"The first and greatest priority is God himself, that God who is too easily pushed to the edges of our lives, focused on "doing," especially through "techno-science," and on "enjoyment-consumption." That God is even expressly negated by an evolutionist "metaphysics" that reduces everything to nature, to matter-energy, to chance (random mutations) and to necessity (natural selection), or more often is said to be unknowable according to the principle that "latet omne verum," all truth is hidden, as a result of the restriction of the horizons of our reason to that which can be experienced and measured, according to the view now prevalent. That God, finally, who has been proclaimed "dead," with the assertion of nihilism and the resulting collapse of all certainty."
(as explicated by Camillo Ruini here).
Of course I believe that it is the morally and personally courageous thing to do to admit that "(nearly) all truth is hidden" and that meaning is a slippery fish indeed in the universe we live in. I believe real moral courage lies in admitting our uncertainty about even morality, our own nature, the nature of the universe, and the nature of meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ok then. You'll have to more explicitly state with what you agree and with what you disagree. I don't understand your point in this post (as interesting as it may be).
He goes on to say...
"God reveals himself to us in some manner in nature and conscience, but he has revealed himself in a direct and personal manner to Abraham, Moses, the prophets of the Old Testament, and in an unprecedented manner he has revealed himself in the Son, in the incarnation, cross, and resurrection of Christ. There are therefore two paths, that of our search for God and that of God who comes in search of us, but only the latter of these permits us to know the face of God, his deep mystery, his attitude toward us."
I think that this is pretty clear. What say you to this?
What I mean is that the Pope seems to get the modern, secular perspective, though he disagrees with it: First, the world is a series of impressions about which we can know almost nothing. Second, what we do know implies that the natural world is the product of interactions between objects based on simple rules. There is no explicit evidence for nor need to hypothesize a creator/mind in this context.
As for the notion that revelation is somehow an avenue to knowledge I should point out that pretty much every religious group in the universe believes this and so far revelation has had absolutely zero success in resolving the differences. Either everyone is wrong or only one group is but in either case that is an absolutely shitty track record for Revelation as a means of finding truth.
Post a Comment