Why?

[Carthusian]

Why is there so much hatred for archaeology, paleontology, biology, physics, geology, sedimentology, astronomy among trads?  It is embarassing for Catholics.

Can someone please give a document from a Church father that states the world is 6000 years old.  All I can find are references from a protestant "bishop."  I am not sure why so many in the trad community want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that Adam and Eve were playing around with dinosaurs.  Quite sad.

[ketchum]

That doesn't seem very accurate.

[James02]

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3435240.0.html

You might want to review this thread.

[Zedta]

I don't know about finding much support for the notion of "The 6,000 Years" in Traditional Catholic's beliefs, back at least to this one cited. I am sure there is discussion and debate. But it is mostly amongst the Protestant sects that the notion of 6,000 years comes in. That notion of a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. Here is an example of how St. Augustine wrote on the subject:


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm

From: The City of God (Book XII)

Chapter 10.— Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, "Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal." And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? They reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!
Chapter 11.— Of Those Who Suppose that This World Indeed is Not Eternal, But that Either There are Numberless Worlds, or that One and the Same World is Perpetually Resolved into Its Elements, and Renewed at the Conclusion of Fixed Cycles.

There are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only world, but that there are numberless worlds or that indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals, and this times without number; but they must acknowledge that the human race existed before there were other men to beget them. For they cannot suppose that, if the whole world perish, some men would be left alive in the world, as they might survive in floods and conflagrations, which those other speculators suppose to be partial, and from which they can therefore reasonably argue that a few then survived whose posterity would renew the population; but as they believe that the world itself is renewed out of its own material, so they must believe that out of its elements the human race was produced, and then that the progeny of mortals sprang like that of other animals from their parents.

[Carthusian]

I don't know about finding much support for the notion of "The 6,000 Years" in Traditional Catholic's beliefs

Exactly.  But many traditional Catholic priests and Catholics hold this absurd view.  Many traditional Catholics want to believe that all the natural sciences do not exist.

[HuskerTom]

Exactly.  But many traditional Catholic priests and Catholics hold this absurd view.  Many traditional Catholics want to believe that all the natural sciences do not exist.

I don't think there's anything absurd about it.  The Church doesn't require us to believe one way or another regarding the "young Earth", so what difference does it make?   I think all Catholics believe that the natural sciences exist, and believing in the young Earth does not negate that belief.  I think your conclusion is what's absurd.

[Carthusian]

I don't think there's anything absurd about it.  The Church doesn't require us to believe one way or another regarding the "young Earth", so what difference does it make?  

You are exactly right.  Since the Church does not speak "one way or another" regarding this issue, we must review the facts, evidence, and reason when observing the natural world that God created.  God gave us intellect.  We must use that intellect.  The FACTS point to an old earth.  Too many traditional Catholics have the belief "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up."  It makes us look stupid.  We lose potential converts if we push outrageous views (that is why this is an important issue).  Science is very hard.  Too many people want to take the easy way out.  The Church is the lover of knowledge.  Many of the natural sciences have their origins within the Church.  The Church has never taken a position of willful ignorance when it comes to scientific inquiry.

  I think all Catholics believe that the natural sciences exist, and believing in the young Earth does not negate that belief.

You don't "believe" in natural sciences.  A young earther does deny all the natural sciences with his view of the earth's age (and all the mechanisms that this implies) because the natural sciences PROVE otherwise.  Again, we Catholics look stupid if we try and deny what science has proven over and over and over and over and over again.   

I think your conclusion is what's absurd.

You are proving me right without even knowing it.

[HuskerTom]

Many traditional Catholics want to believe that all the natural sciences do not exist.

You don't "believe" in natural sciences.

So, which is it?  I claimed that all Catholics, regardless of how old they think the Earth is, still believe that the natural sciences exist (in direct contrast to your first post).  Then you comment that one doesn't "believe" in natural sciences, even though you had JUST SAID the same thing earlier.

I don't know of any traditional Catholic that says "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up."  The issue is that the FACTS that you are referring to are disputed.  Some scientists believe in a young Earth, some believe in an old Earth.  I don't think either side should try to force its view on the other, which is why I stated that it makes no difference what you believe (and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church doesn't care either).  Believing in an old Earth will not get me to Heaven, nor will believing in a young Earth.  You can place your faith in science if you wish, but I choose to place my faith in Our Lord.

[someguy]

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3433845.0.html
I think this was a great thread in covering something like this

[Carthusian]

  The issue is that the FACTS that you are referring to are disputed.  Some scientists believe in a young Earth, some believe in an old Earth.

This is simply not true.  99.99999% of scientists accept and old earth and evolution.  Just go read any major scientific publication.  Start with Nature or Science

  You can place your faith in science if you wish, but I choose to place my faith in Our Lord.

OK...what a dumb assertion.  You missed the entire point of my argument.  You are proving my point over and over again.  This is the type of brick wall I come up against with trads that gets me frustrated.  I am done here.  God didn't command up to be willfully ignorant about his Creation.