Coeternalism

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Oct 7 2004, 09:10 PM'] William Wallace, a Dominican Priest, also wrote The Modeling of Nature, a Philosphy of Science and a Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis. [/quote]
that's right, CUA Press publishes it I believe.. I can't believe I forgot about that book.

thanks!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Oct 7 2004, 09:05 PM'] You've said you hold to some materialist / reductionist doctrines. Why are you even worried about the soul then? You've basically denied it completely, so, why bother? [/quote]
that's the main thing I've been trying to figure out.

[Snarf]

Firstly, I find it a weak attack to call me a liar for using Augustine as if I were misrepresenting his position. I quote the aforementioned passage specifically in my thesis, so your point is moot. It's also ironic that someone brought up Einstein, since he went to such lengths of popularizing the idea that free will is an illusion as to say that the moon would think that it was revolving around the Earth of its own desire if it were sentient.

Anyways, points were brought up so I thought I'd write another article for the webpage. I'll put it online later, but here it is so far:



A recurring issue appearing in debates about Coeternalism is the question of whether or not one can a faithful Catholic and still believe that the soul is coeternal with God. At first glance, it would appear to negative. However, evaluation of this idea with relevant pontification reveals that this is not the case; believing in Coeternalism does not violate one’s catholicity and certainly does not render her a heretic. However, this requires meticulous articulation on how to view Coeternalism in the framework of doctrine and science.

The central article of contention that arises between orthodox Catholicism and Coeternalism is the fact that the Church holds that God created the universe prior to the creation of human souls. The frame of mind espoused in this idea is that the universe experiences time whereas God does not. What is too often overlooked, however, is the fact that because the entire expanse of time in the universe is a logical progression, its conclusion was created simultaneous to its beginning. Because human souls are a part of the clockwork of the universe, it is a logical necessity to affirm that, from God’s timeless perspective, the soul was created simultaneous to the universe. This fact is also an irrevocable consequence of asserting God’s prescience; God created the universe and all human souls in one fell act. This does, however, necessitate a clear understanding of agency within timelessness, which is the purpose of elaborating the notion of ethereal will in Coeternalism. The only noteworthy alternative to Coeternalism then is Leibniz’s parallelism, in which God designed all of human history Himself and then later inserted souls for the experience of consciousness. Of course, not only is parallelism not consistent with Catholicism, but it is not in its own right sufficiently cogent.

Coeternalism, then, is practically redundant from the vantage point of Catholic metaphysics. The only reason contradictory statutes have been made is for the sake of coherent relationships between creator and creature. Resolution of such qualms has already been made, so such is not really an issue of contention. It was entirely logical for the Church to proclaim that the soul is created at conception, and Coeternalism agrees that such is when life begins. Science, however, contributes the notion that time is an illusion, so even if the soul only comes into action at the beginning of life, it nevertheless existed parallel to all of time.


I'll edit it later.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 11 2004, 12:48 AM'] Firstly, I find it a weak attack to call me a liar for using Augustine as if I were misrepresenting his position. [/quote]
You were misrepresenting his position.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Snarf, you have also not dealt with the issues brought up by LD, which I would like to hear a response to.

Also, it seems to me that your theology is logically inconsistant with that which we know to be true. First, your argument is based on the premise (I believe) that all the occurrences, actions, and decisions of all of history were positively predetermined before time. However, this stance necessarily rules out miracles from occuring, for if a miracle is already predetermined to happen, then it is worked into the natural order from the beginning of time, and thus is no longer a miracle. Moreover, this stance can be seen inherent in your terminology (such as the phrase "clockwork" of the universe, which appears to imply a Deist notion of God).

As of yet, I have seen nothing that is convincing with regards to a predeterministic view of the universe, and I know of only a very few psychologists who truly believe that all human actions are determined by the natural order alone.

It seems to me that your basic premise is flawed because you are generalizing the "scientific community" as supporting a theory of the universe that, as far as I can see, it does not support.

[Laudate_Dominum]

First you say that time is a logical progression, and that its conclusion was created simultaneous to its beginning; then you say that time is only an illusion. I fail to see much cohesiveness.
Also the metaphysics that you seem to be driving at makes me think of Spinoza, is this intimation in fact consistent with your thought?
I haven't much time to type so I can't say everything I would like to say...
What do you make of the particularities of quantum theory which basically did away with the older newtonian mechanistic cosmologies? It seems to me that the model presented by the mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics reveals a dynamic, probabalistic universe; not a static, mechanistic universe.
Also there are aspects of creation which are not material (as we know it) and therefore cannot be said to originate in the big bang or be bound to the laws of physics. Spiritual substances such as souls fall into this category as do angels and things. And are you at all compelled by the possibility of other dimensions, or even of possible space-time continuums which integrate unimaginable dimensions. For example the hypothetical 5 dimensional continuum which has 2 dimensional space and 3 dimensional time, etc.. I realize these are theoritical constructs, but I bring them up because even just on the level of physics there are many things which would make me uncomfortable assenting to some cut and dry formula which attempts to encapsulate all of created reality and the relation of time and eternity, spirit and matter, God and man, etc..
From the perspective of our universe and its time, the soul can be said to be created at a concrete moment in time (conception), of a trans-temporal perspective it becomes quite difficult to speak. But only the Three Persons of the Trinity are coeternal in any strict sense. The Divine Nature alone is Necessary Being, Absolute and Infinite. Our souls are finite being and do not exist necessarily nor infinitely. They can exist eternally but this does not mean that they are consubstantial with God, and because of the distinction between the contingent and the necessary I do not think it is really meaningful to speak of the eternality (or coeternality) of souls with reference to an infinite pre-existence unless this is qualified as an existence "in the mind of God" and not an actual existence. I suppose you can say that souls "existed" in potency before they were created, but not in act, to use Aristotelian categories. This would apply to the universe too. The world as we know it today did not exist at the moment of the big bang, it existed potentially but not actually and the assertions that the universe could not have unfolded any other way does not seem well founded at this point. Besides the fact that an ontological statement of this kind goes beyond the scope of physics--although physics can and should be taken into account--the evidence that I am aware of seems to suggest otherwise. The mystery of being is much more profound than any philosophic or scientific theory that we can conjure up.

I appreciate your valiant and bold speculations. I hope I don't come off as rude or belittling. In fact I am greatly enjoying this discussion.
Also, if that Augustine comment was directed toward me I seriously had no intention of calling you a liar and don't recall doing so.

Peace.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Oct 13 2004, 09:38 PM'] Also, if that Augustine comment was directed toward me I seriously had no intention of calling you a liar and don't recall doing so. [/quote]
The Augustine quote was directed towards me, and my strongly worded criticism of what I believe to be a serious misquote of Augustine.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Also, about Einstein. I brought him up not as an advocate for Catholic belief, but as a man who realized and respected the limits of scientific enquiry. While he certainly had private philosophical and religious speculations which I consider to be problematic, and even misinformed at times, I consider his thought regarding science and physics in particular to be pretty balanced when it comes to the epistemological limits of science. The name of the essay that I was thinking of in particular has just slipped my mind.. doh!

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Oct 13 2004, 09:45 PM'] The Augustine quote was directed towards me, and my strongly worded criticism of what I believe to be a serious misquote of Augustine. [/quote]
oh ok, thanks. I wouldn't mind seeing this Augustine quote. I've read a pretty good amount of Augustine and it would be interesting to see the actual words, context would be cool too.

peace