C
Happy Memorial Day!
Christians are bound to affirm all that the Church teaches as matters of faith and morals. We reject pure naturalism, and we believe that the universe was made out of nothing by the free will of God. The Church believes Genesis teaches us truth about the origin of the world because the Bible is God's infallible revelation. But if we affirm the Bible as God's inspired book, must we reject at all secular science as somehow ungodly? If we take Genesis chapters 1 and 2 seriously, are we required to believe that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days, even if scientific research tends to indicate otherwise?
Augustine, bishop of Hippo from 395 to his death in 430, wrote commentaries on the Genesis creation narratives five times in his life. Why did Augustine spend so much time on the Genesis creation narratives? Augustine encountered different philosophies of his day. These belief systems left a deep impression on him, and he was convinced later that he had to defend the Christian faith against them. He produced some of the most powerful arguments ever offered in defense of God's creation.
Augustine never used the term "science" in its modern sense nor did any other ancient writer, Christian or pagan. This was not because there was no science in antiquity but because it was called natural philosophy. Natural philosophy, up until the nineteenth century generally, meant the knowledge of a specific science and the philosophy of nature implied by that knowledge. He was convinced that two of the most powerful tools in combating false science were reason and sense experience
Augustine's first guideline is to recognize the purpose of Scripture. Human language is slippery. To understand what someone is telling us, we must hear the words and discern the person's intention. The Bible is a special case because it has human authors but behind each one there is a divine author, the Holy Spirit. When we read the Bible, we want to know both the human and divine authors' intentions. The divine intention or purpose of Scripture may be discerned from the language used in a biblical text.
ful tools in combating false science were reason and sense experience.
The purpose of the Bible is redemptive, said Augustine. God gave us the Bible to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation, not science. In his Literal Commentary Augustine asked what Scripture teaches about the shape or the form of the heavens, a topic that many ancient writers addressed. Are the heavens spherical or flat like a disc? Or, does it matter? He responded: "Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omittedthem. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek God, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial." These words may seem to suggest that Augustine disparaged science, and he has been interpreted that way by secular-minded readers. He did not think that natural knowledge was worthless, only that it was inferior to knowledge of God, who made nature. Augustine was saying that the biblical authors were not giving a definitive theory of the heavens in a scientific fashion.
Augustine warned against a danger among Christians of his day and ours. If the Christian insists on a certain scientific theory as if it were the teaching of th e Bi ble, and it turned out to be wrong, then the unbeliever will reject the Bible wholesale and miss the saving purpose God has in composing it. This danger is so real that Augustine emphasized it a number of times in his writings. Unreliable knowledge of nature is not ****ing but it can be a stumbling block "if he thinks his view of nature belongs to the very form of orthodox doctrine, and dares obstinately to affirm something he does not understand." In this case, the Christian's lack of true knowledge becomes an obstacle to the unbeliever's embracing the truth of the gospel. The great harm, says the bishop of Hippo, is not that "an ignorant individual is derided" but that "people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and . . . the writers of Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."
Christians sometimes make themselves obstacles to the salvation of others rather than instruments of it. They do so when they equate a scientific theory with the meaning of the Bible. Augustine was well aware of this danger already in the fifth century. Not much has changed since. His solution is humility both in the interpretation of nature and the interpretation of Scripture.
How can such humility be engendered? By recognizing that the Bible is more about "the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven" than it is about "the motion and orbit of the stars, their size and relative positions, and the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon." He warns against self- imposed authorities in biblical interpretation: "Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books."
Is there nothing then in Scripture that bears on science? If the Bible is not a book of science, how can we ever say anything about the natural world with divine authority? Augustine did not think that the Bible was irrelevant to nature. That would be to divide truth, and for Augustine truth is one. His second guideline is to recognize the harmony between natural knowledge and scriptural knowledge. Science and interpretation do not teach the same subjects, but neither do they contradict one another. You will find not cytology in the Bible. The pages of the sacred text say nothing about the structure, functions or interactions of cells. Nor does cytology teach us about the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
But suppose a biologist says that the only explanation for the origin of cells is spontaneous generation, that is, origin without any previous cause. The Christian immediately knows that something is amiss, for several reasons. This contradicts the statements of Genesis that all things have their origin from God.
The Literal Commentary advises a two-step procedure. First, we must evaluate whether the scientific claim has any validity. This must be done by the methods of science, empirical observation and theoretical reasoning. It is not enough to quote the Bible against a scientific theory. If we are unsure about the conclusion, we can consider it false. "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise." This would be true in the case of spontaneous generation. It is a very different claim from those made about the structure of cells. Cell structures can be verified and tested. Spontaneous generation cannot be verified. It is a global statement about what cannot be-that is, no previous cause. And science cannot make statements about what cannot be, only about what is. So, Augustine would say that we can regard spontaneous generation as false unless someone can verify it.
Suppose someone says that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old, as Christians in the West believed for centuries. Again, we should test this claim by the means that science has at its disposal. For well over a hundred years historical geology has developed tests to show that the earth must be far older than ten thousand years. These tests are cross-checked and rechecked to make sure the time estimates are not flawed. Now what should we do? Shall we insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? Could it be that our interpretation is wrong? Augustine advises the second step: "But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofsthat cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions." He urges us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Church in its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don't read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature.
God Bless.
Amen
Christians are bound to affirm all that the Church teaches as matters of faith and morals. We reject pure naturalism, and we believe that the universe was made out of nothing by the free will of God. The Church believes Genesis teaches us truth about the origin of the world because the Bible is God's infallible revelation. But if we affirm the Bible as God's inspired book, must we reject at all secular science as somehow ungodly? If we take Genesis chapters 1 and 2 seriously, are we required to believe that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days, even if scientific research tends to indicate otherwise?
Augustine, bishop of Hippo from 395 to his death in 430, wrote commentaries on the Genesis creation narratives five times in his life. Why did Augustine spend so much time on the Genesis creation narratives? Augustine encountered different philosophies of his day. These belief systems left a deep impression on him, and he was convinced later that he had to defend the Christian faith against them. He produced some of the most powerful arguments ever offered in defense of God's creation.
Augustine never used the term "science" in its modern sense nor did any other ancient writer, Christian or pagan. This was not because there was no science in antiquity but because it was called natural philosophy. Natural philosophy, up until the nineteenth century generally, meant the knowledge of a specific science and the philosophy of nature implied by that knowledge. He was convinced that two of the most powerful tools in combating false science were reason and sense experience
Augustine's first guideline is to recognize the purpose of Scripture. Human language is slippery. To understand what someone is telling us, we must hear the words and discern the person's intention. The Bible is a special case because it has human authors but behind each one there is a divine author, the Holy Spirit. When we read the Bible, we want to know both the human and divine authors' intentions. The divine intention or purpose of Scripture may be discerned from the language used in a biblical text.
ful tools in combating false science were reason and sense experience.
The purpose of the Bible is redemptive, said Augustine. God gave us the Bible to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation, not science. In his Literal Commentary Augustine asked what Scripture teaches about the shape or the form of the heavens, a topic that many ancient writers addressed. Are the heavens spherical or flat like a disc? Or, does it matter? He responded: "Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omittedthem. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek God, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial." These words may seem to suggest that Augustine disparaged science, and he has been interpreted that way by secular-minded readers. He did not think that natural knowledge was worthless, only that it was inferior to knowledge of God, who made nature. Augustine was saying that the biblical authors were not giving a definitive theory of the heavens in a scientific fashion.
Augustine warned against a danger among Christians of his day and ours. If the Christian insists on a certain scientific theory as if it were the teaching of th e Bi ble, and it turned out to be wrong, then the unbeliever will reject the Bible wholesale and miss the saving purpose God has in composing it. This danger is so real that Augustine emphasized it a number of times in his writings. Unreliable knowledge of nature is not ****ing but it can be a stumbling block "if he thinks his view of nature belongs to the very form of orthodox doctrine, and dares obstinately to affirm something he does not understand." In this case, the Christian's lack of true knowledge becomes an obstacle to the unbeliever's embracing the truth of the gospel. The great harm, says the bishop of Hippo, is not that "an ignorant individual is derided" but that "people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and . . . the writers of Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."
Christians sometimes make themselves obstacles to the salvation of others rather than instruments of it. They do so when they equate a scientific theory with the meaning of the Bible. Augustine was well aware of this danger already in the fifth century. Not much has changed since. His solution is humility both in the interpretation of nature and the interpretation of Scripture.
How can such humility be engendered? By recognizing that the Bible is more about "the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven" than it is about "the motion and orbit of the stars, their size and relative positions, and the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon." He warns against self- imposed authorities in biblical interpretation: "Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books."
Is there nothing then in Scripture that bears on science? If the Bible is not a book of science, how can we ever say anything about the natural world with divine authority? Augustine did not think that the Bible was irrelevant to nature. That would be to divide truth, and for Augustine truth is one. His second guideline is to recognize the harmony between natural knowledge and scriptural knowledge. Science and interpretation do not teach the same subjects, but neither do they contradict one another. You will find not cytology in the Bible. The pages of the sacred text say nothing about the structure, functions or interactions of cells. Nor does cytology teach us about the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
But suppose a biologist says that the only explanation for the origin of cells is spontaneous generation, that is, origin without any previous cause. The Christian immediately knows that something is amiss, for several reasons. This contradicts the statements of Genesis that all things have their origin from God.
The Literal Commentary advises a two-step procedure. First, we must evaluate whether the scientific claim has any validity. This must be done by the methods of science, empirical observation and theoretical reasoning. It is not enough to quote the Bible against a scientific theory. If we are unsure about the conclusion, we can consider it false. "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise." This would be true in the case of spontaneous generation. It is a very different claim from those made about the structure of cells. Cell structures can be verified and tested. Spontaneous generation cannot be verified. It is a global statement about what cannot be-that is, no previous cause. And science cannot make statements about what cannot be, only about what is. So, Augustine would say that we can regard spontaneous generation as false unless someone can verify it.
Suppose someone says that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old, as Christians in the West believed for centuries. Again, we should test this claim by the means that science has at its disposal. For well over a hundred years historical geology has developed tests to show that the earth must be far older than ten thousand years. These tests are cross-checked and rechecked to make sure the time estimates are not flawed. Now what should we do? Shall we insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? Could it be that our interpretation is wrong? Augustine advises the second step: "But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofsthat cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions." He urges us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Church in its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don't read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature.
God Bless.
Amen
Thankyou for your considered reply, I think you may have underestimated my scientific knowledge and that of the Bible. There is a long tradition of scientists, mathematicians, cosmologists and theologians and christian bible scholars who support a Geocentric Universe model, in fact the vast majority of human beings who have lived have known this to be the case, it is only a modern occurance for this view to be supplanted with the Kabbahla, the Kabbahla contrary to Scripture establishes evolution, the Big-Bang and an expanding universe with the earth relegated to a insignificant position, none of this is true, in fact it is merely Jewish mysticism that is based on the Zohar, Talmud and Kabbahla, they are not scientifically proven concepts, they are unproven theories that are used for deception, deception is the aim, if you want to decieve, you do not tell people the truth you tell them the opposite.
As I said the Bible states that the sun moves and the earth is stationary and scientific experiment and observation prove this to be correct.
