Re: RATE Vol. II

Janice linked the following article and added a comment by way of quoting
Maimonides:

[2] "..In many ways, the historic controversy of
creation vs. evolution has been similar to
Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."
   http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c007.html

Quote: "Conflicts between Science and the Bible
arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge
or a defective understanding of the Bible." ~ Moses Maimonides

***

This past year I wrote a lengthy article about creationist hermenuetics,
"Galileo and the Garden of Eden." It is not presently for public perusal,
as it is in the process of peer evaluation for possible publication in an
edited collection of articles. Based on that work, however, I would say
that I do not agree with the all-too-glib conclusion in the article Janice
linked (see above). At least I don't *think* I agree, based on how one
interprets what the author of the web article wrote:

"The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church
held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly
enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to
tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly
to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of
exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic
traditions."

I agree that *one* lesson from the Galileo affair is as stated in the first
two sentences. However, a lot more was going on, and some of it contradicts
such a simple lesson in an important way. Galileo's chief Vatican opponent,
the highly learned Robert Cardinal Bellarmino, raised basic questions about
biblical interpretation itself--not questions dependent on Aristotelian
philosophy, but questions based on how we approach the bliblical text
itself. Let me illustrate by using his own words, embedded in my discussion
of his ideas:

I write as follows:

To hold the earth's motion as a mere mathematical hypothesis was fine,
said Bellermine, but "to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center
of the world and only turns on itself [i.e., revolves on its axis] without
moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves
with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing," likely
"to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false." The Holy
Fathers and the modern commentators alike agreed with "the literal
interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with
great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless
at the center of the world." The Church could not tolerate a contrary
interpretation. More than this,
        Nor can one answer that it is not a matter of faith, since if it is
not a matter of faith "as regards the topic," it is a matter of faith
"as regards the speaker"; and so it would be heretical to say that
Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that
Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit
through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

What would it take to convince Bellarmine to reconsider the accepted
interpretations of Biblical texts on the sun's motion? Nothing short of
"a true demonstration" that does more than just "save the
appearances." Without such a demonstrative argument, "in case of doubt
one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy
Fathers." Solomon himself, the wisest of all men and writing under
divine inspiration, had written, "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth
down." Bellarmine thought it "not likely that he was affirming
something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of
being demonstrated."

[adding commentary on my own comments]
The most significant part here is the paragraph in the middle, where
Bellarmine links "inerrancy" (as we would call it today) with geocentrism on
the one hand (that part inspired not only by Aristotle but also by the plain
meaning of several biblical passages) and with attacks on the virgin birth
on the other hand. Modern creationists are also very, very concerned about
Galileo's general attitude and approach, both of which they flatly reject.
My essay goes into that also.

Overall, I would agree that there are striking parallels between the
church's response to heliocentrism and the modern creationist response to
evolution; this is not to say anything new, of course. But I would not
agree that it boils down simply to an overtrust in Aristotle on the part of
the Roman Church in the early 17th century, even though that element was
very clearly present. I would say much more, that a belief in the
scientific accuracy of the Bible was at least as important as a belief in
the truth of Aristotelian science. This is very easily seen if we consider
Luther's comments about Joshua and the sun's motion. Luther, who hated
Aristotle and loved the literal Bible, rejected Copernicanism b/c it clearly
contradicted the plain words of scripture. To be sure, we can fairly
discuss the context of Luther's comments (informal dinner remarks written
down by someone else, no naming of Copernicus or the details of his views,
etc), but we can't dismiss the significance of his overall attitude and
approach as an example of a Protestant view very similar to Bellarmine's RC
view. Biblical literalism in science was the basic issue at stake here, not
Aristotle, though Aristotle's science certainly influenced the
interpretation that was accepted. (Even without Aristotle, I suspect that
the interpretations would have been the same.)

This is a very important issue, and the creationists understand just how
important it is. Either the Bible is scientifically reliable or it is not.
Bellarmine, Luther, and the YECs agree that it is scientifically reliable;
Galileo and the TEs agree that it is not. Their differing hermeneutical
conclusions are driven by different views of both science and the Bible.

Ted
Received on Mon May 22 13:07:28 2006