I still don’t see mitochondria as posing a problem, however, especially if all life has souls or at least some form of spirit. Considering that we are nothing but a bunch of inanimate parts that are somehow very much alive, I simply don’t see how that can be possible without a soul.

[genovese]

I agree with you entirely that there should be no theological problem concerning mitochondria if, as you say, all life has a soul or a spirit, even if I cannot understand the concept of Spirituality. For the moment I am living in a physical world and I do not have certain proof that any other type of world exists.

But my memory tells me that my Catholic upbringing did in fact mention that animals did NOT have souls and that we could therefore do what we liked to them and with them. There was never any mention of looking after them, unless it was for our own self-interest. Thus, I have to ask again, are you sure that the Vatican agrees with you that "All living things must have souls"? If they do, then the church has certainly changed its position on the subject over the last 60 years, but I doubt that they could do so on such an important concept as The Soul. It would be like doing away or upgrading Genesis or the Old Testament itself.

The quote that I took from Genesis mentions Man being made in the image of God. There is no mention of doing the same with other animals. It only mentions animals to say that Man may have control over them. That does not sound to me as though Genesis means you to understand that animals also have a soul.

So, whether from the Church or somewhere else in the Bible, you can show me where it is stated, that "animals have souls", I have to infer, for the time being, that the problem of us Humans beings finding ourselves 95% subordinate to an animal does not square up with the concept that we are special and made in the image of God.
If God does exist, then the church has not done its work properly. As Martin Luther observed- perhaps we do not need a priest or a church to be able to communicate with God.

As you know, I have elsewhere suggested that the concept of Faith is embedded in our genes through the action of Natural Selection. We already have that "Drive" within us. There is no need for it to be interpreted by others.

[MichaelXY]

I think this is a really good thread. I must say that I am impressed by both of you. This has been a civil dialect and argument. You both make good points. Keep the post going, you both really have me going Hmm–thinking.

My hat off to you both.

[alextemplet]

The Church’s official position is that animals have a spirit sufficient to keep them alive but this spirit does not equal a true soul. I myself have never really understood the difference, and from what I’ve studied of animal intelligence, I doubt if there is one. It is one of very few disagreements that I hold with the Vatican, but both the Church and myself do agree that life cannot exist without spirit.

Whether or not animals have souls is in fact a very minor issue in Catholic theology. The Church sees its primary role as moral, and whether or not animals have souls does not affect moral law or what is right and wrong. Indeed, it probably affects us not at all. That is probably why the Church hasn’t addressed the issue at all in quite a few centuries. The Church has its hands full trying to deal with the rampant immorality in this world.

I think you’re mistaken on a fundamental point concerning mitochondria, and that is by saying that it means we are dependent on another animal. When mitochondria first evolved, this might have been true, but today, the DNA in mitochondria is entirely human, and no genes of the organelle’s bacterial ancestry remain. Today it is just like any other organelle, no longer another animal.

I already explained earlier what that passage of Genesis means to me. Man’s special place in the world is due to our intelligence, technology, and ability to control the world around us in a way that no other species can. Common sense tells us that we do in fact have a certain power over our environment and a sense of responsibility tells us to use that power responsibly.

There is plenty of evidence that some sort of spiritual existence does in fact exist. Miracles, which by definition cannot be explained naturally, are only the beginning.

[genovese]

Thanks for that explanation on the Church’s thinking on animals. I must say though that on reading that passage in Genesis – I would come to a different conclusion.

As for Mitochondria – I thought that they reprodcued independtly from the rest of the host cell, suggesting that not all their DNA had been transferred, and the fact that DNA is held (perhaps temporarily) by the host nucleus does not prove that it cannot act independently from the host. Viruses (?souls) often interact with the host DNA, but they still remain viruses and they can even have severe carcinogenic effects on our genetic material. So, having lost bits of your DNA to the host does not negate your origins.

But putting all that aside, I am pleased to learn that my "mitochondrial worries" are not a problem for the Vatican.
Thank you for your excellent participation as usual.

[alextemplet]

To me, "Let us make man in our image" cannot be physical in any way; since God is spirit, He has no physical appearance. Thus "image" has to be some sort of symbol for something other than a physical appearance. I personally think it means that, like God, man has an intellect and a sense of morality. Man is clearly not nearly as intelligent nor anywhere close to morally perfect, as God is, but humanity is still capable of reason and has a sense of right and wrong. It is also worth noting that the Bible does not say that man was the only creature created in this image, nor does it say that all animals were created in some other image. All it says is that man was created in that image. Again from what I’ve studied of zoology, I think at least a few species are also capable of such intellect and morality. However, humanity alone still possesses the capability to save or destroy the planet, which is why we were given the responsibility of caring for it.

My earlier statements on mitochondrial DNA were based on what I learned in high school. A quick glance at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria) has shown that you are in fact correct; mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleic DNA. I’m not sure if this means they are a separate species altogether, instead of just two lifeforms that have merged into one, but even if they are I don’t see a theological problem. Humans being dependent on another lifeform is not unique at all, and such symbiotic relationships can be found everywhere in nature. For example, we are incapable of digesting food without the help of bacteria that live in our intestines. So even if mitochondria are a separate organism, they’re not unique in our dependence on them for survival.

[genovese]

"I personally think it means that, like God, man has an intellect and a sense of morality." That of course sums up the problem when trying to understand what is written in the Bible. Your personal interpretation does not quite square up with that of the Vatican, and squares up even less with my interpretation. When I read Genesis I CLEARLY read that Animals have no souls, are inferior and are there soley for our use.

As for your argument that the Bible doesn’t mention that animals don’t have souls – that I find weak and not helpful to your position. I would not expect or demand that the Bible ought to mention everything on the Earth that does not possess something.

As for Mitochondria, I think you ought to update your information by reading up the subjet. Not only are they independent but their genetic code is different to ours. Sure, they may have dumped some of their superfluous genes into our Genome, because they are using some of our systems symbiotically and there is no point in coding for the same protein twice over. (I only wish that the Bible was as easy to understand as Biochemistry).

Even if we are NOW using them rather than THEY using us, the fact remains that without them we would never have been able to believe in much at all and certainly we would not have had enough energy to believe in such an etheral thing as the presence or absence of deity in that parallel world of the spirit which you mentioned. And my wild uncontrollable imagination now has the fear that if at some stage a biochemist finds that some of our genes have been dumped into those of the mitochondria -what then? Are we then primarily Mitochondria with spirits but no souls and are we humans at all? I hope for the Vatican that this scenario does not present itself.

[alextemplet]

As I said before, the exact nature of mitochondria makes no theological difference. Even if it does turn out to be a completely independent organism that lives inside us in a symbiotic relationship, that’s far from unique. I already gave the bacteria living in our gut as an example. The simple fact is that, like all other life, we are dependent on a range of other organisms both inside and outside our bodies. Nothing strange about that.

The explanation I gave for the meaning of "Let us create man in our image" is the same as that taught by the Church, as is my explanation of man’s "dominion" and responsibility over all other life; it is only on the issue of animal spirits/souls that I differ with established teaching. And as I said before, that is a very minor issue as far as the Church is concerned. If it every becomes important (I seriously doubt it will.), the Church will more than likely investigate the matter using the exact same methods of ecclesiastical investigation that produced the big bang theory.

[genovese]

"I already gave the bacteria living in our gut as an example. Even if it does turn out to be a completely independent organism that lives inside us in a symbiotic relationship, that’s far from unique."

Sorry to be nit-picking and argumentative but bacteria within our gut are not technically or biologically inside our bodies. The gastrointestinal tract is "outside" the body from which organisms are easily and regularly expelled. Would you please tell me which animal is living symbiotically inside our cells other than Mitochondria? I believe that it is unique – that is why this theory is so shattering. Perhaps the Vatican ought to give the theory some thought.

[alextemplet]

If you define "inside" as inside our cells, then I am sure mitochondria are unique in that respect. However, how does that make them significantly different (in a theological sense) from any other organism on which we are dependent?

[genovese]

So, if we recapitulate, we now agree that Mitochondria are unique in being animals living within us symbiotically. For a scientist this is quite something but in science we are getting used to the unexpected and all reasonable people practicing this discipline should have "open" minds so as to adapt to new theories as they come along.

Can the same thing be said about theologians, who are tied to a book that hasn’t ever been changed?

Now this book," to me" clearly states that animals have no souls. If the church wishes me to think otherwise, let it show me the evidence, for I have been taught that every word in the bible is sacred and cannot be changed.

So, the idea of God allowing a souless creature to be so important an element in our make-up, so that we can love and worship Him, simply does not make sense.

Either the Vatican should come out straight and condemn the theory and risk being ridiculed once more or it needs to change its view on whether animals have souls. They need only come out and say that "Mitochondria have souls" – after all, the Bible (using your negative way of arguing) does not say that Mitochondria do not have souls.

[alextemplet]

Wait, back up a bit, I never agreed that mitochondria are entirely separate organisms, only that they originated as such. As I said before, it is no longer a case of one species living inside of another, but of two species merged into one. Where in biology is it stated that they are a whole separate organism? If they really are another species, as you claim, then what is their classification? Can you give me a binomial genus/species name for them? If they were another organism, they would be classified as such. They aren’t.

The only reason I hypothetically supposed that they might be a separate species was to make a point that it’s not theologically different from any other such symbiotic relationship. These are two very important points that I would like you to address. First, on what basis do you claim that mitochondria are another species? Second, even if they are, why does it matter?

[genovese]

OK. We originated as two separate species and have now if you like "fused into one new species". We must have at some time lived as two separate species and although we are classified as one species now, is that because the theory is too recent in Time for biologists to think about re-classification? Apart from myself, I do not know of any other person who has given the problem much thought. Sure I know that this leaves me open to ridicule but I don’t see why something living symbiotically within us and reproducing independently from us is not a separate entity? OK it will die without our support but so will we without mitochondrial support. If we have fused into the New species Homo Sapiens from two separate species, is that the point of our Creation? I would like to hear from a zoologist as to why it is not classified as a separate species. What is the reason for this?

On your second question " why does it matter?" This is due to my concern about us being special (Theologically speaking) and about us having souls which other species do not have. We are only the New Species Homo Sapiens with a soul because of the "fusion" with an animal with no soul.
How can that be? How can something with No soul make Homo Sapiens with a soul, for Homo Sapiens would certainly not be here without this souless creature.

[alextemplet]

In answer to your first question, I do not think that the exact point at which the two species became one (assuming that point can even specified with precision) would be anywhere near to "our" creation if by "our" you mean humanity. It would mean the beginning of the domain Eukaria, with any species of Homo still a very, very, very long way off.

In answer to your second question, I already explained what is meant by being "special." It is a reflection of our ability to manipulate and control this planet, and also of our responsibility to maintain it.

If non-human organisms do not have souls, I still don’t see mitochondria as being a problem. Evolution would then become entirely a story of the development of the physical body, with one soulless ancestor of humanity leading to another, until at some point God injected the soul into the body and humanity began. This is the Catholic Church’s official take on the subject. As I already stated, I do not fully agree with this view, but even if this was somehow shown to be true, I would not see mitochondria as posing a problem at all.

Finally, your point about mitochondria being too new a field of study to be independently classified might hold some weight; however, I am nowhere near qualified enough to make that judgment myself. All I know is that they are not currently classified as a separate organism.

[genovese]

"Evolution would then become entirely a story of the development of the physical body, with one soulless ancestor of humanity leading to another, until at some point God injected the soul into the body and humanity began."

I think that you have given me the answer that was missing in my mind. "until at some point God injected the soul into the body and humanity began." If this is the Vatican’s point of view, then of course, I agree that mitochondria would not cause a theological problem for me, but I had always been under the impression that Humanity and the soul were all produced simultaneously at the time of creation.

I say this because Genesis does not take the possibility of evolution occurring. As I understand it from the Bible, Man was made + soul in the beginning.
The Vatican seems to be suggesting that Man was made a very long time after the world was created, presumably with mitochondria already well in place and that it was at that moment that God decided that the New Species was worthy of a soul because of its superior intelligence compared with other creatures.

It was as if God was waiting for man to appear before deciding to hand out the souls.

It is an interesting interpretation of Genesis which would never have occurred to me, but then I am not a theologian. I say this with all due respect for it must be very difficult in a rapidly changing world for theologians to re-interpret a text that was written thousands of year ago and still make it comprehensible to the uninitiated. Can you imagine what kind of Science we would be producing if we all had to work from a thousand year old text in Science?

[alextemplet]

It’s not a reinterpretation at all; the Catholic Church has never held to a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact, the Church has supported evolution since the time of St. Augustine in the 4th century; long before Darwin was even born!

To elaborate on the Church’s point, "day" has no exact meaning for two reasons:
1) The Bible states that a day is like a thousand years to God; this means that, since God is eternal, our measures of time mean little to Him. Also, "thousand" is a common Biblical term to describe any large "uncountable" number.
2) A day on Earth is 24hrs, but on Jupiter it is only 12hrs. On Mars, it is 25hrs. On Venus, it is three months. All of these places were created by God, who exists in Heaven. Who knows how long a "day" is in Heaven? Does Heaven even have days? The Bible does not tell us.

It can thus be understood that the seven days in Genesis 1 do not necessarily mean seven twenty-four hour periods. After all, the Church teaches that the Bible was written by God, and we don’t know how long a day is to God. Also, the order in which life was created in Genesis (starting in the sea, then on land, then man at the end) is the same chronological order as scientific theories concerning evolution.

For these two main reasons (the uncertainty of the term "day" and the order in which life was created), the Church has always been a supporter of evolutionary theory. Indeed, the Catholic Church is (as far as I know) alone among Christian churches in supporting evolution from the very start. So it is no re-interpretation at all; merely what the Church has taught all along, only now with a bit more scientific knowledge to support it.

[genovese]

That sounds all very convincing – but tell me why Darwin was pilloried by the church when he produced his theory, as he knew he would be and that is why he held back 15 years before making it public?

But to make sure that I have understood it correctly is the Vatican saying that God just watched or did he shape the evolutionary process? Did he know that Man was going to emerge eventually or did that just happen by itself (with a little help from my friend Mito).

If I have understood what you have said it seems as though it all depended on INTELLIGENCE as to whether the emerging creature was to be given a soul. If correct, can I infer from this that any human with a severe defect of the brain from birth – does not warrant a soul- OR any old person with senile dementia or Alzeiheimer’s disease has their soul taken away, for non-compliance, so to speak?

[alextemplet]

The Catholic Church never opposed Darwin; that was the Anglican Church, the Church of England. Had Darwin been French instead of English, he would’ve had much less religious trouble. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church that has never opposed evolution; as I said previously, the Catholic Church has supported evolution since the 4th century, long before Darwin was even born.

quote :

But to make sure that I have understood it correctly is the Vatican saying that God just watched or did he shape the evolutionary process? Did he know that Man was going to emerge eventually or did that just happen by itself (with a little help from my friend Mito).

God could’ve done it either way; the neither the Church nor the Bible states whether God somehow guided the evolutionary process, or just allowed it to run itself.

To answer your last question, the Catholic Church is very firm in its position that all humans have souls.[/quote]

[genovese]

“The Catholic Church never opposed Darwin”

If this is correct, then it is indeed encouraging, for you are right that he was severely opposed by the Anglican Church. I would like to see what the Catholic Church had to say about it in the 4th Century.

“God could’ve done it either way; neither the Church nor the Bible states whether God somehow guided the evolutionary process, or just allowed it to run itself”.

The problem with this “either way” approach is that it suggests that God could still be actively involved in the development of life. This would inevitably lead to accusations that all errors such as new viruses causing death and destruction, HIV etc. are the deliberate work of God against Humanity. It would also confirm my theological fears that He inserted (soulless) Mitochondria in order to produce intelligent Man who would then be capable of worship.

Genesis, on the other hand clearly states (to me) that creation was done and is now over and finished and that it’s up to Man to get on with it. Looking at the Genesis text again, and ignoring that it was all done in 6 days ( I take your point about Time) there is no real mention about Evolution taking place. The text starts to mention that Life took place on the 3rd day (Grass and Fruit Trees) on LAND. Then Fish and Fowl emerge in the SEA on the 5th day, and Man finally emerges on the 6th. day with all other animals such as cattle and creepy things. So if this is interpreted by religious people as indicating Evolution having taken place – I am not too impressed with the sequence of events. Also, each type of animal is created and encouraged to multiply. There is no mention that one animal species changes into another animal species as is absolutely necessary in the theory of Evolution.
Therefore I have to say that, my interpretation of the text does not allow me to believe that Genesis foresaw Evolution taking place.

[alextemplet]

In the 4th century, St. Augustine was the first Christian scholar to address the evolutionary issue, and he largely accepted the prevailing theories of his time, which were developed by the Greeks in the centuries before Christ. The ancients had a basic understanding of natural selection and heredity, although without any knowledge of genetics it was almost impossible for them to explain any of this in the highly detailed terms we use today.

The biggest reason the Church leaves the question open as to whether or not God guided the evolutionary process is because there is no real evidence either way, and I think we will both agree that it would be foolish for anyone to make such a conclusion without evidence.

The Catholic Church’s official stance on the Genesis creation stories is that they are a metaphorical account meant only to show that God created the universe in an orderly manner; I myself have always taken this metaphor a step farther and said that it could be symbolic of the evolutionary process, as I explained earlier.

[David George]

I am not quite sure about the discussion but I can see genovese fighting for christianity and Alex for evolution and faith.But tell me genovese I think chirstians were one of the most notorious people who could not tolerate the egyptians gods,temples,people,language and destroyed one of the most spectacular civilizations the earth has ever seen.So how do you defend your people now.

[alextemplet]

Um, David, you might want to check your history on that one. Egyptian civilization was on its way out when the Assyrians took over and imposed their culture on the place. Then the Assyrians were conquered by the Persians, and then the Greeks under Alexander turned Egypt into a Greek colony. Then came the Romans and they imposed their civilization and culture on Egypt, and all of this before Christ was even born! So Egyptian civilization had ended centuries before Christianity came along.

[genovese]

David George says "..but I can see genovese fighting for christianity.."

I am obviously not doing very well with my case because I am arguing against the church’s interpretation of Christianity – I am an atheist- but trying to be fair to every viewpoint, if it is logical, that is!

Alex says "..I myself have always taken this metaphor a step farther and said that it could be symbolic of the evolutionary process, as I explained earlier"

From the text in Genesis, I would like to know which words exactly make you come to this conclusion?

Alex also says "..In the 4th century, St. Augustine was the first Christian scholar to address the evolutionary issue,"

A religious scholar may well have come up with this idea, but was it accepted by the Vatican as a definate theory to account for the creation of Man? If so, at what date, roughly?

[genovese]

quote genovese:

David George says “..but I can see genovese fighting for christianity..”

I am obviously not doing very well with my case because I am arguing against the church’s interpretation of Christianity – I am an atheist- but trying to be fair to every viewpoint, if it is logical, that is!

Alex says “..I myself have always taken this metaphor a step farther and said that it could be symbolic of the evolutionary process, as I explained earlier”

From the text in Genesis, I would like to know which words exactly make you come to this conclusion?

Alex also says “..In the 4th century, St. Augustine was the first Christian scholar to address the evolutionary issue,”

A religious scholar may well have come up with this idea, but was it accepted by the Vatican as a definate theory to account for the creation of Man? If so, at what date, roughly?

Alex again says "The biggest reason the Church leaves the question open as to whether or not God guided the evolutionary process is because there is no real evidence either way, and I think we will both agree that it would be foolish for anyone to make such a conclusion without evidence."

But would you agree with me that the idea that God could still be involved with evoution would suggest that our ills and disaster were not of our making but of God’s making?

[alextemplet]

If I remember my history correctly, the ancient Greek version of the theory of evolution was pretty widely accepted in the Roman Empire. St. Augustine’s theories on the subject were pretty widely accepted in the early Church almost right away, as were most of his theological writings.

I am not certain if God’s guidance of the evolutionary process (if that is in fact what He did) would blame him for all our disasters. It seems an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to blame all of the bad things that happen to us on how we evolved. Most of the bad things that happen to us are the result of our own free will, bad choices that we make, and thus our own fault.

[genovese]

Alex, I would ask you to tell me, which words in Genesis make you come to the conclusion that evolution might have been suggested?

You also state " am not certain if God’s guidance of the evolutionary process (if that is in fact what He did) would blame him for all our disasters. It seems an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to blame all of the bad things that happen to us on how we evolved. Most of the bad things that happen to us are the result of our own free will, bad choices that we make, and thus our own fault."

You cannot have it both ways with this statement. Believers are only too ready to praise God when something good happens. So why should they not blame God when something bad happens? You cannot have God being involved in evolution on a continual basis and accepting His errors as something to do with our free wills. This sounds to me as though the church has indoctrinated Believers with a whole lot of guilt. It is a very good marketing technique which absolves the product.

It reminds me of when I returned a faulty product one day, which never worked, only to be told that it must have been my fault. Well guess what, for a few seconds I accepted the accusation until I took a hold of myself and let logic instead of ingrained feelings of guilt control my thought processes.

[alextemplet]

Genovese, I’m sorry to have to say this, but you seem to have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. For example:

quote :

You cannot have it both ways with this statement. Believers are only too ready to praise God when something good happens. So why should they not blame God when something bad happens? You cannot have God being involved in evolution on a continual basis and accepting His errors as something to do with our free wills.

I admit I said that it is possible that God might have directed the evolutionary process, but I am at a loss to remember where I said the rest of that. Also, please tell me exactly what "mistakes" you are referring to. And what is so illogical about taking responsibility for our own free will? For example, 9/11 happened because a bunch of terrorists decided to fly some planes into buildings. They used their free will. It’s completely illogical to call that a mistake of God.

What do you not understand about my previous explanation of how I interpret the creation stories? If you tell me what’s confusing you I’d be happy to elaborate and provide better answers.

[genovese]

"What do you not understand about my previous explanation of how I interpret the creation stories? If you tell me what’s confusing you I’d be happy to elaborate and provide better answers."

Would you please repeat your explanation showing me the words in Genesis which drive you to conclude it that way. What you previously stated was that Genesis said "the order in which life was created in Genesis (starting in the sea, then on land, then man at the end) is the same chronological order as scientific theories concerning evolution. "
Genesis however does not give the order of events in the way you describe but in the sequence of Land,Sea,Land. That sequence does not fit in with evolution from the sea as you stated. Please also show me where species are supposed to evolve from other species.

"Also, please tell me exactly what "mistakes" you are referring to.."

You know perfectly well that I am not referring to acts committed by men (even in the name of God) to be anything to do with God, if there was one. By mistakes, I am talking about genetic mistakes. After all if God is still involved in evolution and in our making He must surely be asked to share the blame when the results go wrong.
_________________

[alextemplet]

What genetic mistakes are you referring to? And on what basis do you claim those to be mistakes?

My study of Genesis began a few years ago. I grew up as an atheist, but as I got older I began to question what I had been taught. I had already seen way too much evidence to come out against evolution, but in my studies I began to realize more and more that God has to exist. The more I studied the matter, the more I realized just how much evidence there is supporting the existence of God. And the more I studied, the more I noticed that the evidence points towards the Catholic Church as being the true religion. Having learned that the Church has always supported evolutionary theory, this led me to begin to study the origins matter specifically and see what I could figure out for myself.

When I read Genesis for the first time, I was amazed to find that the first few verses sounded like a description of the big bang. I learned later that the big bang theory was first developed by the Catholic Church in order to prove the existence of God. As I continued reading, I found what I have already described, and came to understand Genesis as a broad metaphor of natural history.

To properly understand Genesis, it is important to understand the context into which it was written. Its primary role was not to describe in detail the earth’s creation, but to tell the story of Abraham and his descendants. The primary role of the first twelve chapters of Genesis is to symbolically "set the scene" to describe the kind of world into which Abraham was born. Genesis can thus be divided into three main parts.

The first part is the creation stories. Here, God is shown to create the world in a sort of "Edenic perfection." God is shown to be both creator and master of the universe. The seven day metaphor here serves two purposes. First, it shows that it took some time for the earth be created (that is, it didn’t happen all at once or instantaneously); also, it establishes the basis for one of the most important concepts of Hebrew law: the sabbath. God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. Likewise, the Hebrews celebrated two sabbaths to commemorate this. The sabbatical day is what most people are familiar with; work for six days and rest on the seventh. However, Hebrew law also included a sabbatical year; the people worked for six years, and each year set aside one sixth of their produce, to get them through the seventh year, the sabbatical year, when they rested for the entire year. This sabbatical year could probably be taken as additional evidence that the seven days in Genesis are not meant to be taken as seven literal twenty-four hour periods. Also, the sabbatical year gave the fields time to recover after being worked hard for agriculture for six years (modern farmers use a similar method called crop rotation). Finally, God creates man and tasks him with taking care of the earth. Thus, in the creation stories, God is shown to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and also lays the foundation for the laws that will govern the Hebrew people.

The second part runs from the fall of man through to the collapse of the Tower of Babel. The main themes here are that humans, who have a tendency to corruption, do not live up to their responsibility and spoil the perfection in which the world was created. This is a very easy concept to understand; any casual glance at the evidence will show that humans are very corrupt creatures. Hitler is perhaps the most famous example from modern history, but also consider the escalating crime rates in most large cities and the wave of terrorism gripping the Middle East. History is full of examples of such corruption and immorality, and this dark side of human nature is clearly shown in this second part of Genesis. However, also shown is God’s faithfulness to those who remain moral; Noah, for example. The lesson here is a simple one: those who do what is right will be rewarded, and those who do what is wrong will pay the price of their actions. Any decent parent teaches his children the same lesson by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior.

The third part of the Genesis tells the story of Abraham and his descendants. As the founder of Judaeo-Christianity, Abraham is a vitally important figure in the Bible. It was thus vitally important that the world in which he lived be understood in order to clarify the context of his actions. As was explained in the second part of Genesis, Abraham was born into a world full of immorality. Human sacrifices were not uncommon, and the rape of young virgins was practiced as a form of religious sacrifice. Crime and corruption were endemic. It was in this world that Abraham answered God’s call to live a righteous and moral life. I do not believe I have to explain his life in detail, as his story is already well-known. His great moral courage and fortitude laid the foundation for the rest of the Bible, and is even better understood in the context of the world in which he lived.

To conclude, the primary purpose of Genesis is to describe the "genesis" of the Judaeo-Christian faith. The creation of the world is of largely secondary importance, and meant mainly to tie into the main story of Abraham, as I described above. It is a common mistake of both believers and atheists to try to read the creation stories on their own as literal histories of how the earth began, but this is not the story they are meant to tell. The similarities with the big bang and evolution that I have already described helped me when I was first struggling to answer these questions, but in the end I realized that it isn’t meant to be an exact detail-by-detail account of how God created the world. It is meant instead to say that God created the world, and to begin to explain the standards of morality and responsibility in which He expects us to live; standards that humanity has failed to live up to but which, through the courage of people like Abraham, can be restored and maintained in a corrupt world.

I realize that’s quite a lot to read. My apologies if it’s too long, but I wanted to describe my answer in full detail, as you asked. I’ve been meaning to type all of this for a few days now, but I’ve had to wait for a day off from work so I can set aside the hour that it took me to type this post. I hope it answers some of your questions.

[genovese]

Sorry that I put you through such a long task. I have only read it through quickly, and will spend more time on it.

My initial reaction would be to say that it is difficult if not impossible to know when to take the Bible word for word and when to be flexible with the interpretation. Perhaps the church should consider stating which is which, but of course, if the text is represented as being the word of God, then they cannot do it.

[alextemplet]

Genovese, just as I needed to do some research to get my facts straight on mitochondria, I suggest you do some research to get your facts straight on the Bible and Christian theology.

It is not hard at all to tell where the Bible is being metaphorical and where it is being literal; if it is read in the context of the whole story or message, it is surprisingly easy to understand. For example, no one claims any of Christ’s parables to be factual biographies; they are symbolic fables, meant to make a theological or moral point. Likewise, when Christ said that He would be crucified and raised from the dead in three days, then when we read this in the context of the whole story (meaning we keep in mind that this actually did happen), then we understand that Christ meant that literally.

The Catholic Church has always maintained that the creation stories are primarily metaphorical (The Church uses the term "mythic stories" to describe them.), and are meant to be read in the context that I previously described. All in all the entire Bible is pretty straight-forward and easy to understand as to what is symbolic and what isn’t.

[genovese]

Than you Alex, I think that you have given us a very comprehensive delivery on how we should interpret the Old Testament. I am not sure if this should also apply to the New Testament but we were not discussing this, so I retract the question.

But after 4 pages of discussion I am still left uncertain about an animal without a soul being such an important element in Humans, with a soul. Alex doesn’t see it as a problem so at least he can continue happily praying. I hope that he sometimes remembers to say a little "thank you" to his mitochondria which are giving him the power to pray.

[alextemplet]

Of course the same rule applies to the New Testament, that it must also be read and understood in context. One of the many reasons for this is that the New Testament often quotes the Old Testament, so an understanding of the Old Testament is essential to understand the New Testament.

The way I see it, there are two main possibilities here:

a) All life has souls; we have both agreed that mitochondria would not present a problem if this was true.

b) God allowed life to evolve without a soul until humanity was "ready," and then placed souls into the first humans; we have both already agree that mitochondria would not present a problem here either.

We also have not resolved the issue of whether or not mitochondria are in fact independent organisms or just organelles. I think you’ll agree that if they are organelles, that would even further simplify the issue from a theological stance.

That about summarizes my main points. I do agree that after four pages, we seem to be running out of things to say.

[David George]

quote alextemplet:

Um, David, you might want to check your history on that one. Egyptian civilization was on its way out when the Assyrians took over and imposed their culture on the place. Then the Assyrians were conquered by the Persians, and then the Greeks under Alexander turned Egypt into a Greek colony. Then came the Romans and they imposed their civilization and culture on Egypt, and all of this before Christ was even born! So Egyptian civilization had ended centuries before Christianity came along.

No man I am 200% sure[over confident 😆 ] that the chirstians destroyed the egyptian civilization although the assyrians,persians,romans had also invaded but were amazed by their culture[like me 🙄 ] and hence the kings[romans] were depicted as the pharoahs were depicted.The egyptians were resistant to all the civilizations but were destroyed by christians.There is a Temple in Egypt[I donot remeber the name 😳 ] which I remember was like placed in an island and had the Images of the Godess Isis being scraped of and an account written in greek appritiating the people who destroyed such beautiful works in the temple itself 👿 .

genovese I am sorry I called you a theist I apologize.I am sorry man sorry for the pain caused by calling you a theist.

[alextemplet]

You are right that conquering kings did take the title "Pharaoh," but the Greeks in particular under Alexander and the Ptolemaic dynasty replaced the Egyptian gods and temples with Greek ones. When the Romans took over, they replaced the Greek religion with Roman beliefs. The Romans in particular were very good at "romanizing" conquered territories, so much so that by the time Christianity came to be a powerful force in the world in the 4th century (largely due to Constantine), the ancient Egyptian civilization had been completely replaced by Roman culture.

[genovese]

David george said "I am sorry I called you a theist I apologize.I am sorry man sorry for the pain caused.."

Don’t worry yourself, after a few "Mea Culpas" I have been forgiven and allowed back into Atheism.

[charles brough]

I am amazed that there is this long discussion about "the soul" in a biological forum and an evolution thread!. . . even after you all agree that it is irrelevant to biology, medicine and evolution! To a Fundamentalist, it would be totally relevant, but I have no reason to suspect any of you are escaped red-necks, cajuns, or Florida crackers from the religious forums!

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[David George]

"Mea Culpas" what is that genovese
Hey Alex I am damn sure that the Christians destroyed the Egyptians they were the cause for the complete wipe out of the Ancient egyptian people cos they persecuted saying that they worshipped Pagan gods and hence were intolerant to the other people.

[genovese]

The origin of the expression is from a traditional prayer in the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church known as Confiteor (Latin for "I confess"), in which the individual recognizes his or her flaws before God. The "mea culpa," as the Confiteor has come to be known popularly, is not simply a confession of sins, but rather an admission of one’s flawed nature and the willingness to make amends for it. copied from Wikipedia.

[alextemplet]

Charles, I AM Cajun! And damn. proud of it! 👿

[genovese]

"Charles, I AM Cajun!"

Alex, could you, for europeans like me, tell me what a Cajun is? I presume it is an American expression of some sort?

[alextemplet]

"Cajun" is an English transliteration of the French term "acadien." "L’Acadie" was the French name for Nova Scotia, and the French settlers that lived there were calles "les acadiens." When the British took over Nova Scotia, they forcibly deported the French settlers that were living there. Many of those French settlers went to Louisiana, which was at that time still under French control and called la louisianne. These settlers still referred to themselves as "les acadiens," and they became the predominant culture in the bayous and swamps of south Louisiana. After the US purchased Louisiana, the Americans referred to les acadiens as Cajuns.

I was raised in the Cajun culture, learning Cajun French (a dialect still heavily based on 18th century French) before I learned to speak English. Today, the Cajun culture is rapidly disappearing as young Cajuns abandon their heritage in favor of more "modern" American culture.

[charles brough]

quote David George:

“Mea Culpas” what is that genovese
Hey Alex I am damn sure that the Christians destroyed the Egyptians they were the cause for the complete wipe out of the Ancient egyptian people cos they persecuted saying that they worshipped Pagan gods and hence were intolerant to the other people.

The old Egyptian civilization was by then over 3,000 years old! The people were worshipping some three to four thousand gods! The new religion of Zoaraster and the one of the Jews showed people a more advanced view of the world. Monotheism became "in", the advanced thing to believe in. Christianity was a form of semi-monotheism that appealed to poor people. It spread like fire. People all over the Near East and North Africa took it up. The Romans kept garrisons in Egypt to control its government, but Egypt is a big country and Rome had little influence on the common people of the whole upper Nile!

Besides, the Mesopotamian religion had already died and been replaced by Persian mono or dualtheism. Egypt just followed along with Babylon and the rest.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

I already told you why I think all life has a soul; it simply doesn’t make sense to me any other way.

I concede your point as far as medicine having to do with more than just the physical. Surely it can have emotional and mental effects as well, but certainly not spiritual. As the soul is spiritual by definition, it lies outside the reach of medicine.

It seems to me that if you prefer to ALSO believe in "spirits" ("souls") and other such "spiritual" matters AS WELL AS SCIENCE, we would consider that a personal problem you have and refrian from commenting any further. I hope, then, you two can get back to discussing science alone and keep off non-science subject matter! At least, this is what I hope will happen as I am learning things by observing your posts. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[David George]

Ok Charles and Alex I saw a documentary in one of the episodes named egyptian journeys in the BBC world.In which they said about how the mighty egyptian civilization came to an end and how it came to an end.I will try my other sources to get more information.
genovese thanks for enlightening me about Mea Culpas 😆 .I was brought up as a protestant so my knowledge about catholics ritual stuff is poor

[alextemplet]

quote charles brough:

It seems to me that if you prefer to ALSO believe in “spirits” (“souls”) and other such “spiritual” matters AS WELL AS SCIENCE, we would consider that a personal problem you have and refrian from commenting any further. I hope, then, you two can get back to discussing science alone and keep off non-science subject matter! At least, this is what I hope will happen as I am learning things by observing your posts. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

So religion is a personal problem and because of it I should refrain from commenting? Charles, I hope someone bans you. All you have done is make a mockery of our normally-intelligent discussion and pissed everyone off. I wouldn’t mind as much if there was an ounce of truth or logic to anything you say but there isn’t. I was quite enjoying genovese and my discussion before you ruined it with your absurdity.

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

So religion is a personal problem and because of it I should refrain from commenting? Charles, I hope someone bans you. All you have done is make a mockery of our normally-intelligent discussion and pissed everyone off. I wouldn’t mind as much if there was an ounce of truth or logic to anything you say but there isn’t. I was quite enjoying genovese and my discussion before you ruined it with your absurdity.

I see I have upset you. Please, continue your discussion with the others and I will stay out.

[alextemplet]

Let me just ask you this, and I’ll try to be civil. What’s wrong with being Cajun? I’m honestly curious about this.

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

Let me just ask you this, and I’ll try to be civil. What’s wrong with being Cajun? I’m honestly curious about this.

I am a classicist. I see a "high culture" developing in every civilization at a certain stage of its cycle—that is, the early maturity. It personally appeals to me as well as being a sort of benchmark in each civilization. I am proud of our Western classical culture. I love opera, ballet, etc. I appreciate classical art and poetry.

I have lived among poor people and understand them from long exposure. I am not judgemental towards them and we have helped each other through crisis. I have lived in old RV parks for 2.5 years with them and know their problems. I have listened to Cajun music and, as well, Mexican Rancheros for months without complaint. I have lived among people with long beards and in the "red neck culture" but even they do not claim that their ways are elegant, classical, the best in taste!

I am proud of you! You asked a very difficult question and I have done my best to answer it . . .

[alextemplet]

How can you claim a culture to be the "best in taste"? That seems to be extremely arrogant to me.

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

How can you claim a culture to be the “best in taste”? That seems to be extremely arrogant to me.

Considering your own FAITH to be "the Truth" seems to me to make it "the best" in one’s mind . . .which is also arrogance. I am just satisfied to believe natural cause and effect gives us merely a more acturate picture of ourselves and the universe around us. I don’t claim to have "absolute knowledge."

[alextemplet]

That doesn’t answer my question. "Truth" can be established based on evidence and investigation. I doubt anyone’s going to claim that to be arrogance, and if you can show where I am wrong, I’ll reconsider.

My question was about culture. Culture is the practices and customs of a group of people. How can you claim any one culture to be "best in taste" over others? Are Italian operas really better than zydeco music?

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

That doesn’t answer my question. “Truth” can be established based on evidence and investigation. I doubt anyone’s going to claim that to be arrogance, and if you can show where I am wrong, I’ll reconsider.

My question was about culture. Culture is the practices and customs of a group of people. How can you claim any one culture to be “best in taste” over others? Are Italian operas really better than zydeco music?

A) but what you have been preaching here is 2,000 year old doctrine that has nothing to do with "evidence and investigation." It has to do with your FAITH that it is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Most scientists do not recognize that such a thing exists.

B) I am unaware that I ever said classical music was the "best". I just mentioned that I like it best. Every civilization goes through changes that are like a life cycle. Educated Muslims, for example, look back on the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries when Islam was the strongest and when its culture had become idealistic. This they view with pride. I feel the same with my (our) civilization. (On my 2nd visit to the Vatican in Rome, I recall seeing Japanese tourists placing souveneer-bought prayer beeds around their necks. I felt an immense pride in seeing them look at the high culture of our civilization at its best. I was disappointed when I saw that the Vatican was not even among the proposals advanced for the popular election of the words greatest monuments. One that WAS selected was that immense and ugly statue of Christ in Buenos Aires!))

By the way, no two things are exactly equal. Everything is different in every way. If we cannot be equal, some have to be better. You consider yourself better. That is the reason you got educated. Everyone else does also and for the same reasons. It is just that our secular doctrines encourage us to deny it. So, everyone lies to themselves!

[alextemplet]

My apologies, then; I misunderstood what you meant by "best in taste." There is of course nothing wrong with stating that you like one sort of culture more than another. We all have our favorites. And you’re right, most people are lying to themselves.

[charles brough]

quote alextemplet:

My apologies, then; I misunderstood what you meant by “best in taste.” There is of course nothing wrong with stating that you like one sort of culture more than another. We all have our favorites. And you’re right, most people are lying to themselves.

My apologies also as several times a made jabs that were meaner than they looked!

[AstusAleator]

HUGS ALL AROUND!

[Author]

Posts