Ken:

This is a response to another part of the first section of Don’s initial posting. It is rather long, but from experience I have learnt that quoting at length initially saves much subsequent time and effort.

This will be mainly theological, and includes quotations from the Bible, and from three theologians: Augustine from the early church; Calvin from Reformation times; and Hyers, from the 20th century. As a matter of historical interest, I have posted the quotation from Augustine on a.r.c several times in the past.

Don’s eighth paragraph in his section 1 reads:

Some say, “The Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practice”. This is dangerously deficient: if we cannot trust the Bible in matters of history, for example, how can we trust it in matters of faith and practice (theology)? Luke 16:31 says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” And Jesus asked Nicodemus: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12). So if we can’t trust the Bible about earthly things (such as the timeframe of creation), why should we trust it on heavenly things (e.g. faith and morals)?

Ken again:

What many Christians would regard as “dangerously deficient” is the view that if we can’t trust a modern interpretation of various matters recorded in the Bible which are peripheral to its main message of salvation, then we can’t trust any what it says about faith and morals. This view essentially says that either the Bible is completely accurate when read as a modern scientific textbook, or it is completely worthless.

Suppose we reverse the situation. In his book “A Brief History of Time” which can claim to be the least read, and certainly the least understood, best-seller of all time, Stephen Hawking concludes with the paragraph

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be bale to take part in the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God.

Ken again:

Many Christians would claim that Hawking is wrong about human reason being able to know the mind of God. On Don’s argument, if we can’t trust Hawking here, then we can’t believe anything else that he has written. And it wouldn’t be hard to find examples of similar things written by most scientists. However anyone who claimed that no scientist could be believed would promptly be ignored, at best, and subject to ridicule from all quarters, or worse.

Put in these stark terms, I suspect that Don will object. But the history of Christian theology has been based on just this contrast, and it is only since Reformation times that theologians have gradually realised the error of this approach. There are exceptions from earlier times, but the dominant view has been to import into reading the Bible all the current (at the time of reading) aspects of culture, and then interpret the Biblical text to fit the culture.

Creationists do not realise that scientists, on the whole, have a very jaundiced view of Christians who attempt to make scientific statements on the basis of some interpretation of some passages in the Bible. The name of Galileo is well known, but the biblical texts which were quoted at his trial for heresy, in support of the view of a fixed earth and a moving sun, are less well known. I’ll quote from the NIV which should be acceptable to modern creationists.

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. Psalm 93:1

The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved. Psalm 96:10

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. Ecclesiastes 1:5

These verses clearly teach that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth. Many thousands of conservative Christians, mostly in USA, regard the idea that the earth goes around the sun as one of Satan’s wiles to lead people away from Biblical truth.

And in Reformation times this teaching wasn’t restricted to just the Catholic Church: in his commentary on Psalm 93 John Calvin wrote at some length about the earth being fixed and the heavens rotating around it.

In each of the following sections the writers quoted take up the question Don posed in his paragraph quoted above. Repeating the last sentence here for ease of reference: … . So if we can’t trust the Bible about earthly things (such as the timeframe of creation), why should we trust it on heavenly things (e.g. faith and morals)? However the writers take a different approach to this: if our interpretation of what we claim the Bible says about earthly things conflicts with what unbelievers have learnt about the universe in which we live, how can we expect them to abandon their knowledge and accept what we say the Bible teaches about eternal verities? Are they not much more likely to simply dismiss anything we say about Christianity?

(a) The Early Church Around AD 400 there were a number of Christians who tried to deduce scientific information about the world by reading the Bible. Augustine in his large commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis had something to say about this approach. The following quotations are taken from his work “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., and published in two volumes by Newman Press, New York, in 1982.

Augustine’s interpretations are quite cautious, and he recommends the same caution to others at the end of chapter 18 of Book 1 (on page 41 in volume 1):

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such matters as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

Ken again:

Apparently Augustine, in his day, had trouble with people who tried to make deductions about the way the world works by assuming that Genesis provided information of a scientific nature. The long section 39 in chapter 19 of Book 1 was quoted, in part, by Galileo, and is worth reproducing in full (from pages 42 and 43 in volume 1):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to, as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? 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. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.

Ken again:

The last 14 words here are quoted from Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, chapter 1, verse 7. In subsequent parts of this Commentary Augustine made further remarks deploring the dogmatism of people who wanted to insist on particular interpretations of some passages in Genesis.

Augustine’s second major work was “Concerning The City of God against the Pagans”. In Book XI of this he takes up in more detail the discussion he started in his “Confessions” about the nature of time, and the relation between time and creation. In chapter 6, entitled “The beginning of the world and the beginning of time are the same”, he writes at some length explaining his ideas, and concludes with the paragraph

The world was in fact made _with_ time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

Ken again:

Many theologians down through the ages have been just as wary as Augustine about attempting to define the nature of the “days”, principally because of the problem of “evening and morning” on the first three “days” before the sun was created.

(b) Reformation times Among conservative Christians John Calvin holds a high place, though not many of them have actually read what Calvin wrote. If they did they would get a few surprises.

Calvin was firmly of the opinion that the Bible should not be used as a source book for science, or even to provide information about the world around us. In his day (the mid-sixteenth century) the only subject which could be called “science” by modern standards was astronomy, and he made frequent reference to it.

Calvin’s Commentary of Psalms has been mentioned above, but his Commentary on Genesis has much more to say about astronomy. A convenient edition is that published by the Banner of truth Trust in 1965. His words, on page 79, should be heeded by those who wish to use the Bible to derive theories in other areas of science:

For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is treated of here but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.

Ken again:

Had Calvin been writing today it is very probable that he would have written something like “He who would learn astronomy, physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, geology, biology, anthropology, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.”

Calvin, in fact, was quite enthusiastic about the usefulness of astronomy, as is shown by his introductory remarks on Genesis 1:16 (on pages 86 and 87), dealing with the creation of the “two great lights”:

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons, that the star of Saturn, which, on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Herein lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known; it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfil his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such objects were beyond their capacity.

Ken again:

Calvin is also renowned for his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”, a systematic approach to Christian theology. The following extracts are taken from the translation by Ford Lewis Battles, published by SCM Press in 1961.

In chapter II of Book Two he shows his sympathy for the scientific endeavour in three sections. Section 14, `Understanding as regards art and science’, gives a general introduction. Section 15, `Science as God’s gift’, is worth quoting in full.

Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.

Ken again:

And in Section 16, `Human competence in art and science also derives from the Spirit of God’ Calvin expands on this. It is sufficient to quote just two sentences form this section.

But if the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloths.

Ken again:

So let us on a.r.c accept and use the “work and ministry” of ungodly geologists and biologists to help us understand more about the fascinating universe in which we find ourselves.

(c) The 20th century Conrad Hyers, Professor of Religion, Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, has gathered together a number of his writings on science and religion into a book “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science”, published by John Knox Press in 1984. The first chapter, `Dinosaur Religion and Religion as Dinosaur’, is essentially a scathing criticism of creationism. In this he writes, on page 26:

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it. It has been only too easy to dismiss the biblical teaching of Creator and creation by dismissing scientific creationism. It has been equally easy to conclude that scientific evidence leads to naturalistic conclusions and a nonreligious world view, since scientific and religious statements have already been placed on the same level. If the resulting evolutionism offers a kind of dinosaur religion, by the same logic biblical literalism turns religion into a dinosaur.

Ken again:

The extreme rarity of scientific fraud among practising scientists is a good testimony to their “[i]ntellectual honesty and integrity”. And if the medical area, where financial rewards are greatest, and the temptations to fudge data are greatest, is excluded, scientific fraud is virtually unknown.

Further comment from me would not add anything to what these three highly esteemed theologians have said. They are united in pointing out that the Bible is not intended to provide scientific information, but is for guidance in spiritual matters. In his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina” Galileo quoted another theologian (a marginal note in Galileo’s hand attributes this to Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607) ):

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: “That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes.”

Ken again:

Amen.

Salaam

Ken Smith

— Dr Ken Smith – Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, … `To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationists] did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.’ Isaac Asimov