Was Noah a Weak Personality?

Yes, we know God chose him. God also chose Moses, a very uncharismatic speaker. As he stated himself.

God doesn't necessarily chose strong personalities.

The most probable reason why Noah got drunk is, he had not come across fermented grapes, aka wine, before the flood. Perhaps the climate made alcohol turn quickly to acetic acid with a second fermentation, perhaps grapes were a new crop, perhaps drunkenness had been a thing and pre-Flood just men had been teetotallers as well as vegetarians. So, Noah had never experienced the effects of alcohol.

But it is also possible he was grieving very hardly over the loss of his wife, or simply trying to keep chaste when every woman left alive was either a daughter in law or a granddaughter or descendant.

There are different definitions of weak personalities though. It's not just about not avoiding sins, it's sometimes about not being stepped on by others. In this respect, there is no shame before God in being a weak personality. At least not if they are very sneaky and exploit the weakest moments - as Ham did.

That Noah could have been a weak personality in this sense, the kind of man Pierpoint Morgan or Vanderbildt (whoever of them wrote the book on getting successful and successfully sold it) and possibly even Thomas Arnold (the one with "muscular Christianity" not his poetic son) might call a weak pesonality, is brought out by another fact. He had his sons at 500, those who came with him on the Ark. Had his marriage been delayed for some centuries? Had older sons of his been taken away by pre-Flood versions of the infamous CPS? In either case, we would deal with malefactors of his who had exploited some kind of weak (not necessarily sinful) moments, to step on him as some step on a weak personality.

The repeat offender in this respect was Ham, a son of his. Putting "weak personalities" in "their place" is the essence of the sin of Ham./HGL

What Extension to Old Age do Old Agers Permit Themselves?

If you pretend to believe the Bible, there are two different options.

• 1) extending the time before Adam was created;
• 2) extending the time covered by Biblical history since then.

These options are not equal. Let's consider them in turn.

If you consider "all creation" may in certain contexts mean only all of human creation, then you might venture to pretend that option one does not conflict with Mark 10:6, since creatures before Adam were outside the human creation.

"If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister."
[Colossians 1:23]

Does this mean only human creation, or does it include animals, plants, and minerals?

A Protestant may pretend, it includes only human creation, one doesn't hold sermons for guinea pigs, and so Mark 10:6 could allow for long ages before Adam was created ... supposing of course no life forms dated to before then were to be considered human.

A Catholic would reply that preaching the Gospel is not restricted to holding sermons, and in fact, while a priest blessing a guinea pig doesn't enlighten the guinea pig's reason (it hasn't any), it is in the guinea pig still preaching at least to the owner's reason and emotions. Therefore "all the creation that is under heaven" really includes not just men, but also animals, plants and minerals.

So, option one is ruled out at least for Catholics. Too bad Fulcran Vigouroux didn't comprehend that, too bad there were dispensations to think otherwise, but both gap theory and day age theory are ruled out for Catholics in principle. The ones who thought otherwise either weren't attending to Mark 10:6, or they were plagiarising a "permission" from a Protestant reading of Colossians 1:23.

But option 2 is really totally off the hook. I don't mean things like chosing LXX over Masoretic chronology, long stay in Egypt over short, or things like that. I mean pretending the distance between Adam and Abraham is far greater than Genesis 5 and 11 allow for on the face of it.

It can neither please Catholics nor any Protestants who pretend to believe the Bible, for two reasons:

• a) gaps in the genealogies, like, if LXX and standard reading of Luke 3 are correct, a single generation gap for second Cainan, or like the four ancestors omitted from Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1 are gaps in what is mainly a genealogy, but to get to old age results, like Adam living 20 to 40 millenia before us (as I think Hugh Ross pretends), you'd need to have more gap than genealogy, which is simply doing violence on the text;
• b) whether or not it could be arranged, it would remove the original human witnesses of Genesis 2 and 3 so far back in relation to Abraham that it would make the historical knowledge of them very hazy. This would be the ruin of Biblical history.

So, extending the time substantially after Adam's creation is a nono for both Catholic and Protestant alike, except to rank apostates.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Anselm of Canterbury
21.IV.2021

"Hard problem of consciousness" defined by Scot Fagerland and Andy Meaden

Quoting:

A camera and an eye can both “see”. However, we would never say that a camera is “aware” of what it sees. A camera could see a hammer swinging directly at it yet never discern fear that it is about to be destroyed. How do people and animals become aware of themselves and their surroundings in a way that is different from cameras or computers?

The traditional religious answer was that we are animated by spirits, something external to our bodies. This is yet another resort to the secret trillionaire fallacy: it doesn’t explain how intangible spirits would be self-aware. Rather than wasting our time wondering how consciousness would work in an invisible spirit that may or may not exist, the modern approach is to see how much we can learn about consciousness in the physical world.

9.VI: Consciousness, Communication, Competition, Cooperation
HOW LIFE GOT THIS WAY
https://www.theevolutionofhuman.com/chapter-09/section-09-vi/

The traditional religious answer

Not just religious, but also philosophical.

was

Catholics and Aristotelians, Muslims and Platonics are not gone yet. Some may wish we were, we aren't.

that we are animated by spirits,

Yes.

something external to our bodies.

Not quite in the case of those animating us.

This is yet another resort to

... haven't seen the previous one.

the secret trillionaire fallacy:

This sounds like trying to define the belief in God (and spirits and similar) away as a fallacy because it involves the actual power to perform what is to be explained.

it doesn’t explain how intangible spirits would be self-aware.

The proof rather goes the other way round: anything material we see has material properties which are no explanation of it's being self-aware, and generally it isn't. This means consciousness needs to have another principle than matter. This means we need to have a non-material aspect.

Rather than wasting our time wondering how consciousness would work in an invisible spirit that may or may not exist,

How about looking at how it works inside us, in the "spiritual" or mental realm which is invisible (per se, though not as to its utterances) to external observers and "visible" to ourselves? By introspection?

the modern approach is to see how much we can learn about consciousness in the physical world.

Fairly little, but something very important: consciousness isn't physical.

Next paragraph after the following one actually makes this point for me:

The brain creates an “inner world”, a mind. We don’t know how this is done; it is the “hard problem” of consciousness.

Thank you very much. It can be restated as: we know it doesn't. There are no ways not already tried and rejected for it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Stephen Harding
17.IV.2021

Lopsided Review, Consolmagno

Guy Consolmagno was interviewed:

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION MASTER'S PROGRAM : Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J., astronomer
https://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/QandA/2008/consolmagno.html

Can a person take the Bible literally and still do good science?

That depends on what science they're doing. But it's a tricky answer, because in many cases, the creedal belief is something where you raise your hands and say, "Yes, I believe," as a form of membership in your church, your social group. For example, Science News had an article in 1996 — an interview with several creationists and pagans — which found a significant number of people who said, "Yes, the Earth was made 6,000 years ago," but who also said, "Dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago — oh yeah, I believe that." It means these statements have no mathematical significance to these people, because they don't think like techies do. But certainly there are devout evangelical Christians who are also very good scientists. Because they're scientists, they understand the problem of dinosaurs millions of years ago versus a young Earth, and they're careful to say they don't believe in the second idea.

Yes, I very much agree it is "hairbrained" to say yes to both "the Earth was made 6,000 years ago," and ""Dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago."

But what about those who also understand the problem of dinosaurs millions of years ago verses a young Earth and are careful to say they don't believe in the first idea?

What about those who do this without being scientists, professionally? What about those who do this as Catholics (all alternative Popes I looked into - Pope Michael whom I accept, Alexander IX who was apparently an internet media hoax (last update I heard on internet about him), Palmarian line (which I did accept) all of them are Young Earth Creationists and so are Dimond Brothers)?

Guy Consolmagno gave the impression, in order to be Biblical literalist, you have to be so "unscientific" you can't see the difference between an earth created thousands of years ago and an earth containing traces of beings who lived millions of years ago, as if no one who understood the difference opted for the former, you also need to be a scientist to see there is a contradiction, and you have to be Evangelical and for instance not Catholic to use the former even as a "credal statement".

What is not wrong with this?

You can be and many are Biblical literalists while seeing, as a scientist or for reasons of common sense and good attention (happens outside scientific community) that Young Earth Creationism and Deep Time contradict.

You can do it while being a scientist. And you can do it while being Roman Catholic. Except perhaps for those accepting the last three Popes that Consolmagno accepts : "John Paul II" - "Benedict XVI" - "Francis". Since these guys have basically started treating Deep Time as a near dogma.

Now, Consolmagno does admit to ignorance about Classics:

When I compare my knowledge of classical literature with that of intellectuals from a hundred years ago, like G. K. Chesterton, I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

Perhaps that should be used to take with a grain of salt what he says here:

How did [the earliest Christian scholars] read [the Bible]?

Oh, everything was symbolic. Their symbolism was stuff we would laugh at now.

While everything was symbol for something, everything was also literally true of something. Generally, everything was a symbol for something ... different. And literally true of ... itself. If you would really laugh at their symbolism, you are not in a position to say you agree with them, especially if also you are disagreeing with their literal truth of the Bible.

Why are there no "antipodes"? Because the Earth isn't round enough? No, "antipodes" does not like now mean opposite coordinates for the other place. I am in Paris, 48° 51' 52.9776'' North and 2° 20' 56.4504'' East (probably exact coordinates of Notre Dame, which is not where I am). We would by "antipodes" mean 48° 51' 52.9776'' SOUTH and 177° 39' 3.5496'' WEST (Southern part of the Pacific. St. Augustine would however have meant people there or around there who have their feet opposed to our feet. Why would he say that?

His reasons boil down to a combination of two:

• there is no other humanity than the one descending from Adam and Eve and from the eight on the Ark (who live on our hemisphere);
• he didn't think that men could have come to opposite coordinates and not gone back and told, so he did not think people would have arrived there from here.

The second reason is, apart from the exact antipodes of Paris or where he was in Hippo (also antipodes in South Pacific), that he was a landcrab and an idealist : he didn't reckon oceanic currents could make the return voyage impossible with ships at hand and he didn't reckon people could have criminal or similar reasons to not want to come back even if they could. Like, considering the manslaughter in the name of certain Pre-Columbian religions, this was a hazardous guess on that side too.

But the reason for the first reason is, St. Augustine was taking perfectly literally the words of Genesis 10:32 These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. He took this as excluding positively any other men of any other (back in that generation) origin. And he could only do that because he was taking the story of Genesis 10:32 as literal history.

I think Consolmagno is as ignorant of Patristics as he is of the classics that Chesterton knew better than he. And sorry, explaining "the significance of a three-sigma deviation from the norm" really isn't comparable, as that is only valuable for a very narrow class. While knowing that Aeneas came from Troy to near whereabouts of Rome is valuable not just for those required to have Classic education (as both civil and clerical and military servants once were) but for anyone both enjoying a true story and being curious of true origins, and that is most of us.

But as Consolmagno bviously does know what a three-sigma deviation from the norm is, would he kindly for a moment treat as "norm" that 2957 BC (year of the Flood) is carbon dated typically to 40 000 BP. Would he then, from there, ask whether the dating of the "Laschamps event" constitutes a "three-sigma" or a lesser deviation from that norm?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Third Day of Easter
6.IV.2021

PS, next Tuesday (one week later), Consolmagno has not replied./HGL

CCC on Creation

CCC 279 - 324
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM

279 - intro, citing Genesis 1:1 and promising to explain. Next two paragraphs merit citation in extenso, they are beautiful as they stand, if you ignore some later context:

280 Creation is the foundation of "all God's saving plans," the "beginning of the history of salvation"117 that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end for which "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ.

281 And so the readings of the Easter Vigil, the celebration of the new creation in Christ, begin with the creation account; likewise in the Byzantine liturgy, the account of creation always constitutes the first reading at the vigils of the great feasts of the Lord. According to ancient witnesses the instruction of catechumens for Baptism followed the same itinerary.

Then 282 is again introductory, and tells us what kind of questions are answered. By the catechesis on creation, not exactly by Genesis 1 as such. Next two are however bad:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? and if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

Now, King Solomon was a prophet who really could say of God "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists". The scientists however are not prophets and their knowledge is far from unerring. It is however noteworthy that the Bible passage speaks of King Solomon's knowledge of the natural world. However, I think it is far closer to that of St. Thomas Aquinas than that of a modern scientist preaching Deep Space and Deep Time, as well as Heliocentrism and Evolution.

Not because King Solomon's knowledge was poor, but because it was fairly clearly operational science. I don't think there are many fields where such a thing would deviate from St. Thomas.

Here by contrast, we have what the paragraph wants to compare to King Solomon's wisdom:

"Enriched our knowledge of the age ... of the cosmos" = direct endorsement of Deep Time, of Millions and Billions of Years.

"Enriched our knowledge of ... the dimensions of the cosmos" = direct endorsement of Deep Space (and of Heliocentrism on which it depends and on its implications by Distant Star Light as to Deep Time).

Here is another aspect:

"The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin:"

Which is it? Do we get our knowledge of umtimate questions from the Catholic account of Creation (Bible, Church Fathers, traditional catechisms)? Or do we get them from this type of studies?

In fact, the paragraph 284 doesn't answer whether non-Christians are right to look to such studies for ultimate answers, it is, correctly, implied in the following we have a better source. However, this would be limited to "ultimate" answers like "why do we exist" rather than "factual" ones like "how did we come to exist", in the light of 283 and its excessive confidence in science.

But as for first three chapters, we have again a very deceiving answer here:

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. the inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

As far as Catholic tradition is concerned, there was one ultimate hagiographer, Moses. Sure, he did not single handed write all of the Pentateuch, the last chapter of Deuteronomy was by Joshua and for Genesis he used sources.

He took the six days from his own vision on Mount Sinai, and since the tradition about this vision does not include any further vision about the early life of the first men, we must assume that most of chapter 2 and also chapter 3 are parts of Adam's autobiography - the ones he thought it was relevant to transmit in short and easy to memorise accounts that could be safely transmitted over some generations (Adam to Noah = 10, Shem to Abraham = 10 or 11, Isaac to Levi = 3, Caath to Moses = 3, 26 or 27, with so many overlapping that a tradition reduced to as few overlaps as still would be contemporaneous would be 8 to perhaps 12 different people, plus the other ones who helped along).

So, the Creation account is in this untraditional catechism not seen as history, and "beginning" is put into quotation marks, to note that this is not chronologically true in relation to the beginning of the actual universe.

This precisely would suffice to make it untraditional, and therefore CCC can be dismissed as a non-Catholic document, despite the predominance in quantity of unobjectionable paragraphs in this section.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Maundy Thursday
1.IV.2021

I'd like to have details on the carbon dates on those kauri trees ...

NEWS RELEASE 19-FEB-2021 (EurekAlert)
42,000-year-old trees allow more accurate analysis of last Earth's magnetic field reversal
GFZ GEOFORSCHUNGSZENTRUM POTSDAM, HELMHOLTZ CENTRE
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/ggph-4ta021921.php

Radiocarbon measurements on the remains of 42.000 years old New Zealand kauri trees provide the basis for better calibration of geological archives of this period.

Fit's very neatly, in some ways, perhaps, with my idea of the Flood carbon dated to 40 000 BC./HGL