Deborah, I'm not so sure that Aquinas had the full story.
In the latter years of his life my father had a stroke and developed dementia. As the disease progressed his behaviour in some situations demonstrated a clear lack of reasoning ability. For instance, when shaving his beard, on numerous occasions, he would keep shaving even after all the hair was gone, to the point, and beyond, of abrading his face so that it bled. Now rather than simplistically suggesting that he had no reason for doing this, I surmised that, while he failed to recognise the damage he was inflicting upon himself and act in a reasonable manner to prevent it, the feel of the razor buzzing against his face was probably a familiar and comforting sensation for him. In solution, once I could see that his face was clean of hair, I would attempt to retrieve the razor from him, remove the blades, and give it back to him. This process was often a struggle, and, though I attempted to avoid them, he inflicted some painful injuries on me in the process - something he would never have dreamed of doing in his right mind.
One could say that my father, having lost his higher capacity for reason, was acting upon his basal urges, without regard for his own safety or anyone else's. His reason and intelligence, as demonstrated by his behaviour, could not be said to excel that of animals - for even the 'lesser' creatures demonstrate a concern for their own well being. Does this mean, therefore, that 'the image of God' had departed from my father? I don't think so. While it was obvious he had lost some ability to reason, it was clear that he still maintained the wilful attitude that pertains to human agency. That is, he was still able to make use of a complex semiotic system in order to creatively 'cast' himself as a relational person - as evinced in his argument, "but
I'm not finished."
Quote from: Jenntrans on November 24, 2017, 02:01:17 PM
Yes Subbie. But what part of us was created by a Divine power and what part of us was created because of environmental circumstances such as evolution? Personally I believe in both Creation and Evolution.
Jenntrans,
When I was about 12 yo, I realised that, if a world view is to tell us anything useful, it has to be both internally consistent and consistent with our experience. Therefore, if we hold creation and evolution to be mutually exclusive processes, then we must decide between the two on the basis of which one is both internally consistent while also fitting our experience of the world. However, if God created the universe, and if evolution is part of that universe, then God created evolution.
In answer to your question of what is created and what has evolved, if we accept that God created evolution, then I would suggest that what was created was a potential to evolve. What appears to follow in your line of questioning is then the matter of what makes human evolution different from that of other species. If, indeed, we accept that many species evolved from a single ancestor species, (a view that directly contradicts the Genesis creation story,) then it could be surmised that the potential realised by humans was only possible as a result of the unique mutations and adaptations made along the evolutionary path that has led to our present form and complexity. That is, from a purely evolutionary perspective, the reason humans appear to have advanced while other species appear to have remained relatively primitive is due to the chance mutations and environmental adaptations made in response to the unique conditions that arose for each species survival. Here, however, is where I see a problem with the internal consistency of a purely evolutionary point of view.
The problem, that is, arises in relation to the value of survival. That is, why is survival important? And why is non-survival granted so little importance? Now, responses may be given in various forms, but all come back to a question of teleology - the purpose served by a phenomenon: what is the purpose served by survival? I've had a number of conversations in which my interlocutors were incredulous that I couldn't simply accept that survival is important just because it is what happens. I, however, find such dormant explanations, (like, the sky is blue because it is blue,) to be exceptionally unhelpful when trying to understand the nature of our experience. In fact, if understanding 'what happens' is the goal, then why is non-survival not given equal importance, since it happens too? The answer, of course, is that, if survival and non-survival were of equal value, then there would be little reason to study survival over non-survival. Our survival, that is, would appear to be meaningless. But meaninglessness does not appear to be consistent with our experience either.
Rather, the concept that I find much more helpful in understanding our experience is what I have called in my Masters dissertation 'ontological discontinuity' - the possibility of variation, something that Foucault might have called 'othering'. If one can find a viable basis from which such variation may be said proceed, one might then have a system in which meaning is possible. And, indeed, if one accepts the Genesis creation story, in which each species was created separately, one might well have access to such a system of meaning.
Now experience tells me that some individuals are not going to be satisfied with this response. Such individuals in my previous discussions have raised something like the following argument: "While you posit that evolution has no basis for differential evaluation, you yet suggest that a differentially realised creation may proceed from an undifferentiated god - a singular entity." The answer to such an argument is plainly available in the doctrine of the triune God, ("Let US make man in OUR image" Gen. 1:26) - the God made up of three persons whom are of one mind. (Contrast this with pantheistic religion where there are many gods, each with their own mind, and often in conflict with each other.) So, the accusation of an undifferentiated God is unfounded in biblical theology.
The other important aspect of the doctrine of the trinity is that the possibility of personal relationships that existed in the trinity is the image of God that is imparted to humans - so that they also may have a personal relationships.
So, what was created that makes us different? The image of God in humans, and not in other animals. And what has evolved? Our capacity to creatively manipulate our environment, including each other, in our attempts to fulfil the needs of living with personal relationships.
