Remember that Galileo thing? Yeah, that. The fact is that historically, mainstream theologians don’t have a fantastic track record of determining truth from the Bible. Meanwhile, we have plenty of historical cases of scientists being accurate about the universe and theologians being totally wrong. It would be great to learn from this.
You seem to conflate “fundamentalism” with sound theology - this is incorrect. At no point was a core theological doctrine changed or overthrown by Galileo - this constant harking back to such incidents (which are more to do with what Greek philosophers taught as well as primitive views on the earth and sun etc) is a wrong argument to put forward. In fact, this argument works more against science, as the history of science is saturated with overthrown theories.
The universe, as you put it, was better understood due to the efforts of Christian scientist, who were probably more committed to central theological teachings than many current scientists - this outlook, that science is right and theology is often wrong, promotes the conflict while perpetuating historical errors…
It’s not sound theology to conclude that the earth orbits the sun.
Well, in your opinion. In Galileo’s day it was considered totally destructive to the faith, and completely undermining the inspiration of Scripture. But you’ve grown up being taught it’s no big deal, so you’re used to it. This is a case of creeping normalcy.
No, this is simply learning from history. What we learn is that when theologians shout and scream and stamp their feet in defiance of scientific discoveries, we should be very careful about aligning ourselves with the theologians. This is not about a conflict between science and Scripture, it’s about bad theologians overstepping their area of expertise and making idiots of themselves. How many times in the modern era has a robust scientific conclusion on the basis of peer reviewed evidence, been overturned by a theologian armed with nothing but a Bible? Now how many times have the claims of theologians been dashed to pieces on the rocks of scientific evidence?
You’re getting close to the Fundamentalist argument in that image.
If you read the article I wrote, with which I opened this thread, you’ll find me agreeing with that.
I have yet to read of a theology of the earth rotating around the sun - it is this type of nonsense that feeds ignorant debate. People (including theologians) accepted the prevailing views (which were articulated by Greek thinking) -this is obviously different to discussing the Trinity, or salvation, or God as the creator of heaven and earth. By making the ‘earth as the centre’ sound like theology, you are now asking us to believe that it was central to faith - the destructive aspect was the way established interests (both clergy and non-clergy) used such Greek teachings to manipulate the uneducated. The Bible says, “Heaven is God’s throne and the earth His footstool” - yet even now this nonsense about theology as the sun rotating about the earth, is peddled by people such as you. The undermining was that of those who used Greek philosophy as authoritative, and tried to make that part of the Bible. I have grown up reading through history critically, while you seem to live on pointless assumptions.
Point out significant (not US self proclaimed preachers) theologians who, as you colourful say, shout and scream and stamp their feet against scientific discoveries. I am a scientists and I am staggered by such juvenile language from you.
Anyone, be they theologians or scientists, who step outside of their areas of expertise, are in danger of making fools of themselves. I find it odd that you would focus the way you do on theology, as if it is the enemy of science. I have quoted Heller, just as one example of work which is in harmony with science and theology - in this example, Heller is quick to defer to Thomas on theology (although I think Heller is a priest and should have a good theological understanding) while showing great expertise in his area of theoretical physics.
So provide a list of the many times theologians’ claims who you say, were dashed to pieces on you rocks of science!
As for theories of science overthrown as a ‘Fundamentalist argument’ - wow. How much of science and its history do you understand? Going by this response, I would guess - very little.
Your arguments have been weak on a number of fronts - the most serious is you lack of understanding of nature instead of ‘natural laws’, and your strange take on established theology. I hasten to add that both theology and science are done by human beings, and we are prone to err, so I am not advocating any area is free from error - but your opinions do not appear to be thought through or expressed with the required clarity for an article on this site.
No, I am saying heliocentrism was claimed to be destructive to faith. Specifically, it was claimed by theologians to be destructive to faith.
No, the destructive aspect was the way theologians thought that the Bible taught those same Greek teachings. And we can forgive them for doing so, because every time they looked in the Bible they found the same kind of language which the Greeks used to talk about geocentrism. They never found any language in the Bible which contradicted geocentrism, and they never found any which taught heliocentrism.
I quite agree. But scientists tend to be far more aware of this; theologians, much less so.
I don’t believe theology is the enemy of science. I am simply pointing out a fact highly relevant to the purpose of this website, which is that scientific progress has frequently been resisted by theologians wrongly crying heresy.
Shall we start with all the theologians who resisted heliocentrism? All the theologians who resisted the deep age of the earth as discovered by geologists? All the theologians who resisted the geological proof that the Genesis flood was not global? All the theologians who continue to resist the modern evolutionary synthesis? Take your pick.
Since you won’t name names and state the theology that you rely for your claim, I will not bring up names. I will, however, say that almost every major theologian making up the Patristic writings spend almost all of his writing discussing God as creator of heaven and earth, and when theories or philosophies current amongst the Greeks were mentioned, they were always discussed as schools of thought, some ridiculed, and others perhaps entertained by some Christians. At no point were such statements provided as Christian theology.
I recall Calvin (and some other notables from the Protestant tradition), who made comments on discussions of their time, who again emphasised the theology of God the creator.
Your areas (heliocentric, deep age, Genesis flood, and endless arguments revolving about creationism and evolution) have their genesis in the USA and as far as I am aware, have never made any significant impression on Orthodoxy, or any mainstream Christian tradition that I have read about.
Resistance to your modern evolutionary synthesis is prominent amongst scientists, and significant theologians appear to sit on the sidelines, like many of us, waiting to see if any dust will settle soon.
So again I ask you to name major theological figures in Christianity who conform to your conflict-riddled model of the faith-science discussion.
This isn’t relevant to my point.
No they don’t have their genesis in the USA. The problem of Christians making uninformed and stupid comments about science was alive and well back in Augustine’s day.
“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 as 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 reveal vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh that ignorance to scorn.”
- Robert Bellarmine.
- Martin Luther.
- John Calvin.
- Philip Melancthon.
- James Ussher (archbishop).
- Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto (Pius X).
- Samuel Wilberforce (bishop).
- William Cockburn (dean).
- Granville Penn.
- Thomas Gisborne (theologian).
- George Bugg (dean).
- Samuel Stanhope Smith (clergyman).
- Charles Hodge (theologian).
- Thomas Smyth (bishop).
Note that I don’t agree with the conflict model of the faith/science discussion, as I have made very clear. But these men all resisted scientific discoveries on the basis of their personal interpretation of Scripture, and they were all proved wrong as a result.
Inappropriate criticism–and also fairly condescending. “Do not kill”? How about “do not murder”? Calvin represented government in Geneva and you cannot make a case scripturally that “governments do not have a right (or even obligation) to kill.” Certainly the command not to murder was given in a context in which breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death. So…?
It’s easy to make blanket statements about this conflict outside of context. It’s not so simple. It was about politics and science as much as it was about theology. For a fairly thorough outline of the “battle between theology and science in regards to heliocentrism,” I recommend the following blog post(s)
The tone is kind of glib, but the content is legit.
I’m talking about Christ, not the Law of Moses. I believe Christ holds us to a higher standard.
That was just part of the problem. He shouldn’t have been in government. But since he was, he had the opportunity to act like Christ or to act like all the other people who killed their religious adversaries. He chose the latter.
I can make a case Scripturally that “Christians should not kill other people, even if they are personal enemies”. I can make the same case for Christian governments. I can certainly make the Scriptural case that Calvin had no right to kill anyone.
This casual willingness to kill people, especially those who get in our way, is one of the reasons why the history of Christianity is so shamefully soaked in blood. I cannot see this being approved by Christ.
Yes the Galileo affair itself was certainly at least as much about politics and power as it was about theology. There’s no doubt about that and I’m not disputing it. I’m talking about the fact that Galileo’s views were repeatedly attacked on the basis of Scripture and theology, not only by Robert Bellarmine but also by others. If Galileo had only been criticized on the basis of his scientific errors or lack of evidence, that would have been a completely different matter. But it was claimed explicitly and repeatedly that his views were dangerous to the faith and contradicted the inspiration of Scripture.
Again, to make the criticism that “Calvin is a murderer” is both anachronistic and simplistic. One day Christians will look back on us as unconscionable destroyers of the environment because we drive cars. Why couldn’t we stand out as appropriate stewards of the environment according to messianic standards?
Believe me, I’m not a huge fan of Calvin. I just don’t think you get far making condescending generalizations. I think if you go through history writing off the influence of anyone that betrayed un-Christ-like behavior (yes, Martin Luther included), you might not have too many left to choose from…
It was attacked by scripture because that, in their estimation, was their highest authority. But the church enlisted the best scientists of their day to make the case. And orthodoxy does not just exist in theology; it exists in science as well.
And I would agree with that most emphatically. That’s why I separate myself from political activity and do not exercise my political franchise as a citizen.
I don’t think so. He was a morally enlightened free agent (sorry Calvin), who knew “it is in the Bible not to wrestle your neighbour”. Other Christians of his time also knew this. The whole “turn the other cheek” thing wasn’t a secret, or something which Christians only figured out many years later. It’s the same with slavery. In the nineteenth slavery no one had the excuse that “Oh we Christians still haven’t figured out if it’s wrong to kidnap people, enslave them, beat and torture them, and enslave their children”. No one even had that excuse in the seventeenth century.
Well some of us do. I don’t even own a car. I haven’t owned a car for over a decade. Christians will look back at our generation and note that even many Christians who did own cars nevertheless made great efforts to reduce their carbon footprints and preserve the environment. And they’ll praise those Christians, and say “If they knew it was right to act in this way, then what on earth was wrong with those Christians who didn’t act in this way?”.
As I’ve said, I don’t write off Calvin. He made some positive contributions, just like Martin the Maniac. But let’s not overlook his serious flaws.
it was attacked using Scripture because it contradicted their interpretation of Scripture. If it hadn’t contradicted their interpretation of Scripture, there would not have been a problem.
But they didn’t bring Galileo to trial on the charge of making mistakes about science. And they didn’t cite scientists as evidence that heliocentrism is destructive to the faith and in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures and the witness of the Early Fathers.
I certainly agree. So let’s learn from this.
[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:194, topic:4380”]
it was attacked using Scripture because it contradicted their interpretation of Scripture. If it hadn’t contradicted their interpretation of Scripture, there would not have been a problem.[/quote]
Again, simplistic. It contradicted the best science of the day as well as simple observation (did you read the link I posted?). The science of the day was informed more by Ptolemy than scripture, but as I pointed out, scripture was the highest authority to which they could/would appeal. Of course, it was their interpretation rather than scripture.
But to say it was “theology vs. science” is, again, misleading at best. Downright dishonest at worst.
Spoken like a true modernist. They didn’t separate science and theology into neat little compartments.
No it’s not simplistic. I am representing both sides of the equation.
- Galileo’s heliocentric case was claimed to be scientifically weak.
- Galileo’s heliocentric case was claimed to be theologically destructive, and contradictory to Scripture and the Early Fathers.
Both arguments were made. The first one was a legitimate criticism. If the church had only made that argument, it would have been on very strong ground. That argument was made, by several people. Tycho Brahe objected to Galileo on scientific grounds. He didn’t claim Galileo was destroying the faith and undermining the inspiration of Scripture. No one criticizes Brahe for this, because Brahe was simply raising valid scientific arguments.
It would be misleading and dishonest if that’s all I was saying. But it isn’t. I am pointing out that Galileo wasn’t brought to trial simply over politics, or a question of authority. He was told specifically, and repeatedly, that heliocentrism was destructive to the faith and in direct contradiction to Scripture and the Early Fathers. This is not a scientific argument. Even Ingoli, despite writing a hefty work criticizing heliocentrism on the basis of science, still felt it necessary to include several arguments based on nothing but Scripture, which he felt were conclusive.
It is not a political argument. It is a theological argument. It is not possible to avoid the fact that Bellarmine and others believed heliocentrism was destructive to the faith and in direction contradiction to Scripture and the Early Fathers, because that’s what they actually said. Look at these arguments by Bellarmine.
“However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, 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 not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.”
That is not a scientific argument. That’s a theological argument.
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in 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.”
That is not a scientific argument. That’s a theological argument.
“I add that the one who wrote, “The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose,” was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated.”
That is not a scientific argument. That’s a theological argument.
No one claimed Galileo’s theory of the tides was destructive to the faith and contradictory to Scripture. No one cared about the theological implications of that, because it didn’t contradict any established interpretations of Scripture (though ironically it was scientifically wrong). His heliocentrism was a direct contradiction of an established reading of Scripture, and was consequently deemed destructive to the faith, contradictory to Scripture, and corrosive to inspiration.
This has nothing to do with modernism, or artificial separation of science and theology. Galileo and others knew that heliocentrism was no danger to the authority of Scripture or to the Christian faith. This was not an impossible conclusion to draw during the era. It wasn’t a huge secret, or a concept only accessible to twenty first century “modernists” who “separate science and theology into neat little compartments”.
Galileo’s scientific evidence was shaky, but his scientific conclusions were correct. His theological conclusions were also correct, and most of us uphold those conclusions today.
Certainly. I don’t disagree with that. But the Church in that day would have seen themselves having larger concerns.
I understand the topic quite well, thank you.
Certainly it does no good to discuss circular reasoning when you don’t recognize a circular argument when you see it.
I think your generalisations are so vast and you cherry pick any statement that persons (it appears only clergy are selected for your simplistic treatment), that it is impossible to have a useful discussion. Briefly, yes there were many views during the Middle Ages that we can now look back and laugh at, and it is true that some of these were taken as the outlook put forward by the authorities. In most countries, these authorities were the kings and princes, but the close links between church and state inevitably mixed political views, authorised (state policy) teachings, and it was the norm in such times to enforce such matters, both on lay people, and on all who were part of the state and church apparatus.
Until we obtain a deeper understanding of the context that all views and beliefs were proclaimed at such times, we will inevitably get things mixed up. Science as we know it had hardly begun during the time of Galileo, and it was philosophy (mainly) which was mainly the concern of the educated, that led to exchange of views and differences.
It is a vast simplification to argue that we have clear cases of faith vs science and that theologians actively and purposely sought to destroy any scientific thinking because they saw science as destructive to faith - the simple fact that most of the “scientific” (philosophical) thinking was done by either clergy or devout Christians, should make us cautious in making claims that theology has been the enemy of science.
Your other comments go to your moral judgements of other people - your have a right to your opinion, but that does not advance your argument re destructive stuff, science and theology.
The Church saw itself as “the bastion of truth” and in addition, it provided the major means to an education for those times. The curious position of @Jonathan_Burke is this: (a) theologians and Church doctrine were against science, and (b) Christians and Christianity established the physical sciences. This odd position can only lead to a contradiction (something atheists have used endlessly), or Christians were all heretics when they made scientific insights - history shows that devout Christians who were happy with the theological doctrines of the Church, are mainly responsible for science as we know it.
So Jonathan destroys his own argument. If he accepted that initially many views were promoted as ‘the most up to date’ thinking, and changes took place with the obvious debates, he would make a solid argument for his article.
I chose clergy because that’s what you asked for. You asked for major theological figures in Christianity, so I gave them to you.
As I have told you before, I have not been arguing this.
As I have told you before, I made this point myself, in the article which started this thread.
No that is not my position. I have told you this before. What I am doing is simply repeating Augustine’s warning. Here are Augustine’s words again.
“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 as 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 reveal vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh that ignorance to scorn.”
"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.”