Re: RATE Vol. II

May I add. Ted does know a little bit about the history of science, as an
understated Englishman would put it.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: RATE Vol. II

> Janice,
>
> Your response to my long post about biblical literalism in the Copernican
> issue (and in YECism) was a series of quotations from various URLs, all of
> them appropriate to the specific topic--and all of them familiar to me.
> That is, either I know the original printed sources already (both the
> primary sources such as both versions of Luther's Table Talk, Bellarmine's
> letter to Foscarini, and AD White's outrageous "history" of science and
> Christiantiy) or the modern scholars cited in those URLs (such as
> Hooykaas),
> or both. Everything I wrote in my post and in the article from which I
> took
> it, is consistent with my knowledge of those sources--esp the primary
> sources, which always take precedence when doing history.
>
> All of the sources you cite get the facts right, as far as I can tell in a
> quick perusal. Nothing that I said contradicts them. The fact that many
> things influenced Bellermine's determination that heliocentrism was
> unbiblical, is exactly that: a fact. I mentioned some of those things in
> my
> post, esp the influence of the Council of Trent. My point is simply that
> B
> was very concerned about a "slippery slope" argument, relative to
> accepting
> a heliocentric interpretation of a few verses in the Old Testament. He
> voiced this very clearly in the Foscarini letter, and my comments in no
> way
> misrepresent his concerns. Yes, there were many reasons why B opposed
> heliocentrism, including the fact that the best astronomers he knew (the
> Jesuits in Rome) were not convinced that Galileo's interpretation of the
> evidence was sufficiently well supported. Galileo in fact was arguing
> uphill at that time, nearly all qualified commentators thought
> Copernicanism
> had not yet been established at the time when B wrote that letter (in
> 1615).
> Nevertheless, B said what he said, concerning his reluctance to
> reinterpret
> the Bible based only on a scientific conclusion. He was willing to do so
> if
> he had to, yes; but he saw the great danger that such a precedent would
> set.
> As one of your sites has it:
>
> "I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the
> Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if
> Your
> Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of
> modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find
> that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in
> the
> heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from
> the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now
> consider
> whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a
> sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek
> commentators.
> Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is
> not
> a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on
> the
> part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny
> that
> Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin
> birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the
> mouths
> of the prophets and apostles."
>
> This is remarkably similar to passages in modern YEC authors, concerning
> the "days" in Genesis. Remarkably similar. For a nice example, see the
> section on the "24 Hour View" in The G3N3S1S Debate, ed David Hagopian.
>
> Luther's comment (and please reread my post to see the clear reference I
> made there to the difficulties of making too much of it) was offhand,
> informal, and may well have been directed mainly at the arrogance of those
> who would defy common sense *and the Bible* by putting the earth in
> motion.
> It isn't much to go on. Yet we know this was the general view among
> Lutherans at that time, and we know that Luther is said to have made this
> comment. Melanchthon was more sympathetic to Copernicanism, and as a
> result
> it was actually taught *as a hypothesis* (ie, as a useful fiction, which
> is
> what a hypothesis was in astronomy at that time) but not as actual truth
> at
> Lutheran universities in the 16th century. But M also agreed that
> Copernicanism was not literally true (ie, the earth does not really move),
> and he was very concerned himself that if it were true, it might imply
> that
> there are other inhabited worlds in the universe, worlds on which the
> cosmic
> drama of sin/redemption might have been repeated, thus undermining the
> uniqueness of Jesus' crucifixion. But I digress.
>
> Your post seems to suggest either that I do not know the larger history
> surrounding B very well, or that I am picking out one aspect of B's
> position
> in such a way that it distorts it by ignoring the larger history (ie, the
> context). There are certainly scholars who know the larger history better
> than I do--I am not a Galileo specialist myself--but I very much doubt
> that
> the first part applies. Nor does the second part. B wrote what he wrote,
> and amidst all of the larger history he meant what he said about the
> slippery slope that would begin if he were to accept heliocentrism. It is
> hardly the only reason why he rejected it, as the next paragraph shows (a
> reference to http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html), but it was a
> clearly
> articulated concern that is not dismissed simply by pointing to other
> aspects of this complex historical situation.
>
> Incidentally, just for the record: if I had been part of the Vatican
> council that B chaired, I would probably have come to the same conclusion.
> B's position is very reasonable, given what was then known both about the
> Bible and about astronomy. No shame on him at all. I'm less sympathetic,
> however, with those modern exegetes who haven't learned anything from B's
> overreliance on authority and tradition, in the face of ideas that turned
> out to be true.
>
> I have no more to say about this, here and now.
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Thu May 25 06:28:22 2006