I’m not sure if we’re disagreeing about anything. I’m not saying that any Church authority has said that “the process of evolution looks exactly like a naturalistic process”, but that what they do say is consistent with this being true. Even assuming God had some motive for setting up things the way they are, how would that imply something in the process of evolution that doesn’t look naturalistic?
I certainly agree that if you say God is relevant at all, that is not something that naturalism would say. But it also doesn’t seem to mean anything concrete about the process.
in so far as the RCC has a position on the actual facts of biological evolution (as opposed to a position on what the Catholic faithful are supposed to think about them):
it seems to me fairly clearly distinguishable from any position a typical atheist evolutionist would adopt, even as regards observable questions like how likely it is that clear evidence of non-natural processes in evolution will ever turn up, though it’s hard to be certain because the official documents carefully avoid being too definite on such matters, and
I bet the senior RC clergy responsible for these documents hold positions more clearly distinguishable from those of typical atheist evolutionists, even as regards etc.; but
I suspect many of them have at least a suspicion that the scientific evidence for naturalist-looking evolution is only ever going to get better, and that clear signs of any kind of divine design in natural organisms are never going to show up.
as regards the RCC’s position on what the Catholic faithful are supposed to think:
I don’t think they are forbidden to adopt positions that, as regards etc., are indistinguishable from those of a typical atheist evolutionist, but
those official documents seem intended to discourage them from holding such positions, and
such positions seem permitted only (I insist on saying!) grudgingly. In particular:
until recently the Catholic faithful were explicitly forbidden to adopt such positions (on account of, e.g., what Humani Generis says about not regarding evolution as definitely correct), and
I strongly suspect that if even a modest amount of credible scientific evidence pointing in the direction of “intelligent design” were to show up, the RCC would return to that sort of stance.
(Not all of those things are directly related to the questions we were discussing.) Does that help?
Ok. I think I agree at least mostly with this summary, although I might qualify a few points.
In itself it’s likely that someone who believes in God will estimate a higher probability of evidence of non-natural processes in evolution than for an atheist. But there is also the third point you mention, namely that even theists may notice that there is currently no such evidence and may suspect that there never will be any. So this might mitigate the difference in their expectations somewhat.
Regarding what is grudgingly permitted or what is encouraged, I think this is less about probability assignments about the facts at issue, and more about the probability that a belief will tend to keep people in the Church or to lead to them leaving the Church. I think this is true even when the Church authorities are explicitly aware that a belief is probably false, at least in some cases. They still will not discourage that belief if it makes it more likely for someone to stay in the Church, unless there is some other motive for discouraging it (e.g. if the belief is very obviously ridiculous, they may discourage it because it could make the Church look bad.)
I’m not sure if we’re disagreeing about anything. I’m not saying that any Church authority has said that “the process of evolution looks exactly like a naturalistic process”, but that what they do say is consistent with this being true. Even assuming God had some motive for setting up things the way they are, how would that imply something in the process of evolution that doesn’t look naturalistic?
I certainly agree that if you say God is relevant at all, that is not something that naturalism would say. But it also doesn’t seem to mean anything concrete about the process.
Neither am I. I think that
in so far as the RCC has a position on the actual facts of biological evolution (as opposed to a position on what the Catholic faithful are supposed to think about them):
it seems to me fairly clearly distinguishable from any position a typical atheist evolutionist would adopt, even as regards observable questions like how likely it is that clear evidence of non-natural processes in evolution will ever turn up, though it’s hard to be certain because the official documents carefully avoid being too definite on such matters, and
I bet the senior RC clergy responsible for these documents hold positions more clearly distinguishable from those of typical atheist evolutionists, even as regards etc.; but
I suspect many of them have at least a suspicion that the scientific evidence for naturalist-looking evolution is only ever going to get better, and that clear signs of any kind of divine design in natural organisms are never going to show up.
as regards the RCC’s position on what the Catholic faithful are supposed to think:
I don’t think they are forbidden to adopt positions that, as regards etc., are indistinguishable from those of a typical atheist evolutionist, but
those official documents seem intended to discourage them from holding such positions, and
such positions seem permitted only (I insist on saying!) grudgingly. In particular:
until recently the Catholic faithful were explicitly forbidden to adopt such positions (on account of, e.g., what Humani Generis says about not regarding evolution as definitely correct), and
I strongly suspect that if even a modest amount of credible scientific evidence pointing in the direction of “intelligent design” were to show up, the RCC would return to that sort of stance.
(Not all of those things are directly related to the questions we were discussing.) Does that help?
Ok. I think I agree at least mostly with this summary, although I might qualify a few points.
In itself it’s likely that someone who believes in God will estimate a higher probability of evidence of non-natural processes in evolution than for an atheist. But there is also the third point you mention, namely that even theists may notice that there is currently no such evidence and may suspect that there never will be any. So this might mitigate the difference in their expectations somewhat.
Regarding what is grudgingly permitted or what is encouraged, I think this is less about probability assignments about the facts at issue, and more about the probability that a belief will tend to keep people in the Church or to lead to them leaving the Church. I think this is true even when the Church authorities are explicitly aware that a belief is probably false, at least in some cases. They still will not discourage that belief if it makes it more likely for someone to stay in the Church, unless there is some other motive for discouraging it (e.g. if the belief is very obviously ridiculous, they may discourage it because it could make the Church look bad.)