Doubt

[theculturewarrior]

Evolution has actually deepened my faith and my relationship with God.  I am a Christian Darwinist.

 

My thoughts on the matter are as such:  Man's relationship with God is learned through his understanding of himself and through observations of his environment.  The most astute and accurate observations of our environment and our cognition and behavior come from science.  When I came to this conclusion, I realized that every scientific fact has a theological significance.  It is a very profound turning point in my faith.

 

Wrestling with doubt is not a sin.  Feelings are not sins.  I hope that you do not feel guilty for having doubts.  Maybe it is just an instinctive part of your psychology that is telling you that you need to dig deeper to strengthen your faith.  There are two things in life that are never blind.  They are faith and love.

[theculturewarrior]

I want to add one last thing.  I started off in life as an atheist.  The Church has an answer.  I would not be Catholic today if this were not so.

[Nihil Obstat]

Kevin, have you read "Come Be My Light" by Bl. Teresa of Calcutta?

[Anomaly]

 There are two things in life that are never blind.  They are faith and love.

 

I would tend to disagree.  Those are two things that require complete commitment, which enables you dismiss or not consider questions and doubts.  Very interesting commentary from John Henry Newman.  http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse11.html

[Kevin]

Kevin, have you read "Come Be My Light" by Bl. Teresa of Calcutta?

 

I have not not.

 

Truth be told, I am thinking of picking up The Moviegoer by Walker Percy (a great Catholic novelist) since I think that book's main character and I share some similar traits.

 

@theculturewarrior

 

Rationally, I know I shouldn't feel guilty. But on a subconscious level, I think that yes, I do feel a bit so.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Kevin

[Nihil Obstat]

I have not not.

 

Truth be told, I am thinking of picking up The Moviegoer by Walker Percy (a great Catholic novelist) since I think that book's main character and I share some similar traits.

 

The thing that really touched me about that book was in being able to understand Mother Teresa's struggle with faith. For most of her life, she felt almost nothing. She went from personal, mystical experience with God, to feeling that He had abandoned her. But she knew that faith was more than feeling, so even though she did not feel God, she still had faith. How does that happen? How does one have faith, even when there is such an abyss in their soul that they can hardly even pray?

The reason is that faith does not come from us, and it is not something that we 'do'. It is a gift which we can simply respond to, however we are able. So even when you do not feel it, you can still live it. 

Even that darkness is a gift, because we can use it to understand that we love God not for how it comforts us, but simply as the only possible response to such an incomprehensible, radical love for us.

[theculturewarrior]

I would tend to disagree.  Those are two things that require complete commitment, which enables you dismiss or not consider questions and doubts.  Very interesting commentary from John Henry Newman.  http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse11.html

 

It requires complete commitment, agreed, but it does not require the Christian to suspend belief.  It does not require you to dismiss questions about God, although everyone, Christians, atheists, etc. are able to do that.  God gave us freedom so that we can choose to love him.  He gave us faith and reason so that we can know him.  I love my wife very much, but that is because I know who she is.  I trust her fidelity, because I see the world in the light of reason and faith.  It is the same in my relationship with God, although hidden behind the mystery of faith.  I have never stopped looking for answers, and the Church has always provided them.

Edited November 28, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

One more thing:

 

I drifted between atheism and agnosticism when I was younger.  I think that if reason is your only instrument, true agnosticism is the only logical outcome.  I encourage everyone to take a good look at the history of philosophy, from Descartes to present.  The deeper is delved into those philosophies, the more I realized that reason alone is ineffective.  It is difficult and dizzying to know any basic thing just by testing it with reason.  I take all arguments for and against the existence of God with a grain of salt for that reason.  This is where I am at today:  The truth is many things, but it is not reductive.  It is not formulaic.  Western thought has been damaged by the search for a simple reductive formula.  Instead of that, I will use everything I have to know God, to enjoy my life, to create satisfying social bonds, and to marvel at the Universe.  Logic is just a small part of that, but truth is my foundation.

Edited November 28, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Kevin]

One more thing:

 

I drifted between atheism and agnosticism when I was younger.  I think that if reason is your only instrument, true agnosticism is the only logical outcome.  I encourage everyone to take a good look at the history of philosophy, from Descartes to present.  The deeper is delved into those philosophies, the more I realized that reason alone is ineffective.  It is difficult and dizzying to know any basic thing just by testing it with reason.  I take all arguments for and against the existence of God with a grain of salt for that reason.  This is where I am at today:  The truth is many things, but it is not reductive.  It is not formulaic.  Western thought has been damaged by the search for a simple reductive formula.  Instead of that, I will use everything I have to know God, to enjoy my life, to create satisfying social bonds, and to marvel at the Universe.  Logic is just a small part of that, but truth is my foundation.

 

I agree about Agnosticism being the end result. I think the end result of most analytical philosophy is just that. But I am trying to have some faith.

 

@Nihil Obsat

 

I appreciate that. I just, er, tend to prefer literary considerations of these themes to straightforward religious writing. In fact, I probably would have lost my faith back in college if not for the works of Flannery O'Connor.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

@Nihil Obsat

 

I appreciate that. I just, er, tend to prefer literary considerations of these themes to straightforward religious writing. In fact, I probably would have lost my faith back in college if not for the works of Flannery O'Connor.

 

Usually I am the same way. Come Be My Light is one of the very few religious books I have truly enjoyed that was not straight up theology. There is only a very small handful of books that fall into that category for me.

[theculturewarrior]

I agree about Agnosticism being the end result. I think the end result of most analytical philosophy is just that. But I am trying to have some faith.

 

@Nihil Obsat

 

I appreciate that. I just, er, tend to prefer literary considerations of these themes to straightforward religious writing. In fact, I probably would have lost my faith back in college if not for the works of Flannery O'Connor.

 

 

One thing that seems to trouble you is the authority of the Bible.  It would seem as though your approach is at odds with Catholic Doctrine on the Bible, from the very beginning of the Church.  It is an enlightened approach, and it is one reason why I am Catholic.  There is no demand for a literal interpretation for the Creation story, and there never was.  Even some of the Church Fathers believed in some kind of evolution 1.5K years prior to Darwin.

 

Every Christian confession takes some Bible passages as metaphorical, even fundamentalists.  That is because some of it is poetry.  Some of it is history.  Some of it was intended to provide theological truth, such as the Creation Story.

Edited November 28, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Kevin]

One thing that seems to trouble you is the authority of the Bible.  It would seem as though your approach is at odds with Catholic Doctrine on the Bible, from the very beginning of the Church.  It is an enlightened approach, and it is one reason why I am Catholic.  There is no demand for a literal interpretation for the Creation story, and there never was.  Even some of the Church Fathers believed in some kind of evolution 1.5K years prior to Darwin.

 

Every Christian confession takes some Bible passages as metaphorical, even fundamentalists.  That is because some of it is poetry.  Some of it is history.  Some of it was intended to provide theological truth, such as the Creation Story.

 

I believe Canon law says:

 

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

I am perfectly able to accept the first two chapters of Genesis in metaphorical terms, but the Fall must in some sense be real, and I believe this is a requirement of the faith. I am able to accept this as a matter of faith, but the ambiguity of not knowing how it happened in history (and again, it must have done so) is troubling. But I try to have faith.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Kevin

[LouisvilleFan]

Thank you for you responses. I would like to say that I found your answers totally compelling, but in a way, I it seems hard to take the Bible in only a metaphorical sense. God might have set the world into motion knowing life would evolve, but the Fall has to be something literal, as does the Covenant. But like I said, these are not really "questions" I have - I already know what the response is, I just worry that response might be wrong.

 

There is much more to the Bible than the metaphorical sense, and you're right that the Fall must be accepted as an actual event in the Catholic worldview.

 

 

Also, I have actually read so much love poetry, and in a way, I've sickened of it. All I feel is, "I wonder how it would be to feel a positive emotion so intensely, because I sure don't."

 

Not for everyone, true. Still, most of us have some kind of experience that we wouldn't mind if it lasted forever. We are made for love, after all (just about every song on the radio testifies to that). Maybe there's some depression or other negative stuff going on too? Having been through some counseling myself, I think it's worth getting to the bottom of that stuff. Finding a spiritual director would be a great idea too.

Edited November 28, 2012 by LouisvilleFan

[Kevin]

There is much more to the Bible than the metaphorical sense, and you're right that the Fall must be accepted as an actual event in the Catholic worldview.

 

 

Not for everyone, true. Still, most of us have some kind of experience that we wouldn't mind if it lasted forever. We are made for love, after all (just about every song on the radio testifies to that). Maybe there's some depression or other negative stuff going on too? Having been through some counseling myself, I think it's worth getting to the bottom of that stuff. Finding a spiritual director would be a great idea too.

 

As to depression, not really - I take my 100 mg of Zoloft pretty religiously. I think it's just that I need someone to talk to, and I think what you say about a spiritual councilor is right.

[theculturewarrior]

I believe Canon law says:

 

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

I am perfectly able to accept the first two chapters of Genesis in metaphorical terms, but the Fall must in some sense be real, and I believe this is a requirement of the faith. I am able to accept this as a matter of faith, but the ambiguity of not knowing how it happened in history (and again, it must have done so) is troubling. But I try to have faith.

 

All human beings trace their ancestry to one human mother and one human father.  This was discovered in mapping the genome.  This a father and mother who were not involved with each other, as they were thousands of years apart, but that in itself makes the requirement of faith easier for me to accept.  It is impossible to know how it happened.  It does not seem implausible however to believe that the human race began with two human beings, a man, and a woman.  Believing even that does not seem to be a requirement of the canon law that you cite.  It says our firsts parents.  Our first parents doubtlessly existed, or we wouldn't be here.

 

As for the Original Sin, again, I think an out-of-the-box approach is the only lucid way to look at it.  What does it really mean?  I don't have an answer, but the Church does.  I know from my own search for truth that God's answer may not be the simple black and white answer that most Catholics want.