Comments on: Life in a Sacramental World

By: Dee

Dee — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:01:17 +0000

Mary,
“If I had to choose between only striving to know God or only studying science, of course I would choose the former.”
how true!
The scientific genius is like a fast car, but the life of the Church is akin to a Rocket…
There is no comparison between the study of God’s creation (no matter how wondrous it might be) and the communion with His Person.

By: dinoship

dinoship — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:38:26 +0000

Thank you Mary, i agree.

By: mary benton

mary benton — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:32:38 +0000

dinoship-
I agree, of course. What I was suggesting was that there can be no disconnect between God and “true science” (as a hypothetical construct).

In our human limitations, we cannot perfectly understand God; through systematic study (aka science), we cannot perfectly understand the operations of the universe. Yet God and the operations of the universe are, of course, completely in harmony. It is our understanding that is not.

If I had to choose between only striving to know God or only studying science, of course I would choose the former. But I don’t have to choose because, approached with a pure heart, both can deepen our experience of the Divine. (Approached wrongly, both can lead to sin and error.)

I actually do not study science as much as many of you do (or at least your comments indicate more knowledge than I have). When I wrote of “evolution”, I am using the term in its general sense (positive growth over time, with implication of greater complexity and interdependence). I used the term “devolve” as its opposite, to describe the corrupted process. We are given the freedom to participate in the creative evolution (through love, leading to greater interdependence) or “devolution” (through sin, leading to fragmentation, war, corruption).

I choose to participate in the creative evolution – and am now off to church to praise our God. Blessings.

By: dinoship

dinoship — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:57:53 +0000

Mary,
I think that mankind should never aspire to any utopian dreams of ever “reaching true science.”, the answers are not provided through any science (to WHO and WHY, maybe sometimes to the how and when), -it sounds extremely “theosophical” (a la Helena Blavatsky)- the answer is Christ and in His Light there are no questions left to answer. We can call that the names that the Lord used for Himself, Life, Light etc. but not science…

By: fatherstephen

fatherstephen — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 03:13:34 +0000

I think what we can say, particularly following St. Basil the Great and St. Maximus the Confessor, is that creation is dynamic rather than static. “Evolution” represents a particular theory – Darwin’s version is survival of the fittest. I think his account is insufficient. I do not think the universe is the result of such brutality. It is so rich! St. Maximus working on change, becoming, movement, etc., would tend to want to speak more about what it is to be human as being a movement in a particular direction. In that sense, everything in creation can be described in such a manner. Evolution is not the word I would use for that. “Movement,” particularly in its patristic, Greek sense, works very well (especially when we add “direction” to it). “Evolution” in that sense is perhaps not rich enough – though I have some microbiologist friends I would have to discuss this with.
It is also clear to me that many Christians are very far removed from the richness of St. Basil and St. Maximus. Their universe is boring and implausible.

By: mary benton

mary benton — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:05:37 +0000

Don’t know Alice. I googled her and found I wasn’t so interested in the theoretical arguments. My point is that creation is infused with the Divine and therefore is ever living and growing according to His purpose – unless, of course, we screw it up, an option God has given us. Fortunately, we also have the option of participating in the Divine creativity by following Jesus. The laws of love further true evolution. They are not separate from the laws of true science – it just that we aren’t far enough along to have reached true science.

By: PJ

PJ — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:10:19 +0000

“Evolving is a reminder that creation was not a static event in history but a constant process”

Don’t let Alice Linsley hear you say this!

By: dinoship

dinoship — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:27:13 +0000

Evolution or not, the key notion is that science only ever answers (when it even does that) the HOW or the WHEN of creation, it can never answer the WHO or the WHY which is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit..
Besides, wasn’t it L. Pasteur who used to say that, a bit of ‘science’ can increase one’s distance from God, whereas true science brings one closer to Him?

By: mary benton

mary benton — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:42:29 +0000

Michael,

“When our love of the natural world and our desire to understand its mysteries replaces our love of God and our desire for communion with Him, we are in big trouble.”

I’m not disputing what you’ve said about the intent of different scientific thinkers – since I don’t their intent. While I agree with the above assertion, I think to go to the opposite extreme would also be an error (to renounce the natural world and the desire to understand its mysteries). For God created a beautiful, intricate world for us and has endowed us with curious intellects to explore it. Almost anything (both religion and science) can be perverted but that doesn’t mean that they always are. I personally find ideas of evolution (not saying specifically Darwin) to be faith-enhancing as it reveals the immensity of God’s creative power and wisdom.

Evolving is a reminder that creation was not a static event in history but a constant process – and we are invited participants in the creative process. Perversion of the process results in devolving – something we are certainly at risk for under the influence of sin. But we are invited to be and become so much more…

By: dinoship

dinoship — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:54:19 +0000

Concerning God’s description of creation as “very good” I noticed today (Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of the Lord), that many fathers seem to perceive this as actually only ever having reached its true fulfilment at the birth of the Mother of God…
In slightly more recent fathers (Nikodemus/Palamas) St. Anne’s bareness which was today ‘overthrown’ is one and the same with the bareness of all creation which stopped the day that the Theotokos was born…