Is Faith logical?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I have been totally amazed that some, not all, Christians continually pose innocent-type situations for Adam and Eve.

What might be an example of such an "innocent-type situation?"

That is so illogical when one considers the watershed of Original Sin. It is as if Genesis 3: 1-7 has never been read.

I apologize: I fail to understand the meaning of the above statement.

It is also illogical to assume that human nature was not human nature when Adam and Eve were in God's friendship. However, I think that non-valid assumption is due to the flawed concept that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature. One poster used to insist that current humans were sin machines or something similar to that.

Is it not the position of the Church that Original Sin did so corrupt? If not, what did mankind apparently learn upon consumption of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil if not knowledge of same?

When speaking of logical faith, it is the actual teachings of the Catholic Church which are the logical interpretation for the first three chapters of Genesis. The logic of Catholicism has a firm base in the first three chapters of Genesis.

As I reread your post, it seems to me that there are a number of issues or questions which need to be resolved. Would it be possible to start a discussion with your favorite issue or question as a base or maybe a premise. For example, I have started with the premise that God exists as a spiritual being. I will be happy to switch to a premise of your choosing.

Certainly. I apologize if my curiosity has resulted in our losing track of the original direction. Let us chose from among the below questions to explore prior to returning to spirituality as they appear more basic to understanding.

My sense is that you may be looking at Adam and Eve from questions such as --

Who are they?

What kind of intelligence do they have?

Is the Garden a real place?

Was there love between God and Adam?

What is the devil?

Why are both a rational intellect and free will necessary to be in a relationship with God?

Perhaps some of these questions belong to the basic question of what constitutes human nature in the first place.

Certainly these seem interesting to pursue. Shall we require a separate topic for each?

On NCIS, there was a minor discussion about how does one put a puzzle together. Starting with the outside frame and working inward or starting in the center? Either approach works for me.

OK

[LaramieHirsch]

"Can we agree on a third Axiom? Can we agree on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That things in the universe break down? Do I need to state the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

This is true only in a closed system.

Is the universe a closed system, for the most part?

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

4) Does time (subjective or otherwise) pass in Heaven?

I actually don't know. I've never looked into it. Though, I think I recall time passing in Heaven in the Book of the Apocalypse. A more solid answer later.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

What might be an example of such an "innocent-type situation?"

I don't know. This is because there is disagreement regarding the fact that Adam knew right from wrong from the beginning of his life. Does knowledge of good and evil take away innocence is where I get hung up.

From granny's post 104. "That is so illogical when one considers the watershed of Original Sin. It is as if Genesis 3: 1-7 has never been read."

I apologize: I fail to understand the meaning of the above statement.

For me, "watershed" is a powerful visual image where the water drains down both sides of the mountain. My dictionary calls watershed a crucial dividing point, line, or factor. The watershed of Original Sin needs to be considered seriously, more so than the "eating of the fruit."

Is it not the position of the Church that Original Sin did so corrupt? If not, what did mankind apparently learn upon consumption of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil if not knowledge of same?

The Catholic Church does not teach that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition teaches that human nature was wounded. On one side of the watershed, man had mastery of self. On the other side, like the sameness of water, man still had human nature but it was impaired by the triple concupiscence of inordinate pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthy goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason. (source: CCC 377)

Adam did not learn about the difference between good and evil from eating the fruit. He learned the difference between good and evil as part of his original relationship with a Pure Spirit Creator. Adam was dependent on his Creator. As the creature, Adam needed to live in free submission to God. He was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. This way of understanding the situation of human nature flows logically from the original relationship of the first human with God.

Certainly. I apologize if my curiosity has resulted in our losing track of the original direction. Let us chose from among the below questions to explore prior to returning to spirituality as they appear more basic to understanding.

I love curiosity. Extreme curiosity is one of my virtues. When faced with questions regarding human origin, my curiosity lead me to human nature and then on to the way it is taught by the Catholic Church. There is more to Adam and human nature than I first realized. My curiosity is not completely satisfied.

Who are they?

What kind of intelligence do they have?

Is the Garden a real place?

Was there love between God and Adam?

What is the devil?

Why are both a rational intellect and free will necessary to be in a relationship with God?

Certainly these seem interesting to pursue. Shall we require a separate topic for each?

I'm not sure. Pick a topic to your liking or choose something else. My only preference is not to start with the devil.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

"Can we agree on a third Axiom? Can we agree on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That things in the universe break down? Do I need to state the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"



Is the universe a closed system, for the most part?

That depends. Some theorize that it is indeed closed, while others conceive that it is open (such as in Brane Theory). Certainly the Earth is an open system.

I actually don't know. I've never looked into it. Though, I think I recall time passing in Heaven in the Book of the Apocalypse. A more solid answer later.

OK, try the below instead.

4a) Is one able to learn (or think) in Heaven?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I don't know. This is because there is disagreement regarding the fact that Adam knew right from wrong from the beginning of his life. Does knowledge of good and evil take away innocence is where I get hung up.

If innocence is characterized as a lack of knowledge or experience on a given topic, then would not adding such knowledge necessarily reduce said innocence?

From granny's post 104. "That is so illogical when one considers the watershed of Original Sin. It is as if Genesis 3: 1-7 has never been read."

For me, "watershed" is a powerful visual image where the water drains down both sides of the mountain. My dictionary calls watershed a crucial dividing point, line, or factor. The watershed of Original Sin needs to be considered seriously, more so than the "eating of the fruit."

Watershed is clear. Original Sin is clear. What is not so clear appears to be an understanding of what is meant by the position suggested by: "Christians continually pose innocent-type situations for Adam and Eve", which "is illogical when considering the watershed of Original Sin."

How might the consideration of such "innocent-type situations" be "illogical" due to Original Sin? What might make the first instance illogical in light of the second?

The Catholic Church does not teach that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition teaches that human nature was wounded. On one side of the watershed, man had mastery of self. On the other side, like the sameness of water, man still had human nature but it was impaired by the triple concupiscence of inordinate pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthy goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason. (source: CCC 377)

Adam did not learn about the difference between good and evil from eating the fruit. He learned the difference between good and evil as part of his original relationship with a Pure Spirit Creator. Adam was dependent on his Creator. As the creature, Adam needed to live in free submission to God. He was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. This way of understanding the situation of human nature flows logically from the original relationship of the first human with God.

If this is accurate, is it not at the very least unfortunate that the authors of Genesis seemingly did not agree? For if they had agreed, would they not have indicated the fruit to have come from "the tree of the loss of innocence" or some such rather than "the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

Further, if Adam and Eve did not gain knowledge of good and evil from the tree, what alternate knowledge might it instead be said that they did gain?

I love curiosity. Extreme curiosity is one of my virtues. When faced with questions regarding human origin, my curiosity lead me to human nature and then on to the way it is taught by the Catholic Church. There is more to Adam and human nature than I first realized. My curiosity is not completely satisfied.



I'm not sure. Pick a topic to your liking or choose something else. My only preference is not to start with the devil.

What kind of intelligence did they have?

Is the Garden a real place?

Was there love between God and Adam?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

If innocence is characterized as a lack of knowledge or experience on a given topic, then would not adding such knowledge necessarily reduce said innocence?

I believe that question will be resolved when we tackle --What kind of intelligence did they have?

Watershed is clear. Original Sin is clear. What is not so clear appears to be an understanding of what is meant by the position suggested by: "Christians continually pose innocent-type situations for Adam and Eve", which "is illogical when considering the watershed of Original Sin."

1. In order to commit a sin, there has to be an actual sin. 2. One must fully understand that the action involved is an actual sin. 3. One must freely commit the actual sin. These three points involve knowledge of good and evil. Adam had this knowledge before he could commit the Original Sin. Someone who is innocent of the knowledge of good and evil would not be able to commit the Original Sin. The Original Sin marks the point or line where previous knowledge of sin became actual sin due to Adam's choice to scorn his Creator. .

How might the consideration of such "innocent-type situations" be "illogical" due to Original Sin? What might make the first instance illogical in light of the second?

Being innocent of the knowledge of good and evil cannot exist at the same time that actual knowledge of good and evil exists.

If this is accurate, is it not at the very least unfortunate that the authors of Genesis seemingly did not agree? For if they had agreed, would they not have indicated the fruit to have come from "the tree of the loss of innocence" or some such rather than "the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

Genesis 3: 1-5 states that the temptation to sin was to be equal with God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolizes knowing all that God knows and thus Adam would be equal to God. Logically, it is impossible for human nature which unites both the material and spiritual worlds to be equal with a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions.

Adam was given the freedom to think and do. He abused his freedom to disobey God. He chose his own wishes over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status, and therefore against his own good. (source: CCC 396-398)

Further, if Adam and Eve did not gain knowledge of good and evil from the tree, what alternate knowledge might it instead be said that they did gain?

At the moment, I do not have a source for a direct answer to your question.

This is what seems personally reasonable to me. One could offer that Adam and Eve experienced the consequences of losing their original state of holiness and justice. Original holiness and justice refers to their intimate relationship with God and the subsequent harmony in their lives without death. I am sure there are better explanations for original holiness and justice.

A very important piece of knowledge was the assurance that God had not abandoned them. Out of His love for them and their descendents, including you and me, God promised a Savior Who would reconcile humanity with divinity. (John 3:16)

When Adam's descendents went their own ways and chose to live different lives, the fact that there is a God and He was knowable remained a part of their nature. Granted that they lost sight of "One God" and substituted many kinds of gods; yet, they never lost their consciousness of the spiritual world.

Back in post 98 you asked this question which relates to what I said about the descendents of Adam retaining their consciousness of the spiritual world.
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....4&postcount=98

How is a child's imagining of a local monster dismissible as fanciful, but an adult's imagining of a creator acceptable as proof of same?

What I am doing is focusing attention to the child and the adult instead of focusing on the proof of a local monster or a creator. Being conscious of the spiritual world does not insure that what is imagined about the spiritual world is an accurate description. The inherent instinct that the spiritual world exists comes from our spiritual soul which then gives us the capability for a relationship with God.

Our nature is spiritual (along with the material) in order to know God Who is a Pure Spirit. While many people over the centuries have lost knowledge of God as He can be known, there is still the curiosity that seeks the truth of a Spiritual Being.

Catholic theology holds that God's presence sustains creation. God is present to our inmost being. (source: CCC 300) "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." (source: CCC 1260, refer to footnote 63)

Emphasis mine. By the way, the quote above is a good example of the logic of the Catholic Faith.

[Micorhizea]

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?

Good idea here to distinguish between "logical" and "rationalized." Most folks who believe in God have rationalized that it is so; but God is not the result of a proof. Neither should faith be. It could be a matter of conscience. And that word means "with knowing" not "with belief" or "with rationalizing." People come up with "proofs" because they somehow, either through inculcation, rationalization, or discovery, make a claim that there is a God. So called "proofs" inevitably follow, whatever the prover's religion or lack thereof.

2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

It will be so if you wish it to be, if you already believe. But the "true" religion is what gets you face to face with God. And then, who is there to witness?

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

4a) Is one able to learn (or think) in Heaven?

Not ready quite yet.

Your last three questions are biggies:

Is there time in Heaven?
Is one able to learn in Heaven?
Is one able to think in Heaven?

The thing that makes this so difficult is the fact that we are discussion another dimension entirely, from which people do not return, unless under special circumstances. And even when people do return from said dimension, it is with limited information. I am, of course, referring to private revelations from apparitions.

Nevertheless, I've scared up a good batch of results from your questions. Please do not ask anything further, until I am able to fully answer the first three, as I do not wish to be messy.

Also, we'll continue to build up the axioms on which we mutually agree.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Not ready quite yet.

Your last three questions are biggies:

Is there time in Heaven?
Is one able to learn in Heaven?
Is one able to think in Heaven?

The thing that makes this so difficult is the fact that we are discussion another dimension entirely, from which people do not return, unless under special circumstances. And even when people do return from said dimension, it is with limited information. I am, of course, referring to private revelations from apparitions.

Nevertheless, I've scared up a good batch of results from your questions. Please do not ask anything further, until I am able to fully answer the first three, as I do not wish to be messy.

Also, we'll continue to build up the axioms on which we mutually agree.

What really makes it difficult to answer the questions ---
Is there time in Heaven?
Is one able to learn in Heaven?
Is one able to think in Heaven?
-- is that the term "Beatific Vision" is not on the front burner.

Please take my comment as a simple suggestion of where to look so that you have a sound base for answering those questions. Personally, I cannot attempt to answer those questions at this time.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I believe that question will be resolved when we tackle --What kind of intelligence did they have?

1. In order to commit a sin, there has to be an actual sin. 2. One must fully understand that the action involved is an actual sin. 3. One must freely commit the actual sin. These three points involve knowledge of good and evil. Adam had this knowledge before he could commit the Original Sin. Someone who is innocent of the knowledge of good and evil would not be able to commit the Original Sin. The Original Sin marks the point or line where previous knowledge of sin became actual sin due to Adam's choice to scorn his Creator.

Being innocent of the knowledge of good and evil cannot exist at the same time that actual knowledge of good and evil exists.

Agreed, but is this not potentially the very point of the question: if Adam and Eve appear to have been as naive as suggested by the text, how might they have been guilty of the sin?

Might it be understandable why one might not potentially find it entirely satisfactory to merely assume their guilt and work backwards to prove their wickedness in spite of any apparent evidence to the contrary? Does one not find within the text:

1) A male and female apparently unaware that they are naked.
2) A tree given a label denoting the knowledge of good and evil will be learned once the fruit is eaten.
3) An incredibly intelligent serpent roaming about the garden, apparently at God's behest, who quickly beguiles these humans with only the most surface of arguments.
4) An instant reaction on the part of the humans to the suggestions of the serpent with no apparent inner struggle, nor drawn out debate.
5) A subsequent attempt on the part of the humans to hide from an Omniscient and Omnipotent God, seemingly suggesting a lack of coherent forethought into how they might have planned to escape God noticing their transgression--further suggesting the activity of earlier in the day lacked premeditation. Either this or a lack of understanding of God's role and/or abilities.
6) God's slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans' comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves--behaving more as would dependent children.

Further, if God had truly wished Adam and Eve to have had a reasonable opportunity to avoid their Fall, why did he not warn them of the serpent? Had either Adam or Eve any apparent experience with falsehood? If so, how?

Genesis 3: 1-5 states that the temptation to sin was to be equal with God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolizes knowing all that God knows and thus Adam would be equal to God. Logically, it is impossible for human nature which unites both the material and spiritual worlds to be equal with a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions.

Adam was given the freedom to think and do. He abused his freedom to disobey God. He chose his own wishes over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status, and therefore against his own good. (source: CCC 396-398)

If Adam and Eve were not innocent prior to eating of the fruit, why might it have been a sudden revelation to them afterwards that they were naked?

Further, if Adam had such freedom of will and conscience, would this not also require that he could have sinned at any time while within the garden without even approaching the Tree Of The Knowledge of Good And Evil? If so, what made eating of that one fruit so egregious? Could not Cain have as easily killed his brother inside the garden if they had all remained within? If so, would that then have been the sin that brought about the Fall?

At the moment, I do not have a source for a direct answer to your question.

This is what seems personally reasonable to me. One could offer that Adam and Eve experienced the consequences of losing their original state of holiness and justice. Original holiness and justice refers to their intimate relationship with God and the subsequent harmony in their lives without death. I am sure there are better explanations for original holiness and justice.

A very important piece of knowledge was the assurance that God had not abandoned them. Out of His love for them and their descendents, including you and me, God promised a Savior Who would reconcile humanity with divinity. (John 3:16)

Is this accurate? Did God not clearly abandon them for several thousands of years before the incarnation of Jesus? Certainly if God were to evict one from residence with him and then heap untold misery upon the one, would that same individual be pleased that God would present his distant descendant with a chance at redemption? Would not the one feel necessarily cast adrift as an individual, even if potentially remembered as a race?

When Adam's descendents went their own ways and chose to live different lives, the fact that there is a God and He was knowable remained a part of their nature. Granted that they lost sight of "One God" and substituted many kinds of gods; yet, they never lost their consciousness of the spiritual world.

Back in post 98 you asked this question which relates to what I said about the descendents of Adam retaining their consciousness of the spiritual world.
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....4&postcount=98

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

What I am doing is focusing attention to the child and the adult instead of focusing on the proof of a local monster or a creator. Being conscious of the spiritual world does not insure that what is imagined about the spiritual world is an accurate description. The inherent instinct that the spiritual world exists comes from our spiritual soul which then gives us the capability for a relationship with God.

Our nature is spiritual (along with the material) in order to know God Who is a Pure Spirit. While many people over the centuries have lost knowledge of God as He can be known, there is still the curiosity that seeks the truth of a Spiritual Being.

Catholic theology holds that God's presence sustains creation. God is present to our inmost being. (source: CCC 300) "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." (source: CCC 1260, refer to footnote 63)

Emphasis mine. By the way, the quote above is a good example of the logic of the Catholic Faith.

If focusing less on the substance of the imaginings, but more on the individuals so imagining, how is it possible to consider that a child's fears of dark shadows may be equated with an adult's inner yearning for peace and tranquility so as to compose the notion that both might be perceiving (however imperfectly) the spiritual realm? Why might a child's perception of the spiritual realm appear to be largely negative and clearly more pronounced after witnessing a disturbing event?

Might it not be as logical to assume that both the child's and adult's imaginings are perfectly rational extensions of experience coupled with an innate desire to escape danger? Might not such real dangers often have existed at night for the child and so a protection against same might have been a hypersensitivity to predatory shapes?

Might not an equal desire to escape harm occupy the mind of the adult, thereby leading him/her to long for a location where safety might be taken for granted?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments...but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So...

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?


And we'll see where this goes.

http://www.ewtn.com/search.asp Enter into search box, Fr Spitzer
these are primarily audio files

[eo_chibears]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments...but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So...

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?


And we'll see where this goes.

It is impossible to prove that a God does not exist. So by that fact, there is logic in the belief on God. Billions of people don't feel Christianity is the true faith and around 2 billion think it is the true faith. I guess it depends on how you go about proving that Christianity is the one true faith. A bible written over hundreds of years and edited multiple times seems like pretty weak proof. What other forms of proof do you look at?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Agreed, but is this not potentially the very point of the question: if Adam and Eve appear to have been as naive as suggested by the text, how might they have been guilty of the sin?

Might it be understandable why one might not potentially find it entirely satisfactory to merely assume their guilt and work backwards to prove their wickedness in spite of any apparent evidence to the contrary? Does one not find within the text:

1) A male and female apparently unaware that they are naked.
2) A tree given a label denoting the knowledge of good and evil will be learned once the fruit is eaten.
3) An incredibly intelligent serpent roaming about the garden, apparently at God's behest, who quickly beguiles these humans with only the most surface of arguments.
4) An instant reaction on the part of the humans to the suggestions of the serpent with no apparent inner struggle, nor drawn out debate.
5) A subsequent attempt on the part of the humans to hide from an Omniscient and Omnipotent God, seemingly suggesting a lack of coherent forethought into how they might have planned to escape God noticing their transgression--further suggesting the activity of earlier in the day lacked premeditation. Either this or a lack of understanding of God's role and/or abilities.
6) God's slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans' comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves--behaving more as would dependent children.

Let's begin with point 6) "God's slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans' comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves--behaving more as would dependent children."

We do know from Eve that they could eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden. Genesis 3: 2. It is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said to Adam: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." Genesis 2: 15-17. And we quickly realize that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a day-by-day diary of what was happening and when. Instead, the important teaching is that Adam and Eve were dependent children as you mentioned in point 6.

My question to you, Jelrak TB, is how would you describe Adam and Eve's dependence during their prior experience.

Starting with Genesis 1: 26, there is evidence of a strong relationship between God and Adam. We know from Genesis 2: 15-17 that Adam was to cultivate and care for the Garden of Eden. We also hear God giving a direct command to Adam. Eve repeats this command when she is talking with the devil. To me, all this signifies that the relationship between God and Adam is not a relationship between equals. Thus, dependency of some sort would be there. I do see Adam and Eve as dependent children so how would you describe this dependence?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

If focusing less on the substance of the imaginings, but more on the individuals so imagining, how is it possible to consider that a child's fears of dark shadows may be equated with an adult's inner yearning for peace and tranquility so as to compose the notion that both might be perceiving (however imperfectly) the spiritual realm? Why might a child's perception of the spiritual realm appear to be largely negative and clearly more pronounced after witnessing a disturbing event?

There is no equating in your first question, because an adult's inner yearning for peace and tranquility does not necessarily imply an awareness of the immaterial. A comfortable chair near a lake could work for peace and tranquility. And when it comes to a child's fears, there first has to be an awareness of the possibility of something non-material. A child's perception of the spiritual realm can only occur if the child has the ability to imagine such a supernatural realm.

What I am saying is that there is an inherent ability in humans which can recognize the supernatural as being something other than what is natural in their environment.

Might it not be as logical to assume that both the child's and adult's imaginings are perfectly rational extensions of experience coupled with an innate desire to escape danger?

While I agree with your comment per se, I have to point out that I am not talking about imaginings, I am talking about an ability not the results.

Might not such real dangers often have existed at night for the child and so a protection against same might have been a hypersensitivity to predatory shapes?

I don't remember saying that the ability to think about the supernatural is the only ability humans have. Past experiences do affect us. The ability to remember past experiences and learn from them is different from the ability that lets us go beyond the material/physical world.

Might not an equal desire to escape harm occupy the mind of the adult, thereby leading him/her to long for a location where safety might be taken for granted?

Of course. What is very interesting about your question is that the location can be either material or spiritual. I am thinking about "sacred grounds" set aside by some tribes. Sometimes these grounds are considered to be inhabited or protected by spirits. This is because humans have the ability to understand the difference between a spirit world and an ordinary earth. Granted that spirits are not exactly like God as Catholics proclaim. But there is the perception that spirits have some power and they have some kind of relationship with humans. This openness to the spiritual is important especially since it is a kind of preparation for the acceptance of the Christian Gospel.

Our human nature is fantastic despite the flaws. I love the way Catholicism looks at human nature. We are so very precious that God sent His only Son to be among us as True God and True Man so that humanity could be reconciled with divinity. Catholics hold that God offers to each person the possibility of eternal peace and tranquility when we pass through the door of death. God does this in a way only known to God, not us. We know God seeks each person because the logic of our faith says that because Christ died for all, it follows that all will be offered the opportunity to respond to God. We are not to judge the merit of a person's response. That is God's job.