Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If that cannot be done then, yes, the person is ultimately asked to humbly submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. With regard to the above point—

Publicly, or also privately, on one’s own mind? Publicly, I can see a person making such a choice (Teilhard de Chardin ultimately did, I believe). But i ...[text shortened]... ish. Is that what the Church asks—or again, am I still too stuck in a more Protestant paradigm?[/b]

I don't know what you mean by "Protestant paradigm", but if it means a reluctance to give the Church the benefit of the doubt, then it appears to me as though you are.

There is a private mental submission to be made as well -- but it is not as extreme as you suppose. It might be clearer if I differentiated between notional assent and real assent (a distinction introduced by Cdl. John Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism himself). In the latter, one says "I believe X with all my heart". In the former, one says "I'm not entirely convinced of X, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt / I'll act under the assumption that X is right and wait/pray/study to gain a better and more convincing understanding/faith of X". It is the latter that the Church asks for. As you can see, it does not ask one to believe something one does not honestly believe in; nor does it ask one to stop the inquiry in one's own mind. This is not too dissimilar from the example you provided of deferring to your wife's better judgment.

I understand "freedom of conscience" being a pillar of Episcopalianism; but I'm not so sure it is the same thing as reason. After all, fideism originated within the Protestant movement and has been soundly condemned by the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by Palynka
I believe the binomial responsibility/randomness are connected in his reasoning, especially regarding his considerations between an Authoritarian God and a Paternal one.

I see your point in that it is not explicit, but his reasoning seems more coherent if I take this view in consideration.

If his view is that God cannot act in the Universe because of the randomness in it (which is the only way I see his point about omnipotence bearing fruit), then he really has to explain, as a Catholic philosopher, how it was that God was able to act in the Incarnation, through the Church, through the sacraments etc.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate
By SIMON CALDWELL, Daily Mail 16:57pm 23rd August 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.
He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contr ...[text shortened]... Arizona in Tucson.
http://www.imagedumpster.com/uploads/7aa873cb73.jpg

I could not read beyond the totally bogus assertion that Intelligent Design "essentially backs" the Adam and Eve story.

That is so ignorantly biased that it warrants the rest of that particular jounalistic review of the affair, frankly, not worth the time to read.

Originally posted by jaywill
I could not read beyond the totally bogus assertion that Intelligent Design "essentially backs" the Adam and Eve story.

That is so ignorantly biased that it warrants the rest of that particular jounalistic review of the affair, frankly, not worth the time to read.

Intelligent Design was designed as a way of getting Creationism accepted as a scientific theory by pretending it isn't about God.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Remember what happened with that Galileo fellow?

Remember Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) who wrote:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"

Isaac Newton - "General Scholium," in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687)

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Intelligent Design was designed as a way of getting Creationism accepted as a scientific theory by pretending it isn't about God.

Intelligent Design is a philosophy used by SETI scientists to assume that extraterrestial life sending radio signals towards earth should be able to be intelligently deciphered as such.

They probably would not admit to it though.

Originally posted by jaywill
Intelligent Design is a philosophy used by SETI scientists to assume that extraterrestial life sending radio signals towards earth should be able to be intelligently deciphered as such.

They probably would not admit to it though.

Nope. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Origin_of_the_movement

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Nope. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Origin_of_the_movement

Are you saying that SETI is not based on the premise that something that looks intelligently designed probably is?

Originally posted by jaywill
Remember Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) who wrote:

[b]"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"

Isaac Newton - "General Scholium," in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687)[/b]

Shock! People have been wrong in the past. Would you be amazed to know that Lord Kelvin believed the Earth to be somewhere between a few million and 100,000 years old? Does that change his contribution to science?

We now know things Newton did not.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Shock! People have been wrong in the past. Would you be amazed to know that Lord Kelvin believed the Earth to be somewhere between a few million and 100,000 years old? Does that change his contribution to science?

We now know things Newton did not.

Doesn't mean Newton would've changed his views if he knew what we now know; or that he was wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you saying that SETI is not based on the premise that something that looks intelligently designed probably is?

Yes I am.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If his view is that God cannot act in the Universe because of the randomness in it (which is the only way I see his point about omnipotence bearing fruit), then he really has to explain, as a Catholic philosopher, how it was that God was able to act in the Incarnation, through the Church, through the sacraments etc.

Let's not go to the other extreme. Nobody said that God cannot act.

I believe that his point is that God allows a certain randomness not that all is random. Hence, God as a nurturer and not as a dictator.

Anyway, I don't think we'll agree on this point, even if I think we both see what the other one's point is.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Doesn't mean Newton would've changed his views if he knew what we now know; or that he was wrong.

"Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent."

Newton could not see the mechanism which started the orbits of the planets and therefore perscribed it to a designer. That is bad science. Now that we know of the mechanisms Newton would have no need for a designer. So why would he invoke one?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Shock! People have been wrong in the past. Would you be amazed to know that Lord Kelvin believed the Earth to be somewhere between a few million and 100,000 years old? Does that change his contribution to science?

We now know things Newton did not.

I think Newton was expressing an opinion. And I fail to see what more recent discovery since his time renders his opinion so grossly incorrect, if it is.

I would rather say that recent discoveries since Newton's day make his statement not less likely but more so IMO. ie. the biochemical machinery of a living cell.