[ 0 → 7] Welcome to Episode 13 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic Perspective on Origins. [ 7 → 10] I'm your host, Keith Jones. [ 10 → 15] In this episode, we will expand the discussion of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative begun [ 15 → 17] in Episode 4. [ 17 → 24] You will see that after rationalism was introduced in 1637, the enemy of truth did not sit idly [ 24 → 29] by, allowing the domain of theology to be unaffected until the rise of Lyell and Darwin [ 29 → 31] in the 1800s. [ 31 → 37] Instead, Cartesian rationalism immediately impacted biblical scholarship, and like two [ 37 → 43] regiments flanking a common enemy, the rationalist theologians and philosophers battled orthodox [ 43 → 47] theology for the next two centuries. [ 47 → 52] The rationalists eerily anticipated the day when natural science would open up a third [ 52 → 58] front in the assault on truth, and they rejoiced when they perceived that Darwin had provided [ 58 → 64] the heavy artillery needed to forever rid biblical scholarship of the supernatural. [ 64 → 69] Understanding this history is important because the false harmony of rationalism and natural [ 69 → 75] science, theology, and philosophy continues to destroy the faith of millions. [ 75 → 81] And as Pope Pius XII stated, diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly [ 81 → 82] diagnosed. [ 111 → 135] The material in Episode 13 is so important that we have divided it into two parts. [ 135 → 140] In Part 1, we will trace the impact of Cartesian rationalism in the domain of theology from [ 140 → 148] the mid-1600s to 1873 when one of the leading rationalist theologians of the period boldly [ 148 → 154] proclaimed Darwinism as the decisive argument for Descartes' proposition first suggested [ 154 → 160] in Le Monde that nature alone brings order out of chaos and God does not intervene in [ 160 → 161] the world. [ 161 → 166] In Part 2, we will see that the penetration of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative into [ 166 → 172] theological circles was so harmful that in the most important papal encyclicals combating [ 172 → 179] the rise of modernism, evolutionism and rationalism were clearly identified as the foundation [ 179 → 181] of the heresy. [ 181 → 187] And so today there really is no need to debate whether evolution matters or why Neo-Modernism [ 187 → 189] has arisen. [ 189 → 194] The current plague of Neo-Modernism has arisen because the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative [ 194 → 200] was not adequately addressed in scientific or theological circles. [ 200 → 206] And so as long as the false science and false philosophy behind the narrative fails to be [ 206 → 213] adequately addressed, the decline in massive exodus from the Catholic faith will continue. [ 213 → 219] It is also likely that the clergy sexual abuse scandals will continue because as will be [ 219 → 225] explained these unspeakable acts of abuse are clearly linked to Neo-Modernism and the [ 225 → 239] departure from the traditional Catholic teachings due to the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative. [ 239 → 245] Recall from Episode 2 that when Descartes released his Discourse on Method in 1637, [ 245 → 249] it immediately intruded upon the domain of theology by claiming, [ 249 → 255] It is certain that the action by which God now preserves the world is just the same as [ 255 → 258] that by which He at first created it. [ 258 → 264] By this means alone all things which are purely material might in course of time have become [ 264 → 267] such as we observe them to be at present. [ 267 → 271] And their nature is much easier to understand when we see them coming to pass little by [ 271 → 278] little in this manner than were we to consider them as all complete to begin with. [ 278 → 286] Recall also that in Les Mondes, Descartes declared that miracles are not allowed. [ 286 → 291] Following the trail of Descartes, other philosophers quickly applied rationalism to sacred scripture [ 291 → 296] through higher criticism, which involves the study of the date, place, authorship, and [ 296 → 299] literary style of a composition. [ 299 → 306] While this approach need not be destructive, negative higher criticism involves rationalistic presuppositions. [ 306 → 312] As stated in the Handbook of Biblical Criticism, the presuppositions include the view that [ 312 → 315] Reality is uniform and universal. [ 315 → 317] It is accessible to human reason. [ 317 → 324] All events historical and natural occurring within it are in principle comparable by analogy. [ 324 → 329] And man's contemporary experience of reality can provide the objective criteria by which [ 329 → 334] what could or could not have happened in the past is to be determined. [ 334 → 340] When such presuppositions are strictly applied to sacred scripture, the miraculous and prophetic [ 340 → 344] are rejected as unhistorical at the outset. [ 344 → 349] Benedict Spinoza was a contemporary of Descartes and a rationalist philosopher. [ 349 → 355] Friedrich Nietzsche called him the purest sage and my precursor because Spinoza also [ 355 → 359] denied free will, the moral order, and evil. [ 359 → 365] While Georg Hegel said that to be a philosopher, one must first be a Spinozist. [ 365 → 370] Spinoza led the rationalist attack on sacred scripture, which is why he is sometimes called [ 370 → 372] the first of the negative higher critics. [ 372 → 378] In his Theologico-Political Treatise, Spinoza determined to examine the Bible afresh in [ 378 → 383] a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit through the use of reason. [ 383 → 384] He declared, [ 384 → 390] We may be absolutely certain that every event which is truly described in scripture necessarily [ 390 → 396] happened, like everything else, according to natural laws, and if anything is there [ 396 → 401] set down which can be proved in set terms to contravene the order of nature, we must [ 401 → 406] believe it to have been foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands. [ 406 → 413] For whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary [ 413 → 419] to reason is absurd and ipso facto to be rejected. [ 419 → 424] Spinoza dismissed the prophets as endowed with unusually vivid imaginations and not [ 424 → 427] with unusually perfect minds. [ 427 → 432] The New Testament, he wrote, was not written by revelation and divine command, but merely [ 432 → 436] by the natural powers and judgment of the authors. [ 436 → 441] As for miracles, Nature preserves a fixed and unchangeable order. [ 441 → 445] Miracles only appear as something new because of man's ignorance. [ 445 → 451] Nowhere does scripture assert that anything happens which contradicts, or cannot follow [ 451 → 453] from the laws of nature. [ 453 → 459] Miracles follow not from some mysterious royal power which the masses attribute to God, but [ 459 → 463] from the laws and order of nature. [ 463 → 468] Applying these unfounded premises to the scriptures, Spinoza concluded that Moses did not write [ 468 → 472] the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament. [ 472 → 477] This in turn created doubt about the reliability of the New Testament and even the words of [ 477 → 481] Jesus, who referred to Moses as the author. [ 481 → 486] The application of rationalism to theology had enormous consequences as it facilitated [ 486 → 493] the emergence of deism, the belief that God is an absentee landlord who has not intervened [ 493 → 495] since the initial creation. [ 495 → 503] He is certainly not a personal God who would send the sun to save mankind. [ 503 → 510] A leading voice of deism was John Toland, whose 1696 work, Christianity, Not Mysterious, [ 510 → 516] elevated reason and dismissed the faith handed down by the church fathers and magisterium. [ 516 → 521] Some of them say the mysteries of the gospel are to be understood only in the sense of [ 521 → 527] the ancient fathers, but they were of the same nature and make with ourselves, and we [ 527 → 534] know of no privilege above us bestowed upon them by heaven except priority of birth. [ 534 → 540] Some give a decisive voice to a general council and others to one man whom they hold to be [ 540 → 547] the head of the church, but we do not think such councils possible, nor if they were to [ 547 → 550] be more weight than the fathers. [ 550 → 555] Tragically, the impact of rationalism was not limited to the deists, and the path of [ 555 → 560] destruction through the following five centuries is easy to chronicle. [ 560 → 566] As early as 1633, Frenchman J. Marinas wrote that the Masoretic text of the Bible is full [ 566 → 570] of errors and unsuitable for use in biblical studies. [ 570 → 577] In 1658, another Frenchman, L. Capellas, claimed in Critica Sacra that the Masoretic text [ 577 → 582] was written much later than traditionally supposed and was not faithfully preserved. [ 582 → 588] In 1678, Richard Simon concluded that the Pentateuch had multiple authors and was based [ 588 → 593] on unwritten traditions. [ 593 → 599] Claims of a late date of origin and unwritten traditions remain a controversial component [ 599 → 602] of biblical criticism. [ 602 → 608] Most negative critics have an ingrained mistrust of accounts transmitted orally or recorded [ 608 → 614] well after the event, and the notion of divine inspiration involves the supernatural. [ 614 → 620] An explanation they have eliminated as a possibility. [ 620 → 625] As biblical criticism continued into the 1700s, arguments against the reliability of sacred [ 625 → 627] scripture continued. [ 627 → 633] In 1752, Conyers Middleton claimed that the different accounts among the four gospels [ 633 → 637] stemmed from inaccuracy or faulty memory of the authors. [ 637 → 644] The next year, Frenchman Jean Astruc observed that Genesis uses more than one name for God, [ 644 → 649] and he conjectured that this must mean there were two or perhaps more documents that were [ 649 → 651] combined to form the work. [ 651 → 657] This paved the way for the documentary hypothesis that would come into vogue the following century [ 657 → 661] and is still uncritically taught in most Catholic seminaries. [ 661 → 667] In the latter half of the 18th century, Germany became the hotbed of negative higher criticism. [ 667 → 674] In 1750, Johann Michaelis dismissed the traditional canon of scripture and developed his own method [ 674 → 676] for determining canonicity. [ 676 → 681] A student of Michaelis named Johann Gottfried Eichhorn brought early forms of the documentary [ 681 → 685] hypothesis into mainstream biblical scholarship. [ 685 → 690] Often called the father of Old Testament criticism, Eichhorn's work Einleitung in [ 690 → 696] das Alte Testament established criteria for identifying when divergent source materials [ 696 → 699] may have been used to compile the Pentateuch. [ 699 → 703] He concluded that the Pentateuch was formed from multiple documents that were stitched [ 703 → 708] together by editors or redactors hundreds of years after the time of Moses. [ 708 → 713] He based this conclusion on the parallel accounts of the same events and the two names in the [ 713 → 717] Pentateuch for God, Jehovah, and Elohim. [ 717 → 723] This gave rise to the division of the Pentateuch according to the supposed J-source, E-source [ 723 → 724] material. [ 724 → 731] In the early 1800s, the work of M. L. De Vetta claimed that Deuteronomy was written as late [ 731 → 738] as the 7th century BC and to the presumed J and E sources he added D to signify the [ 738 → 742] supposed editor of Deuteronomy. [ 742 → 746] Biblical criticism of the period was also heavily influenced by Christian Wolff who [ 746 → 752] insisted revelation only facilitates truths that reason can discover on its own. [ 752 → 758] Therefore, energies are best spent on establishing religious truths through philosophy. [ 758 → 762] Any text considered divine must meet certain rational criteria such as whether there is [ 762 → 768] a clear need for the revelation and whether God has sufficient grounds on which to intervene [ 768 → 770] in the world. [ 770 → 776] Another German critic named Johann Simmler who taught at the University of Halle wrote [ 776 → 780] that the Bible may contain divine truths but the words themselves are fallible and are [ 780 → 784] only a vehicle for conveying the divine message. [ 784 → 788] He also rejected the notion of a fixed canon and proclaimed that it was the job of the [ 788 → 794] critic to determine which parts of the Bible contain genuine religion and truths that were [ 794 → 797] tested by the passage of time. [ 797 → 802] The critic's descent into error was aided by the writings of the period's great philosophers [ 802 → 807] who remained rationalists at heart even though the particulars of their individual philosophies [ 807 → 809] varied widely. [ 809 → 810] John Locke wrote that [ 810 → 816] "...whatever God hath revealed is certainly true, but whether it be a divine revelation [ 816 → 820] or no, reason must judge. [ 820 → 825] Nothing that is contrary to and inconsistent with the clear and self-evident dictates of [ 825 → 831] reason has a right to be urged or assented to as a matter of faith." [ 831 → 833] David Hume maintained that [ 833 → 837] "...a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature." [ 837 → 842] And then, invoking the presupposition that no one has ever witnessed a violation of these [ 842 → 843] laws, he concluded that [ 843 → 850] "...the proof against a miracle is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly [ 850 → 852] be imagined." [ 852 → 858] Immanuel Kant wrote that concepts such as the existence of God and immortality had been [ 858 → 859] historically approached [ 859 → 865] "...as a science which is at the very outset dogmatical, without any previous investigation [ 865 → 871] of the ability or inability of reason for such an undertaking, and regarded the conclusions [ 871 → 874] as valueless results." [ 874 → 876] Metaphysical questions, said Kant, [ 876 → 882] "...have a still higher end, the answer to the question what we ought to do if the will [ 882 → 888] is free, if there is a God and a future world." [ 888 → 893] He concluded that mankind should act as if there is a God and that this would bring about [ 893 → 895] happiness. [ 895 → 899] Later philosophers would have nothing to do with such views. [ 899 → 903] Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote mockingly in Twilight of the Idols [ 904 → 908] "...they are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they [ 908 → 911] must cling to Christian morality. [ 911 → 913] We hold otherwise. [ 913 → 918] When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality from [ 918 → 925] under one's feet." [ 925 → 931] Between 1774 and 1778 there emerged under mysterious circumstances what became known [ 931 → 937] in the world of criticism as the Remaris Fragments, so named after Hermann Remaris, a professor [ 937 → 943] of Oriental languages, who had died without publishing his Apology for Rational Worshippers [ 943 → 944] of God. [ 944 → 950] The first fragment asserted that Jesus was merely a teacher of rational practical religion [ 950 → 953] and only followers of his ethical teachings are Christians. [ 953 → 958] The fragment called for tolerance of deists and rationalists, who, it was claimed, were [ 958 → 963] nearer to true religion than their orthodox detractors, who did not understand that the [ 963 → 968] apostles invented the concept of Christ as the Messiah and tailored accounts to make [ 968 → 971] it appear that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. [ 971 → 978] Five more fragments were published in 1777 and stated that only reason proves the truth [ 978 → 979] of the Christian faith. [ 979 → 984] That if revelation occurred, there is no way to guarantee it was not corrupted. [ 984 → 987] That Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. [ 987 → 990] That special revelation is impossible. [ 990 → 994] That it was impossible for the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea. [ 994 → 998] That the Old Testament has nothing to say about the immortality of the soul. [ 998 → 1004] And that the resurrection narratives must be fabricated since they differ in some details. [1004 → 1009] The final fragment was released in 1778 and asserted that the teachings of the church [1009 → 1011] are not those of Jesus. [1011 → 1017] That Jesus never intended to teach complicated concepts such as the Trinity, his divinity, [1017 → 1019] or to institute the sacraments. [1019 → 1025] That his cry from the cross indicated that his mission failed and he died disillusioned. [1025 → 1029] That the church invented the doctrine of the resurrection and final judgment. [1029 → 1034] And that the church transformed Jesus' political mission into a spiritual mission. [1034 → 1038] The disciples stole the body from the tomb and these same conspirators conjured up the [1038 → 1042] Gospels and began Christianity. [1042 → 1048] All of these unorthodox conclusions followed from Ramirus' rationalism and his a priori [1048 → 1053] decision that any text not supporting the view of Jesus as a peasant of limited intelligence [1053 → 1056] and political ambition was a forgery. [1056 → 1059] One commentator observed about the works of Ramirus. [1059 → 1064] Seldom has there been a hate so eloquent, so lofty as scorn. [1064 → 1066] Another critic of the time explained. [1066 → 1071] The first result was a kind of amazement that spread immediately. [1071 → 1074] Many thoughtful and serious young men who had dedicated themselves to the Christian [1074 → 1077] ministry were fearfully shaken. [1077 → 1082] Many determined to choose another profession for their future labors rather than persevere [1082 → 1087] so long amid increasing uncertainty. [1087 → 1094] While it is obvious that behind the unorthodox conclusions of Ramirus was a very irrational [1094 → 1100] rationalism, his views actually revolutionized biblical scholarship. [1100 → 1105] By making a sharp distinction between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Bible, [1105 → 1114] Ramirus is said to have initiated the first quest to discover the real Jesus. [1114 → 1121] As negative criticism transitioned into the 1800s, there appeared dozens of works about [1121 → 1126] the life of Jesus by rationalistic critics. [1126 → 1132] In these works, the rationalistic critics went to great lengths to explain away miraculous [1132 → 1144] accounts in the New Testament. [1144 → 1151] An early example was the 1782 work of Karl Barth who theorized that the Essenes recruited [1151 → 1155] Jesus when he was a young boy to advance their political agenda. [1155 → 1160] Jesus was then introduced to Luke the physician who taught Jesus how to feign miracles through [1160 → 1162] science and deception. [1162 → 1164] Barth stated that it was [1164 → 1169] "...more reasonable to think of a thousand ways by which Jesus might have had sufficient [1169 → 1175] supplies of bread at hand than to believe in a miracle." [1175 → 1180] He speculated that the Essenes stashed large quantities of bread in a nearby cave and then [1180 → 1185] passed these to Jesus from behind as he stood by the cave entrance. [1185 → 1190] Barth also declared that rather than walking on water, Jesus stood on a small raft that [1190 → 1195] the apostles simply did not notice, and Jesus was crucified but he did not die. [1195 → 1201] Instead, Jesus was in top physical condition and by the third day, his wounds were sufficiently [1201 → 1205] healed such that he could rise and walk. [1205 → 1212] From 1800 to 1802, negative critic Carl Vinterini released his work Non-Supernatural History [1212 → 1217] of the Great Prophet of Nazareth in which all accounts of people raised from the dead [1217 → 1221] were said to merely involve people awakening from comas. [1221 → 1226] All events involving nature, such as the calming of the sea, were possible because of Jesus' [1226 → 1228] scientific knowledge. [1228 → 1235] In 1828, critic Heinrich Paulus reported in His Life of Jesus that recorded miracles merely [1235 → 1240] indicate that the eyewitnesses were not aware of the secondary and natural causes behind [1240 → 1241] the event. [1241 → 1245] Healings, for example, were the result of Jesus' knowledge of medicines known only [1245 → 1246] to him. [1246 → 1253] As the number of accounts from the negative critics grew, there was little pushback within [1253 → 1260] biblical scholarship due to the deep penetration of rationalism, and few acknowledged that [1260 → 1266] such writings reflected a complete rejection of the Christian faith. [1266 → 1272] Also few seemed to notice that the rationalistic dismissal of miracles had become more difficult [1272 → 1277] to accept on rational grounds than the miracles themselves. [1277 → 1285] Finally, in 1835 and 1836, a very important German critic named David F. Strauss, whose [1285 → 1291] methods the modern-day Jesus Seminar follow, issued his two-volume Life of Jesus Critically [1291 → 1292] Examined. [1292 → 1297] In this massive work, Strauss broke with the previous rationalists and stated it was [1297 → 1302] "...time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus in place of the antiquated [1302 → 1305] systems of supernaturalism and naturalism. [1305 → 1310] The new point of view which must take the place of the above is the mythical." [1310 → 1312] He explained further, [1312 → 1317] "...the exegesis of the ancient church set out from the double presupposition, first, [1317 → 1323] that the Gospels contained a history, and secondly, that this history was a supernatural [1323 → 1324] one. [1324 → 1330] Rationalism rejected the latter, but only to cling the more tenaciously to the former, [1330 → 1336] maintaining that these books present unadulterated, though only natural, history. [1336 → 1340] Science cannot rest satisfied with this half-measure. [1340 → 1348] The other presupposition that the Gospels contain history also must be relinquished." [1348 → 1353] In essence, Strauss maintained that the Gospels are comprised of mythical accounts having [1353 → 1355] no historical basis. [1355 → 1360] He divided the Gospels into several types of myths, including philosophical myths that [1360 → 1366] were written in the garb of historical narrative to convey a simple thought, a precept, or [1366 → 1368] an idea of the time. [1368 → 1373] According to Strauss, an indicator of myth was when the narration is irreconcilable with [1373 → 1378] the known and universal laws which govern the course of events. [1378 → 1384] In other words, Cartesian rationalism remained the criterion of truth. [1384 → 1390] Strauss also insisted that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were written by impostors [1390 → 1394] in the mid-2nd century and were built upon mythical accounts. [1394 → 1399] His view marked a further development of the debate among critics of the previous generation [1399 → 1405] as to which Gospel was written first and on which the other Gospels likely borrowed accounts. [1405 → 1410] For a time, Mark was declared to be the first Gospel written, only to be declared as the [1410 → 1417] third Gospel by Johann Grispa who first coined the term Synoptic Gospels in 1797. [1417 → 1422] This term refers to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that, in the mind of the critic, [1422 → 1426] compete for the right to be considered a source document for the other two Gospels, [1426 → 1432] with the other two Gospels dismissed as late compositions that merely embellish the first written account. [1432 → 1438] Meanwhile, the Gospel of John is often not even discussed because of the messianic view of Jesus. [1438 → 1444] Negative critics conclude that this Johannine problem indicates very late composition that [1444 → 1448] incorporates the myths that eventually arose about Jesus. [1448 → 1454] In this manner, the multiple testimonies provided by the four Gospels is reduced to one, and [1454 → 1459] even the first Gospel is claimed to have arisen from a collection of sayings of Jesus called [1459 → 1465] Q, even though there is little evidence that Q ever existed. [1465 → 1470] Reviewing the work of the negative critics in the 18th and 19th centuries, a 1906 work [1470 → 1474] called The Quest of the Historical Jesus concluded, [1474 → 1480] The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely historical interest. [1480 → 1486] It turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma. [1486 → 1493] Hate as well as love can write a life of Jesus, and the greatest of them are written with hate. [1493 → 1497] That of Remaris and that of David Friedrich Strauss. [1497 → 1503] It was not so much hate of the person of Jesus as of the supernatural nimbus with which it [1503 → 1505] was so easy to surround him. [1505 → 1511] They were eager to picture him as truly and purely human, and their hate sharpened their [1511 → 1514] historical insight. [1514 → 1520] When chronicling the tragic history of higher criticism, the average Catholic may be dismayed [1520 → 1526] and wonder how learned scholars could have failed to see that their methods were based [1526 → 1532] on the unsound foundation of rationalism, or how they could fail to see the destruction [1532 → 1534] of their theories. [1534 → 1540] But cannot the same be said of present-day Catholic instructors who blindly accept Darwinian [1540 → 1547] claims which are but the necessary outflow of rationalism and are not supported scientifically? [1548 → 1555] In both cases, those who abandon the faith of our fathers and embrace naturalism lose [1555 → 1562] the God-given ability to believe and obtain miracles, and they inevitably choose to associate [1562 → 1569] with others who have embraced the same naturalistic creed. [1574 → 1580] It is bitterly ironic that even as Descartes and his disciples rejected the faith of their [1580 → 1585] fathers, wonder-working saints like Venerable Antonio Margil in Central America and Saint [1585 → 1592] Francis Jerome in Europe worked the kind of miracles performed by our Lord Jesus Christ. [1592 → 1596] The divergent paths that emerged between those who rejected the miraculous and those [1596 → 1601] true Catholics who fully accepted God's word was stark. [1601 → 1608] In 1711, for example, as rationalism was infecting Europe, the arch-skeptic David Hume was born. [1608 → 1614] Hume would have a dramatic influence on philosophy and eventually even on science as the Darwins [1614 → 1617] greatly admired his writings. [1617 → 1621] Meanwhile, God's grace overflowed where the faith was true. [1621 → 1628] In Poland, on February 1, 1711, a nine-year-old girl named Ann Gluzynski was found dead in [1628 → 1630] her bed. [1630 → 1634] Her mother and her father, who was a skeptic until cured of a life-threatening illness [1634 → 1639] through the prayers of the recently martyred Jesuit priest St. Andrew Bobula, asked this [1639 → 1645] same St. Andrew to intercede for their daughter as a Greek Catholic priest recited the words [1645 → 1648] The child is not dead, but sleeping. [1648 → 1654] It is well documented that upon these words, Ann moved her head, recovered her senses, [1654 → 1656] and began to walk. [1656 → 1661] This example was by no means exceptional or short-lived for those who believed the faith [1661 → 1663] once delivered to the saints. [1663 → 1670] A 1920 letter from the bishops of Poland to Pope Benedict XV attested to more than 350 [1671 → 1677] sworn and proven through the intercession of St. Andrew, including 11 instances of people [1677 → 1682] raised from the dead and more than 15 instances of restoration of sight to the blind. [1692 → 1698] Well before Darwin, the evolution of religion was discussed by several philosophers including [1698 → 1703] Auguste Comte who viewed Christianity as the first and fictitious stage of religious [1703 → 1709] development that would eventually develop into the final scientific or positive stage. [1709 → 1716] Georg Hegel viewed history, which, as a pantheist, he saw as part of a universal spirit or mind [1716 → 1722] to involve the principle of development in which the spirit is striving to realize itself. [1722 → 1727] According to Hegel, history is in the process of working out that which it is potentially, [1727 → 1731] and in this working out, there will be struggle and change. [1731 → 1737] From this concept came the more radical interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Marx and others [1737 → 1743] involving the notion that a thesis or idea, once opposed by an antithesis, inevitably [1743 → 1747] results in a synthesis and progress. [1747 → 1752] Among higher critics, the notion of religious development led to the self-appointed task [1752 → 1757] of tracing religious beliefs and practices from the simple and ancient to the more complex [1757 → 1762] and describing how religious concepts of multiple civilizations combined to produce [1762 → 1765] more modern conceptions of God. [1765 → 1771] In the religion of Israel, Johann Watt portrayed Christianity as the product of religious evolution [1771 → 1773] extending back to the Old Testament. [1773 → 1778] In this view, biblical writings do not record actual historical events. [1778 → 1783] They merely record the evolution of religious concepts that eventually found a synthesis [1783 → 1787] in Jesus and the early church. [1787 → 1791] The negative critics also viewed the New Testament in an evolutionary sense. [1791 → 1797] German critic F.C. Bauer, an instructor of David Strauss, viewed early Christianity and [1797 → 1802] the New Testament as a struggle between those holding a conservative Petrine theology, the [1802 → 1808] Judaizers, and those sympathetic to a liberal Pauline theology, the Anti-Judaizers. [1808 → 1812] He alleged that the sequence in which the Gospels and other books of the New Testament [1812 → 1816] were written could be determined by following the progressive development of beliefs in [1816 → 1817] those books. [1817 → 1823] Bauer assigned the origin of the Gospels to the years 130-170, a period during which, [1823 → 1829] he claimed, the Petrine and Pauline factions synthesized into the historical Christianity [1829 → 1830] of record. [1830 → 1834] This late date would mean that the Gospels were not written by the evangelists or their [1834 → 1839] companions, that the Catholic Church has covered up the true history of the New Testament, [1839 → 1843] and that sacred scripture is not only full of errors but a deception that cannot possibly [1843 → 1846] be inspired. [1846 → 1851] With this background, it becomes clear why in 1864, and after more than two centuries [1851 → 1857] of rationalist criticism, Pope Pius IX was compelled to issue his syllabus of errors. [1857 → 1861] Recall from episode 4 that the following were named to be among the principal errors of [1861 → 1863] the time. [1863 → 1867] All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. [1867 → 1872] All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason. [1872 → 1877] Hence, reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge [1877 → 1880] of all truths of every kind. [1880 → 1884] The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in sacred scripture are the fiction [1884 → 1890] of poets, the Old and the New Testament contain mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is himself [1890 → 1892] a myth. [1892 → 1899] Unfortunately, the naming of rationalist errors by Pope Pius IX did little to turn back the [1899 → 1905] tide of Cartesian influence among biblical scholars due to two other publications that [1905 → 1907] date to the same period. [1907 → 1913] In 1863, the century's most influential Life of Jesus book was published by the radical [1913 → 1919] critic Ernest Renan, a man who lost his faith and abandoned the priesthood at the age of [1919 → 1927] 22 only to become an instructor of biblical criticism at the Collège de France. [1927 → 1932] What made Renan's Life of Jesus so important was that it was written for the common man. [1932 → 1938] This was unfortunate because, as a true rationalist, Renan's starting assumption was that none [1938 → 1942] of the gospel's miraculous events really occurred. [1942 → 1947] In his introduction, Renan establishes ground rules, stating, [1947 → 1951] We will inquire only in what degree the data furnished by the gospels may be employed in [1951 → 1955] a history formed according to rational principles. [1955 → 1960] That the gospels are in part legendary is evident since they are full of miracles and [1960 → 1962] of the supernatural. [1962 → 1968] Observation, which has never once been falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but [1968 → 1974] in times and countries in which they are believed and before persons disposed to believe them. [1974 → 1981] It is not then in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience, [1981 → 1986] that we banish miracle from history. [1986 → 1992] Since readers not trained in biblical criticism knew nothing of rationalistic methods, Renan's [1992 → 1999] Life of Jesus introduced widespread doubt across Europe as the book sold more than 60,000 [1999 → 2002] copies in the first five months alone. [2002 → 2008] By the late 1800s, the book's influence was regarded by many as being on par with Darwin's [2008 → 2013] Origin of Species and Marx's Das Kapital. [2013 → 2018] From a Catholic perspective, an important figure who studied under Renan for three years [2018 → 2020] was a French priest named Fr. [2020 → 2026] Alfred Louisi, who would later praise Renan for providing him training in historical critical [2026 → 2027] methods. [2027 → 2029] We will learn more about Fr. [2029 → 2032] Alfred Louisi in Part 2. [2032 → 2037] The second publication from the period that helped fan Renan's flames of doubt was of [2037 → 2042] course Darwin's Origin of Species, which was published just four years before and was [2042 → 2047] also written on a level that had wide appeal to non-specialists. [2047 → 2052] Taken together, the writings of Darwin and Renan provided the world with a first glimpse [2052 → 2058] at the devastating effects of rationalism when simultaneously assumed in the domains [2058 → 2063] of natural science, theology, history and philosophy. [2063 → 2068] As the harmony of rationalistic error worked its way through the Western world, the faith [2068 → 2077] of millions was impacted. [2077 → 2083] One of the specific ways that Darwinism impacted theological studies was that it gave renewed [2083 → 2087] vigor to the early forms of the documentary hypothesis. [2087 → 2094] This theory reached its fullest expression with Julius Wellhausen during the late 1870s. [2094 → 2099] The basic theory holds that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, as there was likely [2099 → 2101] not even writing in his time. [2101 → 2106] Rather, the Pentateuch was woven together through four primary sources or traditions [2106 → 2111] between the 9th century and perhaps the 5th century BC, or even later. [2111 → 2117] The sources include Yahwist, or J-source, the Elohist, or E-source, the Priestly, or [2117 → 2121] P-source, and the Deuteronomic, or D-source. [2121 → 2126] Found within each of these sources were myths and embellishments, which eliminates serious [2126 → 2131] consideration of their historical validity, let alone inerrancy. [2131 → 2136] Biblical scholar Gleason Archer explains the environment in which Wellhausen's theory [2136 → 2137] was tabled. [2137 → 2143] Although Wellhausen contributed no innovations to speak of, he restated the documentary theory [2143 → 2150] with great skill and persuasiveness, sporting the JEDP sequence upon an evolutionary basis. [2150 → 2155] This was the age in which Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was capturing the allegiance [2155 → 2157] of the scholarly and scientific world. [2157 → 2165] The theory of development fitted admirably into Hegelian dialecticism and Darwin's evolutionism. [2165 → 2170] The age was ripe for the documentary theory, and Wellhausen's name became attached to [2170 → 2173] it as the classical exponent of it. [2173 → 2179] A Catholic commentary on Holy Scriptures stated that the entire hypothesis rested on questionable [2179 → 2182] presuppositions that include 1. [2182 → 2187] exclusion of the supernatural, that is, of any direct intervention of the deity in human [2187 → 2189] history 2. [2189 → 2194] the evolutionary scheme of unilinear progress in religious thought, this development following [2194 → 2198] strictly Hegelian dialectic 3. [2198 → 2204] the presumption that Hebrew historiography is not to be relied on [2204 → 2209] What is remarkable about the documentary hypothesis is that it continues to survive in Catholic [2209 → 2215] and Protestant seminaries and institutions, even though its fundamental assumptions began [2215 → 2221] to crumble almost immediately after the full hypothesis was expressed by Wellhausen. [2221 → 2227] Indeed, by the 1920s, it was clear that not only was there writing in Moses' time, but [2227 → 2230] that it had been around for several centuries. [2230 → 2235] Further, based on multiple indicators, it is highly likely that in addition to the inspiration [2235 → 2241] of the Holy Spirit, Moses had reliable written accounts in tablet form from the patriarchs [2241 → 2244] that he used to write Genesis. [2244 → 2247] In Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, P.J. [2247 → 2249] Wiseman explains. [2249 → 2253] We now know something of the literary methods used by the ancients. [2253 → 2258] In Genesis, we find a similar literary method. [2258 → 2263] The method and indicator to which Wiseman refers involves the multiple verses in Genesis [2263 → 2267] that state, these are the generations of. [2267 → 2273] He explains that in using this phrase, Moses clearly indicates the source of the information [2273 → 2278] available to him and names the persons who originally possessed the tablets from which [2278 → 2279] he gained his knowledge. [2279 → 2282] These are not arbitrarily invented divisions. [2282 → 2288] They are stated by the author to be the framework of the book, indicating the source from which [2288 → 2292] he obtained the narratives and genealogies. [2292 → 2296] Regarding Genesis 1, Wiseman states. [2296 → 2301] The first chapter is so ancient that it does not contain mythical or legendary matter. [2301 → 2304] These elements are entirely absent. [2304 → 2309] It bears the markings of having been written before myth and legend had time to grow. [2309 → 2315] And not, as is often stated, at a later date when it had to be stripped of the mythical [2315 → 2320] and legendary elements inherent in every other account of creation. [2320 → 2326] This account is so original that it does not bear a trace of any system of philosophy. [2326 → 2332] Yet it is so profound that it is capable of correcting philosophical systems. [2332 → 2337] It is so ancient that it contains nothing that is merely nationalistic. [2337 → 2342] Neither Babylonian, Egyptian, nor Jewish modes of thought find a place in it. [2342 → 2348] For it was written before clans, nations, or philosophies originated. [2348 → 2353] Surely, we must regard it as the original, of which the other accounts are merely corrupted [2353 → 2355] copies. [2355 → 2361] Others incorporate their national philosophies in crude polytheistic and mythological form. [2361 → 2363] This is pure. [2363 → 2367] Genesis 1 is as primitive as the first human. [2367 → 2372] It is the threshold of written history. [2372 → 2377] Following many sound arguments for mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the discrediting [2377 → 2382] of foundational assumptions of the documentary hypothesis, Wiseman concludes. [2382 → 2387] The higher critical theories were advanced before anyone was in possession of a single [2387 → 2391] secular document of the patriarchal age, and the critics were thus wholly ignorant [2391 → 2394] of the manner in which records of that age were written. [2394 → 2401] When this is understood, it is not surprising that, like men groping in the dark, advanced [2401 → 2405] scholars wove together their intermixture of short-lived theories. [2406 → 2412] It is as unscientific as it is inaccurate to speak of the assured results of modern [2412 → 2417] criticism, for these results are neither assured nor modern. [2417 → 2422] Excavation has proved the critical theories to be not only groundless, but false. [2425 → 2432] By the early 1870s, a noticeable shift of power occurred between those biblical scholars [2432 → 2438] holding an orthodox versus a rationalist view of sacred scripture. [2438 → 2444] The added weapon allowing the rationalist advance was, as we have discussed, Darwinism. [2444 → 2451] In 1873, the influential German critic and rationalist David Strauss, who declared the [2451 → 2458] New Testament to be filled with myths in his 1835 Life of Jesus, openly declared victory [2458 → 2463] over orthodoxy and all miraculous accounts of scripture. [2463 → 2470] He also predicted that the combined impact of negative criticism and Darwinism, what [2470 → 2477] we have been calling the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative, would destroy the Christian faith. [2477 → 2484] His declaration and prediction were contained in the 1873 work The Old Faith and the New. [2485 → 2492] As if proposing a toast to Darwin, the now elderly German critic David Strauss wrote [2492 → 2493] the following. [2494 → 2498] Against theological doctrine, an opposition has risen. [2498 → 2504] Natural science has long endeavored to substitute the evolutionary theory in place of the conception [2504 → 2510] of creation, but it was Charles Darwin who made the first truly scientific attempt. [2510 → 2514] The theory is unquestionably still very imperfect. [2514 → 2518] Nevertheless, we can see the direction it will take. [2518 → 2523] Thither it shall and must go, where the flags are fluttering joyfully in the breeze. [2523 → 2530] Yes, joyfully, for vainly did we philosophers and critical theologians over and over again [2530 → 2533] decree the extermination of miracles. [2533 → 2539] But our sentence died away, because we could neither dispense with miraculous agency nor [2539 → 2546] point to any natural force able to supply it where it seemed most indispensable. [2546 → 2551] Darwin has demonstrated this force, this process of nature. [2551 → 2558] He has opened the door by which a happier coming race will finally cast out miracles. [2558 → 2564] Everyone who knows what miracles imply will praise him as one of the greatest benefactors [2564 → 2567] of the human race. [2567 → 2569] He concluded, [2569 → 2574] When day by day the prospect grows brighter for our eventually demonstrating the conditions [2574 → 2580] under which life has been developed in accordance with natural laws, what then becomes of the [2580 → 2586] personal creator, who is supposed to have miraculously called into being the universe, [2586 → 2591] and what becomes of the church, whose whole system of faith is based upon a miraculous [2591 → 2593] beginning? [2593 → 2600] If we would have our yay-yay and our nay-nay, in short, if we would speak as honest, upright [2600 → 2604] men, we must acknowledge we are no longer Christian. [2604 → 2611] We shall have to conceive of the cosmos as being the sum not only of all phenomena, but [2611 → 2617] of all forces and all laws. [2617 → 2623] These chilling words were written with confidence because it was clear to Strauss that the Cartesian [2623 → 2630] Darwinian narrative had not only gained influence among biblical scholars, but the new view [2630 → 2636] of reality had penetrated the mindset of the general population. [2636 → 2639] Evolutionism and rationalism had merged. [2639 → 2645] The combined destructive force was quickly becoming the spear of the age, and it was [2645 → 2650] being applied to all areas of thought, including traditional Catholic doctrine. [2650 → 2653] As one theologian of the period wrote, [2681 → 2686] is threatened, and yet many stubbornly refuse to see the danger. [2686 → 2691] Will this licentious proliferation of errors one day give birth to some great heresy? [2691 → 2693] There are grounds to fear it. [2693 → 2698] For under all these variant forms of the spirit of novelty lies a common thought from which [2698 → 2704] the other proceed, a master concept which gives force and cohesion to the whole. [2704 → 2710] It is a system capable of extending into and infiltrating all the sciences. [2710 → 2718] It is evolutionism, an error of the future, an invasive and conquering idea, which deserves [2718 → 2722] the most serious attention. [2722 → 2730] In part two of episode thirteen, we will trace the impact of the Cartesian Darwinian narrative [2730 → 2734] on the Catholic Church in the form of the modernist heresy. [2734 → 2739] We will also see that the modernist mindset in the form of neo-modernism continues to [2739 → 2743] destroy the faith of millions. [2743 → 2750] This destruction will continue until the underlying rationalism and evolutionism are adequately [2750 → 2751] addressed. [2751 → 2759] May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ give strength to His Church in these trying times [2759 → 2765] and help us preserve the faith handed down from the Apostles. [2765 → 2766] Amen. [2909 → 2910] Amen. [2910 → 2910] Amen.