Re: RATE Vol. II

At 01:06 PM 5/22/2006, Ted Davis wrote:

>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
>
>***
>
>Ted: This past year I wrote a lengthy article
>about creationist hermenuetics, "Galileo and the
>Garden of Eden." ... 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.

@ Excuse me, but I presented more than ".. one
glib, simple lesson" in the two links I provided. Here they are again:

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical
conflicts with the Church? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
[snip]

A final lesson and warning applies to the Church,
Science, and the modern Creationist movement
today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a
particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a
scientific model, which may be in error. For
instance, there are various scientific challenges
to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We
should hold many of our scientific views and
their corresponding Biblical interpretations
loosely. For we will never have all the right
answers this side of heaven. ~ fini

Read the body of the article at the link provided
above. This is part of what is found there:

"...The Roman Curia, the religious authorities,
imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing
Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They
steadfastly maintained their traditions and
erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above
increasing scientific observations to the
contrary. Galileo's published works remained on
the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books
until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic
Church officially forgive Galileo.[23] ..."

>Ted: "... The Church could not tolerate a
>contrary interpretation. More than this, ...
>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.

@ You're right about the RCC refusing to tolerate
a contrary interpretation, but as J.P. Holding
shows, it appears as if Bellarmine was open to
the possibility that the RCC wasn't infallible
after all in its interpretation of the
Scripture. Of course he would have to be very
careful in how he worded things, or his fate
would have been the same as that of Galileo.

As I posted previously: James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html [snip]

Bellarmine, Cardinal

"...The third point is the most critical, because
it reveals that contrary to how the quotes are
used, Bellarmine was ready to submit to the
possibility that heliocentrism was true and
interpret the text accordingly, and that he also
appealed to scientific authority (of Solomon,
however misplaced we may think this is) as well
as to observation. In his view, this was a case
of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence" -- and surely Skeptics can respect that
(especially since so many astronomers of the day accepted geocentrism). ..."

Merv could probably "relate" to Bellarmine's
predicament, too, based upon what he wrote here:

"...Probably, most of you (by your own good
design, no doubt) are in career positions which
limit your contacts with YEC advocates to
non-professional settings. I.e. you can safely
be aggressive about 'eradicating' young-earth
heresies from Christendom, and in fact, to the
extent that YEC topics ever come up – you would
be required to respond that way under the
pressure of jeopardizing your career path. (NO –
I am NOT imputing false motives to any of you
here – I am NOT suggesting that the only reason
you think as you do is for career advance; I
agree fully that your career would be rightly
jeopardized by a YE position on the sound grounds
that scientific evidence is clearly against
it.) But what I'm suggesting is that beyond
some of your church settings (which is challenge
enough in its own right) most of you have the
luxury of enthusiastic aggression at no
professional sacrifice to yourselves – a thought
not lost on your YEC opponents who DO impute
false motives to you. As a teacher at a
Christian school in Ks, I have exactly the
reverse pressure of being supported by my church
(somewhat liberal on this issue), and being
surrounded professionally by many YEC proponents
/ tuition paying clientele. I do exaggerate my
plight some – our school hasn't made any formal
position statements on this, and my reading is
only based on the predictably noisier presence of the YECs among us.

And I anticipate your response to me: so make
some noise of your own and empower any silent
ones who think likewise! Easy said. Such
boat-rocking will have two possible outcomes that
I can see. The school will, in a backlash, make
YEC part of their official faith statement and
clean house (I go elsewhere). Or enough
support for the challenge will materialize that
the school chooses not to endorse doctrinally
divisive positions and advises us to defer such
questions to family or local church. Meanwhile I
continue to teach science (in the 'pussy-footing'
manner as George would put it) by saying 'this
group believes… and here's why' and 'that group
believes … and this is why…' and only staking
my own position in all of it if pointedly
asked. Not exactly a strong stand, and you can
impute false (job-keeping) motives to me if you
wish. ......" ~ Mervin Bitikofer
<mrb22667@kansas.net> Tue, 23 May 2006 06:53:17 -0500

>Ted: "... 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. .....
>
>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.

@ I think it is quite possible (see above and
below) that your decision to include Bellamine
and Luther (not to speak of Calvin) in with the
YECs of today, is flawed. But that's just my
personal opinion based upon what I've read on the subject..

Luther, Martin
This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn
the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these
things that are thrown into disorder I believe
the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun
to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].
    * OWD/OC This has been used to portray Luther
as a dogmatic geocentrist. But far from a
sustained strong opposition, this is Luther’s
only recorded comment on the issue. And the
source is Table Talk, published by Luther's
students twenty years after his death, and it was
an off-hand comment purportedly in 1539 (four
years before the publication of Copernicus’
book). Further, before this passage is "Whoever
wants to be clever must agree with nothing that
others esteem. He must do something of his own."
This shows that a major reason for Luther’s
objection was Copernicus’ challenging the
establishment and common sense for its own sake (as Luther saw it).

    * Also, at the time, there was no hard
evidence for geokineticism, and Copernicus's
model had almost as many epicycles as Ptolemy's.
The epicycles were only thrown out later by
Kepler's discovery that the orbits were
elliptical. Furthermore, Kepler was a devout
Lutheran who thought he was "thinking God's
thoughts after him", and saw no conflict between
the Bible and Lutheran theology. He showed how
Joshua 10:12 could be explained as
phenomenological language, using Luther’s own
principles of Biblical interpretation!
    * Origins: Who else but the discredited bigot
Andrew Dickson White in the History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
(1896)? Later writers such as the Christadelphian
Alan Hayward (Creation and Evolution: The Facts
and Fallacies) have also irresponsibly cited this.

Calvin, John
"Who will venture to place the authority of
Copernicus over that of the Holy Spirit?"
    * TD. Debunked, Hooykaas Religion and the
Rise of Modern Science, 121. Bede comments in his
journal: Calvin is often quoted as saying "Who
will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
over that of the Holy Spirit?". This appears in
White (see last post), Russell's History of
Western Philosophy and many other anti-Christian
tracts. But it seems that Calvin never said it or
anything else about Copernicus. His theory of
accommodation between nature and scripture,
outlined in the Commentary on Genesis, insisted
that the Bible was not a text to be read
scientifically so it is doubtful he would have
said much on the subject anyway. It turns out the
famous quote first appeared in FW Farrar's
History of Interpretation (1886). Oddly enough,
the quotation is given in the forward and it
flatly contradicts Farrar's otherwise masterful
analysis of Calvin's thought. The whole thing is most odd.
    * Origins? Russell's History of Western
Philosophy, 515 seems to be a main source.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html

~ Janice
Received on Wed May 24 10:52:33 2006