THEISTIC EVOLUTION, Catholicism & Bruno's Acentric Universe

Dear Marie, Please talk more about 'spiritual science.'

Addendum to your interchange: a very coherent and accessible approach to this subject is a three-volume work by Alister McGrath on Scientific Theology (dealing in each volume with "Nature", "Reality", and "Theory", respectively.) the value of the McGrath's work is that it is both theologically and scientifically rigorous (and the bibliography is terrific.) A summary treatment can be found in McGrath's book, "The Science of God".

McGrath states his aim to be the explication of a vision motivated chiefly by his desire to develop a PUBLIC theology that would overcome the insular character of most contemporary theology (and its special 'club talk".) He also wants to "render Scripture faithfully" and reckons that to do that there must be a dialogue between science and the evangelical legacy of post-WWII theological development. This won't be everybody's cup of tea, and I, also, am resistant to some of the evangelical assumptions built into the discourse. But as a contextual text this is a valuable resource. [I especially like his refusal to counter-pose social constructivism and empirical science.]

God's peace,

EMcC+

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)

It's a term I came across in a book I picked up recently that was published in the 1950's.

It said that our society's knowledge in terms of material science has grown phenomenally, while knowledge in terms of social and spiritual science, which should provide the foundation for material science has not grown sufficiently to support the developments in material science. It said that material science was a product of people's spiritual and social awareness.

It said that unless more attention and effort were put into developing social and spiritual knowledge, the advances in material science would become the enemy of humanity, causing civilization to collapse. Whether true or not, the book contended that in millenia past, very advanced civilizations had developed on earth, but that in their rivalry for material dominance over one another, they had virtually obliterated themselves, resulting in the survivors finding themselves back in a stone age and having to evolve into a civilization again.

One of the points of developing socially and spiritually would be to recognize the interdependence of all human beings and their dependence upon God, so that success, as a concept, could not be seen as something that comes at the expense of another or as dominance over others. It said that the Biblical command to love one another is more properly translated as a command to understand one another. It is this understanding that is the product of social and spiritual science. It is different from the knowledge gained by studying people or God, because knowledge resides in the head, while understanding resides in the heart.

Perhaps the point is that if science (new knowledge) isn't reflectively integrated into the body of consciousness (collective wisdom, faith grounding), then the ladder rung to higher consciousness is broken, and the missed step interferes with the integration of later science that links to the missing step.

It is a cumulative problem when critical science is not integrated into learning in the unfolding of consciousness — when science has not been "spiritualized" it is not "owned", and so necessary change can't happen when essential links of learning are missing.

These three insights of the cosmic mind constitute the a priori assumptions which make it possible for man to function as a rational and self-conscious personality in the realms of science, philosophy, and religion. Stated otherwise, the recognition of the reality of these three manifestations of the Infinite is by a cosmic technique of self-revelation. Matter-energy is recognized by the mathematical logic of the senses; mind-reason intuitively knows its moral duty; spirit-faith (worship) is the religion of the reality of spiritual experience. These three basic factors in reflective thinking may be unified and co-ordinated in personality development, or they may become disproportionate and virtually unrelated in their respective functions. But when they become unified, they produce a strong character consisting in the correlation of a factual science, a moral philosophy, and a genuine religious experience. And it is these three cosmic intuitions that give objective validity, reality, to man's experience in and with things, meanings, and values.

Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Science "appears" to be changing as we discover more about the conditions that exist in the Universe that God created. Once you introduce a false assumption as if it were true, the truth then becomes distorted, and any new information coming from this false assumption would no longer be true. This is true of all truth.

Collective knowledge becomes wisdom when complemented by Faith. It is Faith that enables us to use all knowledge in the way that God intended. That is the essence of Wisdom.

I really don't understand what you are saying.

If we discover, by way of Wisdom, that the conditions that exist in the Universe that God created, are premised on God's love for us and the ability for humankind to live in these conditions, faith requires that we "love one another."

Collective knowledge is not necessarily collective consciousness. Knowledge can be stagnant, however consciousness would include momentum. It could be argued that it is love alone that enables us to use all knowledge in the way that God intended and that would be by being loving. The essence of Wisdom would then be Love which has transcended from Hope and Faith.

Anne, the more we come to know, the more we come to know what we don't know. I think there is a problem with less than qualified teachers sometimes presenting information in a way that leaves out the uncertainties. However, if we were to be as thorough in our science education as possible, I don't think you would have this fear of heading down the wrong path based on incomplete and imperfect scientific conclusions.

As it is, though, people who share your fear tend to turn their back on science, clinging instead to religion as the ultimate truth, when it too is only an imperfect means of conveying the truth to us. It may not be necessary for each individual to grow in comprehension of the truth, as we are all saved as individuals through Christ. However, for the sake of our world and individuals yet to come--so that they have a world in which their conscious relationship with God can begin and grow--we need to integrate scientific knowledge with our spiritual awareness.

Marie I do not fear Science or any knowledge. Knowledge helps to explain God's Universe.

Yes, and more importantly how we are to relate to each other, the universe and God.

Then I guess I'm with Sylvester, above. I don't understand what you are saying, either.

...and we suffer the consequences. The denial of change, whether in new knowledge or fuller appreciation of old knowledge rather than preserving the body of faith, renders it un-credible, un-spiritual and un-religious. Worse, to seek to expunge new learning and revert yields repugnancy.

Thanks so very much for the explanation. Years ago I saw a tv show in which a westerner, I think it was Bill Moyers, was touring India and encountered an old woman. She was very poor, bent, almost toothless, simply clothed and her eyes filled with tears and she touched his cheek gently, saying,"I am so sorry for you because you do not have what I have."

Indeed, there is more to life than the things with which we impress one another and which are taken as signs of God's favor. "Blessed are the..." is so puzzling to people who do not think beyond the material world and the here and now. The "deficiencies" listed in the Beatitudes open people to God in whatever form they envision Him, and once God truly enters someone's life, they are blessed beyond anyone else.

Marie, I believe that the beatitudes are puzzling because they have been incorrectly translated into modern english.

Add to that the multitude of interpretations that "experts" have made, and what was intended to be a primer on spirituality has turned into a cacophany of confusion.

Well, I do think they are meant to be interpreted in various ways, but what would you say is the correct translation and message?

"Correct translation?" What are the requirements of love — what faith reveals.

"Correct message?" One who takes faith seriously, takes love seriously; and one who takes love seriously, takes faith seriously.

The true heart discerns the translation and the message in every situation at hand.

Marie, When I use the word "science", I mean it in the sense of the original Latin, which is knowledge, learning, even wisdom, and which, when consciously absorbed, becomes wholistic in terms of informing faith, "truth." Yes, I also know that distinctions can contribute to understanding better the relatedness of knowledge, if the caveat I make is understood.

I suppose "material science" pertains to understandings discovered in physical research; I suppose "social science" pertains to the science of interpersonal relationships, and I suppose that "spiritual science" pertains to consciousness, reflective and non-reflective. I believe that generally accepted dualistic presumptions regarding energy/matter, soul/body, are misinformed materially, socially and spiritually.

In the interest of wholism I tend to avoid what seem to me superfluous distinctions because of the frustration of thinking that too often comes from them. Perhaps clarity suffers from this, my tendency. Dividing consciousness into different aspects too often causes people to assume that the distinctions are "real" when in fact they are only mental. The best example I can cite is past "Jesuitical" over-use of distinctions which tended to have the effect of making everything not understandable. (You know the word I'm reaching for and which escapes me in the moment.)

"Casuistry" is the word.

I think the distinctions may be useful insofar as it is difficult to grasp the whole, but that it should and can be recognized that the distinctions are being made for this reason, rather than because they are actually distinct. Without reaching certain plateus in thinking, it is difficult to move on to more encompassing concepts. Unfortunately, too many people tire out and stop searching for more insight when they reach a plateau. Even more unfortunately, they try to tell those who have gone further that they are wrong.

40 x 4 !!!!!!!!!!