Re: RATE Vol. II

Just to say that Ted sent me his paper which is a sound argument

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: 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 17:13:41 2006