The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA more supple notion of who God is
by Rich Heffern on Aug. 08, 2011
As a kid raised in a large family with what he calls “healthy neglect,” the late Passionist Fr. Thomas Berry roamed the woods and fields around his home in Greensboro, N.C. At the age of 11, he said, his sense of “the natural world in its numinous presence” came to him when he discovered a new meadow on the edge of town.
“The field was covered with white lilies rising above the thick grass. A magic moment, this experience gave to my life something that seems to explain my thinking at a more profound level than almost any other experience I can remember.”
It was not only the lilies, he said. “It was the singing of the crickets and the woodlands in the distance and the clouds in the clear sky. … This early experience has remained with me ever since as the basic determinant of my sense of reality and values. Whatever fosters this meadow is good. What does harm to this meadow is not good.”
By extension, he said, “a good economic, or political, or educational system is one that would preserve that meadow and a good religion would reveal the deeper experience of that meadow and how it came into being.”
Berry turned religion on its head when he said the meadow directly reveals the good, the true and the beautiful. Knowing where that meadow came from, and then letting that knowledge shape and inform our theological speculation is fundamentally important if our religions are to be a true guide for living and for making decisions about ethics, politics, education, and use of natural resources.
When Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and even the biblical authors were writing, people thought rats, mice and flies were spontaneously generated from trash and filth. When Cardinal John Henry Newman was alive, devastating cholera epidemics in London were thought to be caused by breathing bad air.
Before the early 1800s, we had no sense of the scale of time. Nothing about early humanity was known until old skulls were discovered in Belgium in 1829. It wasn’t until 1857 that it was announced that bones found in Germany’s Neanderthal Valley were different from ours, the remains of an early race.
A plethora of smudges of light in the sky that were not stars were thought to be part of a not-far-away geocentric sphere.
Science has cleared these mysteries up and gone on, delving into the heart of matter itself and the deepest reaches of space, but our values remain rooted in philosophies, religious traditions and ethical frameworks devised a millennium or two ago.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Our religious views and theologies were firmly set before anyone knew the world was a globe. They reflect how we understood the world when we didn’t understand the world. “Our economic, religious and ethical institutions ride antique notions too narrow to freight what we’ve learned about how life works on our sparkle dot of diamond dust in space,” writes scientist Carl Safina. “They haven’t assimilated the last century’s breakthroughs: that all life is related by lineage, by flows of energy, and by cycles of water, carbon, nitrogen; that resources are finite, and creatures fragile.”
We’re even slipping backwards. A 2008 CBS poll showed most Americans don’t accept science’s theory of evolution. Fifty-one percent say God created humans in their present form in a day.
A “Creation Museum” opened that same year in Kentucky, costing $27 million to build, sitting on 49 acres. The nonprofit ministry that built the museum, Answers in Genesis, claims the entire universe, with its hundreds of billions of galaxies, was created in six days 6,000 years ago, and that “fact” serves as the guiding principle for the museum. Founder Ken Ham told an interviewer that the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of humans and a modern antagonism toward faith.
Yet that fickle reasoning — science — is really nothing more or less than a kind of shrewd honesty in finding out how nature works in all its details. Science has its limits and shortcomings, but it’s still the best way we have to learn about microbes, brain cells, ancient relic bones and stars. The discoveries of modern science, one carefully building upon another, not only make possible our televisions, laptops and cell phones but have revealed to us a great deal about the physics of ordinary matter, about the planet on which we live, about the universe in which our planet is embedded and out of which it — and us — came into being.
In the last hundred years, science has provided more information on life than in all of recorded history.
Until recently — the 1920s — we humans really haven’t even known exactly where we are. We can thank astronomers Henrietta Leavitt and Edwin Hubble for giving us an understanding of the vast extent and scope of the universe, introducing us to the hundreds of billions of galaxies that are the basic entities of the cosmos. They took us to the bridge to look out from the window and see where exactly we are. It’s what inquiring minds do.
Berry proclaimed: “Although as yet unrealized, this scientific account of the universe is the greatest religious, moral and spiritual event that has taken place in recent centuries. It is the supreme humanistic and spiritual as well as the supreme scientific event.”
Famed biologist E.O. Wilson put it another way: “The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have.” This same story, he added, “retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic.”
This year Terrence Malick’s film, “The Tree of Life,” brought that thought adroitly to the cinematic screen. If the movie’s universe-evolution sequence was too solemnly lofty or operatic for you, there’s a Canadian hip-hop artist named Baba Brinkman who rhymes “huge manatee” with “humanity” and concludes his “Rap Guide to Evolution”: “It’s time to elevate your mind state/And celebrate your kinship with the primate.”
“The universe is made of stories, not atoms,” said poet Muriel Rukeyser. We need to take science seriously, even when it forces us to re-examine Catholic theology and doctrine. Absorbing science’s stories deeply can help us to see all of us and nature as kin. It can foster awareness of the absolute necessity of preserving Earth’s life-support systems. What meaning does the Second Coming have, for example, if there is no one here for the arrival?
It can speak meaningfully to our children who now face a daunting future with a climate born in a human-rocked cradle.
Did a fuddy-duddy God create those distant gas clouds, immense spiral-armed galaxies or the fossil record here on Earth just to test our belief? Probably not.
Is the vastness of space-time just a backdrop for a salvation drama exclusively between Earthlings and God? Probably not.
Are scientists’ investigations, like the nefarious machinations of some archvillain in a superhero comic, just attempts to undermine family values, morals and faith? Probably not.
A recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey found that Catholics generally accept evolutionary theory as the explanation for all life. It’s encouraging. Quaffing down the evolution Kool-Aid doesn’t mean caving in to meaninglessness. Some Catholic theologians, like St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, John Haught, or the late Dominican Fr. Cletus Wessels, are out in front in this effort to blend science wisely with religious speculation. They need the support of the whole church.
In a day when young people download Hubble Space Telescope photos of the distant beginnings of the universe onto their iPhones, we Catholics need a much more expansive and supple notion of who God is, of who we are, and of our purpose here on Earth.
Editor's Note:
Subscribe to the Eco Catholic email alert to get weekly highlights from the blog. If you already receive email alerts from NCR, add Eco Catholic to your profile.
Learn more.
Who would have thought in the
Who would have thought in the 20th Century that Catholic Schools would be one secure place where modern science would be taught and honored. We find around us frenzied believers who insist on passing laws from state to state supporting "Bible based science" or "creationism." In our inner city parish school we tried hard to surround the children with the best models available, putting giant maps of the earth and of Hubble-based pictures of outer space on the walls of the cafeteria. The hope was to speak to their imaginations rather than to try to fight with their family and cultural beliefs. As we close down so many of these "poor schools" now, we turn over education to an uncertain fate.
Scopes of the famous trial
Scopes of the famous trial was a Catholic.
Curious about the quote you
Curious about the quote you attributed to Ken Ham: “The conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of humans and a modern antagonism toward faith.” These can't be his words -- Ken would never make such a blanket comment about modern science. Is this perhaps someone else's summary of what they think Ken believes? If so, please correct the blog. Thank you. Mark
It's an indirect quote from
It's an indirect quote from an article on Salon.com that appeared in 2007. Here's the entire paragraph:
"The Book of Genesis, that famous first chapter of the Bible, which Ham's group has interpreted to claim that the universe was created in six 24-hour days a mere 6,000 years ago, serves as the blueprint for the museum. Astronomy, geology and evolution, as they are commonly understood in mainstream science, have no place here. As Ham later tells me, the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of man and a modern antagonism toward faith. On the other hand, he says, the Book of Genesis is true 'from the first word to the last.'"
The article is by Gordy Slack.
You're correct to say that it shouldn't have been framed by quotes, and I've changed that in the article.
Ken Ham is aware of and
Ken Ham is aware of and supports modern science. Modern science can be tested, repeated and observed. Many Christian scientists use modern science daily.
It is a misquote that Ken Ham never spoke. This should be corrected or noted in some way.
Ken Ham now has a blog post
Ken Ham now has a blog post wondering what an "indirect quote" is. As I have been banned from commenting on his Facebook site perhaps Mark Looy (Chief Communications Officer for Answers in Genesis) who commented above will read this here. Please direct your attention to this link to understand what an "indirect quote" is: http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/indirquoterm.htm. Yes, Mr. Heffern perhaps shouldn't have made it a "direct quote" but he is admitting it is an "indirect quote" here. It is not an unwarranted indirect quote either, considering the preceding sentence "Astronomy, geology and evolution, as they are commonly understood in MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, have no place here [the creation museum]." [emphasis mine]. Would Ken Ham not agree with this sentiment? Ken Ham takes offense that this indirect quote is a blanket statement that says he dismisses ALL modern science. However, I doubt the intentions of the Salon article author were of this nature. The indirect quote could quite easily be in reference to the disagreement between AiG and modern science in a great number of scientific areas. It would bode well with AiG to present a little charitable consideration than to immediately assume the worst and take offense. It would also seem some lessons in basic English language usage, as well as science, are in desperate need at AiG headquarters.
Oh, in other words, you're
Oh, in other words, you're lying. What else do you make up? Hey, they have a big project going on and need a few million dollars. A libel suit against you might give them the funds they need. It may not be too late to man up, though.
"we Catholics need a much
"we Catholics need a much more expansive and supple notion of who God is, of who we are, and of our purpose here on Earth."
- Not really. We simply need to stop trying to trim Him down and trying to force Him to fit our neat little preconceived political ideologies.
Simply put, we need to stop rejecting the notion HE GAVE US of who HE is is and accept it.
This is a delight to read,
This is a delight to read, Rich.
Over and over, I repeat my
Over and over, I repeat my mantra--that it is with the eyes of faith AND science that we get a three-dimensional view of the Trinitarian God. Faith enables us to see the radiance of science, the meaningfulness of dinosaurs and protozoa, the connectedness of kidneys and quantum, the wonder of DNA and David. It is all about God, the Father-Creator, the Son of Man, who is brother (DNA-wise, too!), and the incomparably present spirit-conscience-Divinity who is part and parcel of our subjectivity, a really nice virus! ONLY with both science and Faith. The Faith Alone person worships religion, not God; the science alone person worships Self, not God. Both beget humility. If only....
God is Love, and it is our
God is Love, and it is our refusal to love which holds us from ever fuller communion with God.
Ubi caritas . . .as we once chanted, repeatedly, in this Catholic Church
"natural world in its
"natural world in its numinous presence"
How many millions of indigenous folks all over the world have sensed in the Creation the existence and presence of the Creator (who in Biblical terms 'found' the own created good. The most "uneducated" (in Euro-American terms) on the planet have come to appreciate the gift of the planet. It is we "educated" people who have decided that the Creation is not worthy of respect, except in terms of what we may drill, mine, or fertilize under with own hands.
Blessed is the Priest who can derive and communicate a sense of the majesty of the Creator from experiencing the work of the Creator's hands.
I am speaking poetically (hands), as I do not believe in a 'bricklayer/knitter' God who had to design directly and build directly everything that is, as opposed to a God who can create the whole universe known and unknown in an instant, creating matter a with an 'operating system' that includes, for example, evolution as a tool to that end.
Science is wonderful provided that science never concludes that what it has proved by the scientific method is all and everything that will ever be found true.
Incredible! My childhood was
Incredible! My childhood was stolen by a sad and tragic family situation. No,
it had nothing to do with abuse of the current pre-occupation. I fled to the
wilds of the adjacent Phoenix Park and communed with nature. I was at peace there in the trees and sitting quietly among the deer. Later I came to love and treasure 40 lines or so from Wordsworth's Lines written above Tintern Abbey... beginning with "And now with gleams of half extinguished thought...
I suppose it was very pagan at first but I came to see a deep spiritual connect with creation. Until the genesis of recent particle physics I felt
quite lost in the apparent dead end of matter. But with Quantum analysis comes the possibility of 10 or more dimensions. Suddenly I could sieze upon the idea of casting off our material existence to be able to continue into
the other dimensional possibilities. I laughed at the Genesis bit. My
fellow countryman Bishop Usher had it all worked out to the day and minute.
I wonder what he would have to say if he knew Genesis was not an original document and we have found a precursor some 1000 years earlier with no less
than 12 perfect correlations to the story. That flood made a very big impression. Notably creation myths north of the Sahara all have a flood, while south of the sahara their myths are all animal related. The great
contribution of our Genesis was that it arrived at a one God conclusion,
Gilgamesh arrived at a proliferation of Gods. We catholics have to accept evolution as in it lies our only possibility for a future life.
God Bless.
TomC.
"Our religious views and
"Our religious views and theologies were firmly set before anybody knew the world was a globe." Well, not quite. Ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth was a globe and, using only trigonometry, had even calculated the circumference fairly accurately. But then most of the scientific knowledge of the ancients was lost or deliberately suppressed for about 1,000 years after the triumph of Christianity. Interesting Dante, who lived and wrote on the eve of the Renaissance, depicts the earth as a globe in the "Commedia".
I can think of nothing more
I can think of nothing more awe inducing than that of a Creator God creating an evolutionary or self creating universe. It fits with all of our science be it biological, physical, geological or cosmological. There is no contradiction between belief in God and accepting the fact of evolution. The THEORY of evolution relates to the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, not the fact that it does. These mechanisms science will continue to discover and refine. Our own faith like that of Thomas Berry can be incredibly enriched and deepened by understanding the science of our cosmos and of our earth.
I would listen to the daily
I would listen to the daily or weekly radio programs of Ken Ham and argue with my late husband about the value of evolution. The Creation Museum is near me, and yet I see it as being a vital essential part of the black-and-white people's belief system. Gray is an unknown and unwanted condition. I was never able to understand why evolution was not based upon God's continuing presence, and knowing there is an unknown!
I'm curious how this quote (I
I'm curious how this quote (I trust you recognize it, but for the benefit of others… http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM) squares with the belief that got did not directly create man:
"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'."
Sounds like Catholic doctrine would happily agree with the 51% you mentioned.
In this article -
In this article - http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/08/10/what-does-ind... - Mark Looy's colleague Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis claims that Gordy Slack (an only occasional blogger it appears unlike Rich Heffern) misrepresented Ham in 2007 in this article: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/31/creation_museum/.
Almost 24 hours' ago I emailed AiG (including Ham) as follows:
"http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/08/10/what-does-indirect-quote-mean/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29
What a load of hot air and indignation!
The original 2007 article by Slack states: "The Book of Genesis, that famous first chapter of the Bible, which Ham's group has interpreted to claim that the universe was created in six 24-hour days a mere 6,000 years ago, serves as the blueprint for the museum. Astronomy, geology and evolution, as they are commonly understood in mainstream science, have no place here. As Ham later tells me, the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of man and a modern antagonism toward faith. On the other hand, he says, the Book of Genesis is true "from the first word to the last."
To me, that paragraph implies that Ken Ham distrusts the conclusions of astronomy, geology and evolution (and takes Bible 'revelation' as the source of his 'science' in those areas). Which of course is factually correct.
Ham also recently wrote on the Answers in Genesis website "many will question millions of years and evolution once they are taught how to think correctly about science and the Bible—shown how observational science confirms that millions of years and evolution can’t be true and how the Genesis account of origins explains the evidence" - http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/18/your-tax-doll....
I think any fair-minded person would consider that Ham and AiG are anti-science - as science would be defined in a good (ie informative) dictionary - and they wish for people, even those who are already Christians, to be indoctrinated into formulating their 'science' of origins from the book of Genesis instead of from examining all the material evidence.
And here's another example of their compromising of science: "As Ken Ham said, “Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary[-length] days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history."” http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/young-earth-creationists. Millions and billions of years have been shown - by the scientific method - to be correct (and 6,000 years to be unquestionably WRONG). Why not learn to live with this and accept that God was mistaken or lying when he wrote the Bible (or perhaps the Bible is just speculating about dates and ages in a pre-scientific era, or it was simply written by humans who had little knowledge of origins)? Why not admit that you reject conventional origins science predominantly for reasons of Bible DOGMA and not because you can show that conventional science is mistaken about the age of Earth and the universe?
The blog of 10 August states: "Mr. Slack did not quote me directly, but just misrepresented my views as discounting the findings of science." Is Ken Ham DENYING ever saying something along the lines of Slack's words in the third sentence above which - taken in context - imply (correctly) that Ham and the Creation Museum reject findings from conventional astronomy and geology and reject evolution (other than changes within 'kinds')? If NOT, how exactly did Slack - who put nothing in quotes that Ham questions - 'misrepresent' him?"
My email was copied to both Rich Heffern and Gordy Slack. I have received NO reply to it, nor any hint whatsoever that a reply will follow later from AiG (or anyone else). From which I suspect that Ham's accusation against Slack is false - his original piece may have been slightly ambiguous about the extent to which Ham rejects scientific findings, that is all.
AiG are also on record as describing anything that is in opposition to the message of the Bible (that includes any science that disproves Genesis) as merely 'Man's fallible opinion': http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20031114_208...
These people at Ham's Facebook page - notably Nelson Howell and Stephen Cover - seem unable to see the wood for the trees! http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham?sk=wall
I have been waiting over ten
I have been waiting over ten years for a statement like this to appear in a Catholic publication. Previous statements on the relationship of humans to the natural world by the American bishops and the pope have always been careful to underscore the moral status of humans above and apart from the natural world,and to describe our responsibility to the natural world primarily in terms of stewardship. There has been a fear that to acknowledge the awe we should feel toward God's creation would be to open the door to some sort of natural religion. It seems clear that as we deepen our knowledge and appreciation for the utter magnificence of creation, we also deepen our appreciation and awe for its Creator.
Thanks for a wonderful statement. How can we begin to extend this message to a wider audience?
Essential information is
Essential information is missing in Rich Heffern's presentation, in regards to history, science and scripture. In God's Philosophers, shortlisted for the 2010 science book prize by the Royal Society, James Hannam illustrates how the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. Central to this progress was the support of the Catholic Church. V. Carroll and D. Schifflet (Christianity on Trial) further document that the 'so-called' dark ages were a period of great scientific advances stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. In For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark explains how Christian theology was essential for the rise of science and writes: "It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork." Science, to a significant degree, arose from a Christian worldview.
Science emerged as a way of learning about the natural world, so that God's call to steward the Earth could be fulfilled. The Bible provided necessary foundational beliefs in which scientific disciplines could grow and develop, including: we are separate beings from God; through studying nature, we can come to know Him; nature itself is not God; we have a free will, which we can exercise purposefully; the information that we gather from our senses is real and not illusory; human interactions are to be carried out in an environment that is open, transparent and ethical; the universe/nature has a uniformity/consistency. With these presuppositions the necessary framework for correctly understanding the natural world was provided.
Biblical creationist Louis Pasteur helped establish the scientific law of biogenesis: life only comes from life.
Neanderthal fossil evidence shows that they buried their dead, had musical instruments, used jewelry, controlled fire, hunted large mammals, were buried with other humans, constructed stone tools identical to that of other humans and had a brain capacity slightly larger than modern humans. Neanderthals were human.
Steven Jay Gould stated that, although racism existed before Darwinism, it increased by orders of magnitude, as a result of the scientific support of Darwin (Ontogeny and Phylogeny.
The Bible describes the earth as a circle/sphere hung in space (Job 20 6:7; Isaiah 40:22).
From the beginning of the Church, all major Christian thinkers understood that the Earth is a sphere. It is evident from art and architecture, as well as written documents. For an interesting article on this matter read "The Late Birth of a Flat Earth" by Stephen Jay Gould.
The Bible correctly states that the number of stars cannot be counted (Jeremiah 33:22).
When words are attributed to someone, and they communicate with you that it is not an accurate representation, such as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, why do you not simply ask them to state clearly what it is they believe and write down what they actually say rather than relying on a third-party? At the very least, you could quote their writing. I believe this kind of practice would provide your readers with greater knowledge, and it would also be a way of promoting mutual understanding.
C. S. Lewis, in contrast to Rich Heffern, considered evolution a 'tragedy' and “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization." Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’ (Quotations from the J. Bergman article: "C. S. Lewis: Creationist and Anti-Evolutionist").
Post new comment