God's use of natural laws & the Western scientific tradition

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

If you think a flat earth with the sun going around it is equivalent to Ptolemaic geo-centrism, then maybe it’s not possible for me to have this conversation with you.

I think the sun going around the earth is the same as the sun going around the earth, and it doesn’t matter what shape the earth is. The distinction you are trying to make is completely irrelevant.

@fmiddel

Ptolemaic geocentrism is not found in scripture. They used scripture to justify what they believed to be the best scientific theory. It was not a direct match between the two.

No. The issue at stake was not the Ptolemaic view of the solar system. The issue at stake was geocentrism. That’s why the Church made absolutely no mention of Ptolemy, and never mentioned anything but geocentrism in their charge against Galileo (nothing at all about Ptolemy’s system), and why they appealed only to Scripture (and not to Ptolemy or “the best scientific theory”). They never say “You are wrong because you are contradicting the best scientific theory, which incidentally we think is also supported by Scripture, not that this is important or anything”. You’re trying to rewrite what they said.

The fact is their actions stand as an example of exactly what Ken Ham does today.

1. Object to a scientific conclusion on the basis that it contradicts an interpretation of Scripture.
2. Make theological arguments against it.
3. Claim that accepting the scientific conclusion is destructive to the faith.

It’s as simple as that. No amount of hand waving and smoke screening can change this.

@fmiddel

“You’re wrong” is not a reason that it would be important to them.

I see no evidence for this. The whole point of charging someone with heresy is because you believe they’re wrong, and you believe it’s important that they’re wrong.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Jonathan_Burke

The fact is their actions stand as an example of exactly what Ken Ham does today.

Object to a scientific conclusion on the basis that it contradicts an interpretation of Scripture.
Make theological arguments against it.
Claim that accepting the scientific conclusion is destructive to the faith.

It’s as simple as that. No amount of hand waving and smoke screening can change this.

That seems crystal-clear to me.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

No. The issue at stake was not the Ptolemaic view of the solar system. The issue at stake was geocentrism. That’s why the Church made absolutely no mention of Ptolemy, and never mentioned anything but geocentrism in their charge against Galileo (nothing at all about Ptolemy’s system), and why they appealed only to Scripture (and not to Ptolemy or “the best scientific theory”). They never say “You are wrong because you are contradicting the best scientific theory, which incidentally we think is also supported by Scripture, not that this is important or anything”. You’re trying to rewrite what they said.

The fact is their actions stand as an example of exactly what Ken Ham does today.

Object to a scientific conclusion on the basis that it contradicts an interpretation of Scripture.
Make theological arguments against it.
Claim that accepting the scientific conclusion is destructive to the faith.

It’s as simple as that. No amount of hand waving and smoke screening can change this.

We’re beating a dead horse.

The point I’m trying to make is that they equated their contemporary scientific orthodoxy (Ptolemaic geocentrism) with their theological interpretation, in spite of the fact that Ptolemaic geocentrism is not the explicit teaching of scripture–flat-earth geocentrism is. Let’s not pretend that these are the same thing.

But the issue was not about “I’m right and you’re wrong”; it’s about the implications of those interpretations.

The earth not being at the center of the universe had serious implications that, from their point of view, could be cataclysmic. Actually, they were, when it came to power position of the Church. That we look back and don’t see that is because we take for granted certain results, not least of which is the assumption that the Church shouldn’t necessarily be in a position of absolute political power. That concept would have been shocking to them.

My point is that this is not and never was just about “I’m right and you’re wrong.” It’s about the implications.

I’m sure the same is true for Ken Hamm. I remember one of his predecessors, Duane Gish. Why is the interpretation critical? Because “to accept evolution is to devalue humanity, leading to abortion, drugs, communism, etc., etc., etc.”

It’s never just about “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

THAT is what you have missed from the beginning.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jonathan_Burke, I think you will like Cline’s treatment below - -

He describe’s the book of Job with much of a chapter devoted to the forces of nature … challenging the reader to explain natural events … events that God controls:

Job 38:22
Hast thou entered into the treasures [aka STOREHOUSES] of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures [STOREHOUSES] of the hail,

Job 38:23
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

Job 38:24
By what way is the light [heat] parted, which scattereth the east wind [the heat of the Sirocco] upon the earth?

David Clines of University of Sheffield writes (“One or Two things You may not know about the Universe”):

“It is well known that in Hebrew cosmology there are storehouses in the heavens, but how many are they? There is a variety … there isa storehouse of rain (Deut. 28:12); of wind (Job 37:9; Jer. 10:13…); of clouds (Sir. 43:14); perhaps of the heavenly sea (Psa. 33:7; of darkness, cf. 1QS 10:2); of winds, snow, mist, thunder (1 Enoch 41:4; 60:11-21); of winds, meteors and lightning (1QH 1:12; 11QBer 2:7); and apparently of manna also (Psa. 78:23-24). In the present text, most readers recognize storehouses of snow and hail, but there is a third as well: heat…”

Verses 25-27:
"Who cuts a channel for the torrent of rain, a path for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land uninhabited, on the unpeopled desert; to satisfy a waste and desolate land, making the thirsty ground sprout with greenness?

Clines describes: "Lightning also, like torrential rain, follows a prescribed path in its journey to earth. Elihu in 28:36 has already used the very phrase we have here, ‘a path for the lightning of the thunder.’

Verses 28-30:

"Has the rain a father? Who sires the dewdrops? From whose womb comes the rime? Who is the hoar-frost’s mother? The waters become hard as stone, and the face of the deep is captured [by the ice].

Cline: [This] next strophe shifts our gaze from the dramatic downpours of rain, accompanied by thunderbolts, to the more placid provision of five kinds of moisture: in the form of rain and dewdrops, rime and hoar-frost, and ice (depicted but not named in v. 30)."

“Has the rain a father? . . . The answer is No! The rain, along with all the other forms of moisture, has no (mythological) father or mother, being nothing but the result of a divine act or, less probably, the operation of natural laws (cf. v. 33). The rain, along with all these other forms of moisture, was not brought into being once and for all in a primordial time, as the language of begetting and child-bearing might suggest. Rain and dew, rime and hoar-frost, are perpetually created anew by Yahweh in his daily care for his universe.”

Verses 31-33

“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose Orion’s belt? Can you bring out the Mazzaroth in its season, or guide Aldebaran with its train? Do you determine the laws of the sky (heaven)? Can you establish its rule upon earth?”

[ King James renders 33 thusly:
“Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” ]

CLINE: “The terms ‘binding the Pleiades’ and ‘loosing Orion’s belt’ do not refer to the original disposition of these stars at creation, but to the impossibility of interfering with their powers of rain-making. To bind the Pleiades would be to check the spring floods that they unleash, and to loose Orion’s belt would be to disable the autumn rains.”

“The laws of the heavens, which we hear of elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only at Jeremiah 33:26 (‘the ordinances of heaven and earth’), are the regularities that associate a given constellation with a season of the year. These laws of association constitute the ‘rule’ of the heavens upon earth.”

Verses 34-38
"Can you lift your voice to the clouds, and make a flood of waters answer you? Can you send lightning bolts on their way, and have them report to you, “Ready!” ? Who gave the Ibis wisdom or endowed the cock with intelligence? Who can disperse the clouds with skill, and tilt the water jars of the heavens, so that the soil fuses into a solid mass, and the clods of earth stick fast together?"

Cline: In this section “… longer than all the others because of its climactic position, we are reminded that what Job cannot do, God can, and does. These verses envisage the falling rain from the clouds as a response to the voice of Yahweh. The lightning likewise does not fall of its own accord, but reports for duty to its master; each bolt is directed on its way individually by God. The law of nature, according to this cosmology, is that nature does what it is told.”

Something to think about here, @Relates (aka Roger) … if God can bind and direct trillions of quantum particles to create and direct lightning to its assigned target - - the idea that God can direct the occasional cosmic ray - - unseen - - to specific chains of genetic code doesn’t seem to be that much of a challenge to the Almighty.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

The point I’m trying to make is that they equated their contemporary scientific orthodoxy (Ptolemaic geocentrism) with their theological interpretation, in spite of the fact that Ptolemaic geocentrism is not the explicit teaching of scripture–flat-earth geocentrism is. Let’s not pretend that these are the same thing.

As I’ve demonstrated, there’s no evidence that they read geocentrism (“Ptolemaic” or otherwise), into the Bible. They accepted the scientific case for geocentrism precisely because they saw it in the Bible. It’s no surprise that I can’t find them differentiating between “geocentrism” and “Ptolemaic geocentrism”, or that I can’t find them claiming “Ptolemaic geocentrism” is in the Bible, or that the scholarly literature on this subject doesn’t make this distinction either. But regardless, it doesn’t affect the point I’ve been making all along; when the Church tried Galileo, their arguments against him were theological, and their interpretation of Scripture was false.

@fmiddel

But the issue was not about “I’m right and you’re wrong”; it’s about the implications of those interpretations.

We already addressed this. I didn’t say it was just about “I’m right and you’re wrong”. I pointed out it was about the authority of Scripture and the integrity of the faith. The Church said this explicitly.

@fmiddel

The earth not being at the center of the universe had serious implications that, from their point of view, could be cataclysmic.

Yes, theological implications. Naturally the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture was also at stake; and that’s precisely the point, their interpretation of Scripture was at stake, not their science.

It’s clear that the Church didn’t really exhibit a lot of concern about alleged “cataclysmic” social implications related to their loss of political authority if geocentrism was proved false. They didn’t pursue Copernicus, and they didn’t pursue the scientists who agreed with Galileo. Heliocentrism rapidly gained acceptance in the scientific community, and was increasingly written about. But the Church didn’t pursue the scientists who did that either. They didn’t pursue Maestlin, Rothmann, Kepler, Harriott, Digges, Gilbert, Rheticus, Stevin, Castelli, Cavalieri, Zuniga, or Ward. Galileo’s persecution was the exception.

That proves (contrary to the “warfare thesis”), that the Church wasn’t a blindly authoritarian suppressor of science. However, it also proves that the Church wasn’t really concerned about a massive loss of political power or catastrophic social upheaval if people abandoned geocentrism. The Galileo affair remains an excellent example of the Catholic Church doing what Ken Ham does today; privileging human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

It’s clear that the Church didn’t really exhibit a lot of concern about alleged “cataclysmic” social implications related to their loss of political authority if geocentrism was proved false. They didn’t pursue Copernicus, and they didn’t pursue the scientists who agreed with Galileo. Heliocentrism rapidly gained acceptance in the scientific community, and was increasingly written about. But the Church didn’t pursue the scientists who did that either. They didn’t pursue Maestlin, Rothmann, Kepler, Harriott, Digges, Gilbert, Rheticus, Stevin, Castelli, Cavalieri, Zuniga, or Ward. Galileo’s persecution was the exception.

That proves (contrary to the “warfare thesis”), that the Church wasn’t a blindly authoritarian suppressor of science. However, it also proves that the Church wasn’t really concerned about a massive loss of political power or catastrophic social upheaval if people abandoned geocentrism. The Galileo affair remains an excellent example of the Catholic Church doing what Ken Ham does today; privileging human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.

You’ve demonstrated a huge and blatant contradiction.

“The Galileo affair remains an excellent example of the Catholic Church doing what Ken Ham does today; privileging human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.”

And yet,

“They didn’t pursue Copernicus, and they didn’t pursue the scientists who agreed with Galileo. Heliocentrism rapidly gained acceptance in the scientific community, and was increasingly written about. But the Church didn’t pursue the scientists who did that either. They didn’t pursue Maestlin, Rothmann, Kepler, Harriott, Digges, Gilbert, Rheticus, Stevin, Castelli, Cavalieri, Zuniga, or Ward. Galileo’s persecution was the exception.”

So why was Galileo the exception?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

You’ve demonstrated a huge and blatant contradiction.

No, it’s not a contradiction. Let’s look at the two statements.

1. The Galileo affair remains an excellent example of the Catholic Church doing what Ken Ham does today; privileging human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.

2. They didn’t pursue Copernicus, and they didn’t pursue the scientists who agreed with Galileo. Heliocentrism rapidly gained acceptance in the scientific community, and was increasingly written about. But the Church didn’t pursue the scientists who did that either. They didn’t pursue Maestlin, Rothmann, Kepler, Harriott, Digges, Gilbert, Rheticus, Stevin, Castelli, Cavalieri, Zuniga, or Ward. Galileo’s persecution was the exception.

These two sentences do not contradict each other.

@fmiddel

So why was Galileo the exception?

For all the reasons discussed at length in the literature. Galileo had political enemies (including Urban VIII), who wanted to use his scientific findings to discredit him. This was not difficult given the fact that the Catholic Church was so ready to privilege its human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence. They weren’t sufficiently motivated to go after other individuals, especially those outside Italy. However, they did place Copernican books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This proves they still believed heliocentrism was dangerous to the faith (a theological objection), though they didn’t take steps to prosecute all heliocentrists (which quickly became impractical anyway, due to their rapidly growing numbers), or forbid further astronomical investigation.

John Paul II put it well when he said “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”.

[fmiddel]

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:249, topic:4380”]
No, it’s not a contradiction. Let’s look at the two statements.

The Galileo affair remains an excellent example of the Catholic Church doing what Ken Ham does today; privileging human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.
They didn’t pursue Copernicus, and they didn’t pursue the scientists who agreed with Galileo. Heliocentrism rapidly gained acceptance in the scientific community, and was increasingly written about. But the Church didn’t pursue the scientists who did that either. They didn’t pursue Maestlin, Rothmann, Kepler, Harriott, Digges, Gilbert, Rheticus, Stevin, Castelli, Cavalieri, Zuniga, or Ward. Galileo’s persecution was the exception.

These two sentences do not contradict each other.[/quote]

There’s an obvious implied contradiction. They persecuted Galileo. They did not persecute the other heliocentrists. So it is obviously not just about interpretation.

There is a further problem:

Your accusation is that the Church “privileg[ed] human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence.”

Um…as opposed to what? Any interpretation is “human interpretation.” Further, scientific evidence itself is subject to “human interpretation.” Evidence is interpreted; it doesn’t “speak.” Scripture itself doesn’t “speak,” although arguably God’s Spirit speaks through scripture.

It seems as if you are suggesting that the human interpretation of scientific evidence should always trump the human interpretation of scripture.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

[quote=“fmiddel, post:250, topic:4380”]
There’s an obvious implied contradiction. They persecuted Galileo. They did not persecute the other heliocentrists.[/quote]

Where is the contradiction?

@fmiddel

So it is obviously not just about interpretation.

The persecution of Galileo was not simply about interpretation. That has never been in dispute. But the Church’s position that heliocentrism was heresy and was destructive to the faith and was incompatible with Scripture, was all about interpretation.

@fmiddel

Um…as opposed to what?

As opposed to divinely inspired interpretation.

@fmiddel

Any interpretation is “human interpretation.”

All non-inspired interpretation is human interpretation.

@fmiddel

Further, scientific evidence itself is subject to “human interpretation.” Evidence is interpreted; it doesn’t “speak.” Scripture itself doesn’t “speak,” although arguably God’s Spirit speaks through scripture.

Agreed.

@fmiddel

It seems as if you are suggesting that the human interpretation of scientific evidence should always trump the human interpretation of scripture.

Previously I said “You have expressed concern about Christians accepting scientific conclusions very readily, despite this necessitating a change of their interpretation of Scripture”. You said you hadn’t. So I guess you’re not doing it now?

No I am not suggesting that the human interpretation of scientific evidence should always trump the human interpretation of Scripture. I am arguing that human interpretation of Scripture should not be privileged above human interpretation of scientific evidence, and that the human interpretation of Scripture should be informed by reliably validated conclusions about scientific evidence.

You don’t believe the earth is flat. Why not? You don’t believe the sun orbits the earth. Why not? You don’t believe rain falls through windows in the firmament. Why not? You don’t believe there’s a solid firmament above the earth. Why not? You don’t believe the kidneys are the seat of emotion and the heart is the organ of thought. Why not?

I’ll say it again. Modern science can and should inform our interpretation of what the Bible says about the cosmos and the earth, and life on earth. If modern Christians who oppose evolution can’t learn from the Galileo affair, then they’ll simply repeat the same mistake the Catholic Church made.

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

Where is the contradiction?

The persecution of Galileo was not simply about interpretation. That has never been in dispute. But the Church’s position that heliocentrism was heresy and was destructive to the faith and was incompatible with Scripture, was all about interpretation.[/quote]

You keep missing what is inherent in what you’re saying.

Galileo’s heliocentrism challenged the Church’s interpretation. But so did EVERYBODY ELSE’S! So why pick on Galileo?

[quote]As opposed to divinely inspired interpretation.

All non-inspired interpretation is human interpretation.[/quote]

Tell me how you differentiate between divinely inspired interpretation and “human interpretation.”

Previously I said “You have expressed concern about Christians accepting scientific conclusions very readily, despite this necessitating a change of their interpretation of Scripture”. You said you hadn’t. So I guess you’re not doing it now?

I am not. My point is that both science and theology are human (and thus imperfect) endeavours. Why would one always trump the other?

No I am not suggesting that the human interpretation of scientific evidence should always trump the human interpretation of Scripture. I am arguing that human interpretation of Scripture should not be privileged above human interpretation of scientific evidence, and that the human interpretation of Scripture should be informed by reliably validated conclusions about scientific evidence.

Agreed. But the reverse is also true. Human interpretation of scientific evidence should not always trump human interpretation of scripture. They are held in tension.

What is “reliably validated”? Of either theology or science?

[quote]You don’t believe the earth is flat. Why not? You don’t believe the sun orbits the earth. Why not? You don’t believe rain falls through windows in the firmament. Why not? You don’t believe there’s a solid firmament above the earth. Why not? You don’t believe the kidneys are the seat of emotion and the heart is the organ of thought. Why not?

I’ll say it again. Modern science can and should inform our interpretation of what the Bible says about the cosmos and the earth, and life on earth. If modern Christians who oppose evolution can’t learn from the Galileo affair, then they’ll simply repeat the same mistake the Catholic Church made.

I agree. My issue with you has never been about the mutual roles of science and theology but about your anachronistic and simplistic critique of the medieval Church vis-à-vis the case against Galileo.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

Galileo’s heliocentrism challenged the Church’s interpretation. But so did EVERYBODY ELSE’S! So why pick on Galileo?

I explained this previously. See here.

@Jonathan_Burke

For all the reasons discussed at length in the literature. Galileo had political enemies (including Urban VIII), who wanted to use his scientific findings to discredit him. This was not difficult given the fact that the Catholic Church was so ready to privilege its human interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence. They weren’t sufficiently motivated to go after other individuals, especially those outside Italy.

This doesn’t change the fact that the Church objected specifically to heliocentrism as a heresy, and tried to suppress it by placing Copernican books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This proves they still believed heliocentrism was dangerous to the faith (a theological objection).

[quote=“fmiddel, post:252, topic:4380”]Tell me how you differentiate between divinely inspired interpretation and “human interpretation.”
[/quote]

When I read an inspired writer in the Bible giving an interpretation, I consider that inspired unless they indicate otherwise (Paul differentiates between what he received “from the Lord”, and what he gives as his own judgement).

@fmiddel

My point is that both science and theology are human (and thus imperfect) endeavours. Why would one always trump the other?

Both of them always trump the other on subjects concerning which the other is silent. The Bible trumps science on theology; we don’t get our theology from science. Science trumps the Bible on scientific matters; the Bible wasn’t written to teach us science. This has been recognized by Christian commentators since at least the fifth century.

I’m surprised you’re even asking this question. This is precisely why I asked you these questions previously.

You don’t believe the earth is flat. Why not? You don’t believe the sun orbits the earth. Why not? You don’t believe rain falls through windows in the firmament. Why not? You don’t believe there’s a solid firmament above the earth. Why not? You don’t believe the kidneys are the seat of emotion and the heart is the organ of thought. Why not?

Once you answer those questions, you’ve answered your own.

@fmiddel

Human interpretation of scientific evidence should not always trump human interpretation of scripture. They are held in tension.

There’s no need to “hold in tension” matters which one of them has settled. We don’t hold the resurrection “in tension” with the scientific evidence that people don’t come back from the dead. We recognize that the resurrection is a miracle which is outside the realm of scientific investigation; consequently we recognize the resurrection as a fact. Likewise we don’t “hold in tension” the Bible’s description of geocentrism, with the scientific evidence for heliocentrism. We recognize that the Bible’s geocentrism is a phenomenological description resulting from the knowledge limitations of the original audience, and was not included in the Bible to teach us the scientific truth about the solar system; consequently we recognize heliocentrism as a fact.

@fmiddel

My issue with you has never been about the mutual roles of science and theology but about your anachronistic and simplistic critique of the medieval Church vis-à-vis the case against Galileo.

What’s anachronistic and simplistic about it?

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

This doesn’t change the fact that the Church objected specifically to heliocentrism as a heresy, and tried to suppress it by placing Copernican books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This proves they still believed heliocentrism was dangerous to the faith (a theological objection).[/quote]

So…just to be clear, Galileo had other enemies. It wasn’t just about heliocentrism in contrast to the Church’s biblical interpretation.

But…dangerous? Why?

When I read an inspired writer in the Bible giving an interpretation, I consider that inspired unless they indicate otherwise (Paul differentiates between what he received “from the Lord”, and what he gives as his own judgement).

Okay, but what about non-biblical writers? You’re being evasive. You implicitly claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation is “not inspired.” Whose is? And by what criteria?

Both of them always trump the other on subjects concerning which the other is silent. The Bible trumps science on theology; we don’t get our theology from science. Science trumps the Bible on scientific matters; the Bible wasn’t written to teach us science. This has been recognized by Christian commentators since at least the fifth century.

I agree. But some would disagree that the Bible is silent on science (else many of the debates on this forum wouldn’t even exist. That it has been recognized by (some) Christian commentators since at least the fifth century is a blind appeal to authority. Why is this so?

There’s no need to “hold in tension” matters which one of them has settled. We don’t hold the resurrection “in tension” with the scientific evidence that people don’t come back from the dead. We recognize that the resurrection is a miracle which is outside the realm of scientific investigation; consequently we recognize the resurrection as a fact. Likewise we don’t “hold in tension” the Bible’s description of geocentrism, with the scientific evidence for heliocentrism. We recognize that the Bible’s geocentrism is a phenomenological description resulting from the knowledge limitations of the original audience, and was not included in the Bible to teach us the scientific truth about the solar system; consequently we recognize heliocentrism as a fact.

But there is still significant debate. Some claim that evolution is a fact; others that it is a lie (of deception or conspiracy).

[quote]What’s anachronistic and simplistic about it?

Re-read the whole conversation from the beginning. It was not about “they didn’t like his interpretation because it contradicted theirs.”

There were other heliocentrists who didn’t seem to arouse the ire of the Church. And (I have argued) the Church was not acting out of pettiness; there were may other implications whether or not they were stated by the Church (and it would be foolish to presume that whatever they said was only what they were concerned with).

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

So…just to be clear, Galileo had other enemies. It wasn’t just about heliocentrism in contrast to the Church’s biblical interpretation.

Just to be clear, I have said this several times previously.

@fmiddel

But…dangerous? Why?

We have been through this over and over again. I quoted Bellarmine several times explaining why he thought it was dangerous.

[quote=“fmiddel, post:254, topic:4380”]
Okay, but what about non-biblical writers? You’re being evasive. You implicitly claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation is “not inspired.”[/quote]

I am not being evasive at all, I’m telling you exactly what I believe. I don’t believe non-biblical writers are inspired. I don’t think people are still writing additional books of the Bible today, or still receiving inspired revelations. Of course I claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation is not inspired. If it had been inspired it would have been accurate. Instead it was just fantasy, the bungling product of tradition-laden theologians who didn’t understand the text or its relationship with reality, and who clearly didn’t take heed of Augustine’s warning that Christians should not make fools of themselves by speaking ignorantly on scientific matters and then pointing to the Bible as authority for their opinions. Consequently, they made fools of themselves with their silly blundering and their ignorant floundering around in a book they didn’t understand properly. Galileo was a better expositor of Scripture than those “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture”, to use Augustine’s words.

@fmiddel

Whose is?

The Biblical writers.

@fmiddel

And by what criteria?

They’re identified as inspired in the Bible.

@fmiddel

But some would disagree that the Bible is silent on science (else many of the debates on this forum wouldn’t even exist.

So what?

@fmiddel

That it has been recognized by (some) Christian commentators since at least the fifth century is a blind appeal to authority.

No it isn’t. It’s a demonstration that what I’m saying isn’t novel. An appeal to authority takes the form “Authority figure said X, therefore X is true”.

@fmiddel

But there is still significant debate. Some claim that evolution is a fact; others that it is a lie (of deception or conspiracy).

Sorry, where is this “significant debate” taking place? Not in the scientific literature. That’s like saying there’s “significant debate” about whether the earth is round. So what?

@fmiddel

It was not about “they didn’t like his interpretation because it contradicted theirs.”

@fmiddel

There were other heliocentrists who didn’t seem to arouse the ire of the Church.

I have already said this. But heliocentrism itself did. That’s why all heliocentrist books were placed on the Index.

@fmiddel

Re-read the whole conversation from the beginning. It was not about “they didn’t like his interpretation because it contradicted theirs.”

Re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say it was about “they didn’t like his interpretation because it contradicted theirs”.

@fmiddel

And (I have argued) the Church was not acting out of pettiness;

Nor have I. It was acting out of ignorance. You keep wanting to deflect attention from the fact that the charge against Galileo was heresy, that heliocentrism was identified as heresy, that heliocentrist books were placed on the Index, and that the Church’s arguments against Galileo were theological, based on a flawed interpretation of Scripture. That’s what makes them just like Ken Ham today. Trying to change the subject won’t make these facts go away.

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

Just to be clear, I have said this several times previously.[/quote]

Actually, you seem to have pressed the point that it was about the “Church’s interpretation being right” and…no other reason. Like Ken Hamm.

We have been through this over and over again. I quoted Bellarmine several times explaining why he thought it was dangerous.

Yes, “theologically dangerous.” But you don’t say why…

The “why” questions seem evasive to you.

Why is it theologically dangerous?

I am not being evasive at all, I’m telling you exactly what I believe. I don’t believe non-biblical writers are inspired. I don’t think people are still writing additional books of the Bible today, or still receiving inspired revelations. Of course I claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation is not inspired. If it had been inspired it would have been accurate. Instead it was just fantasy, the bungling product of tradition-laden theologians who didn’t understand the text or its relationship with reality, and who clearly didn’t take heed of Augustine’s warning that Christians should not make fools of themselves by speaking ignorantly on scientific matters and then pointing to the Bible as authority for their opinions. Consequently, they made fools of themselves with their silly blundering and their ignorant floundering around in a book they didn’t understand properly. Galileo was a better expositor of Scripture than those “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture”, to use Augustine’s words.

You have yet to clarify what makes an interpretation “inspired.” Accuracy? Is that it? That’s simply circular.

The Biblical writers.

I’m sorry, but we’re talking about interpreting what the Biblical writers wrote. The medieval Church’s interpretation was “not inspired.” Whose is and how do you know? Is it only the Biblical writers that can interpret Scripture?

They’re identified as inspired in the Bible.

If the point were in New York City, you’re stuck in Los Angeles.

You claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation was not inspired. WHOSE IS? If the only criteria for “spirit-inspired interpretation” is that you’re a biblical author, then we’re all SOL, aren’t we? Why criticize the medieval Church for lacking “inspired interpretation” when this is impossible for everyone?

You can’t possibly mean this.

Who is entitled to interpret correctly? What are the criteria for correct interpretation of what the biblical authors wrote?

So what?

So (as has been typical on this thread), things are not so cut-and-dry as you claim.

No it isn’t. It’s a demonstration that what I’m saying isn’t novel. An appeal to authority takes the form “Authority figure said X, therefore X is true”.

Okay, fine. But because people said it doesn’t make it true. There isn’t consensus here. It isn’t novel. But that’s not a guarantee of truth.

(Consider as a counter-argument, that it wasn’t “novel” to believe hold to geocentrism in Galileo’s day).

Sorry, where is this “significant debate” taking place? Not in the scientific literature. That’s like saying there’s “significant debate” about whether the earth is round. So what?

So that’s it? The scientific community determines truth? Science always trumps theology? There’s significant debate on this site…

I have already said this. But heliocentrism itself did. That’s why all heliocentrist books were placed on the Index.

But…Galileo was centered out.

Re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say it was about “they didn’t like his interpretation because it contradicted theirs”.

Pretty well, you did. They refused to look at scientific evidence because it contradicted their interpretation. Why? Because it was their interpretation that matter the most to them. Just like Ken Hamm.

That’s kind of what you said…a few times.

Nor have I. It was acting out of ignorance.

Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Everybody’s ignorant. About something. So why did this matter? Was it…just their interpretive preference?

[quote]You keep wanting to deflect attention from the fact that the charge against Galileo was heresy, that heliocentrism was identified as heresy, that heliocentrist books were placed on the Index, and that the Church’s arguments against Galileo were theological, based on a flawed interpretation of Scripture. That’s what makes them just like Ken Ham today. Trying to change the subject won’t make these facts go away.

So…they liked their own interpretation better than his? Like Ken Ham?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@fmiddel

Actually, you seem to have pressed the point that it was about the “Church’s interpretation being right” and…no other reason.

I have never said it was for no other reason. I

@fmiddel

Yes, “theologically dangerous.” But you don’t say why… The “why” questions seem evasive to you. Why is it theologically dangerous?

I have explained this at least a dozen times. I have not been remotely evasive. I have said repeatedly that it was considered theologically dangerous because it contradicted Scripture and therefore undermined inspiration, threatening the authority of Scripture. In addition, it challenged the Church’s authority.

@fmiddel

You have yet to clarify what makes an interpretation “inspired.” Accuracy? Is that it?

No, not just accuracy. I have already explained what makes an interpretation inspired.

@fmiddel

You claim that the medieval Church’s interpretation was not inspired. WHOSE IS?

I have already explained this. You demonstrate that you understand my answer when you ask this.

@fmiddel

If the only criteria for “spirit-inspired interpretation” is that you’re a biblical author, then we’re all SOL, aren’t we?

No we aren’t. I don’t believe we need to be “spirit-inspired” in order to interpret the Bible correctly.

@fmiddel

Why criticize the medieval Church for lacking “inspired interpretation” when this is impossible for everyone?

I have not criticized the medieval Church for lacking inspired inspiration. I have criticized them for confusing fallible uninspired interpretation with divinely inspired inspiration.

@fmiddel

Who is entitled to interpret correctly? What are the criteria for correct interpretation of what the biblical authors wrote?

Perhaps a course on hermeneutics would help you. I recommend this.

@fmiddel

So (as has been typical on this thread), things are not so cut-and-dry as you claim.

On the issue of whether or not evolution is true, of course it is. Evolution is a fact. Simple.

@fmiddel

But because people said it doesn’t make it true.

I agree. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the Church should have known this. Many people knew this. It wasn’t a novelty. Galileo knew it. Augustine warned about it. The Church just plain blundered.

@fmiddel

The scientific community determines truth?

The scientific community is a more reliable guide to scientific facts than the non-scientific community. Especially those in the non-scientific community who are uneducated and untrained in science and whose worldview is challenged by scientific facts. Here’s Augustine 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 hold 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.

Do you think that’s wrong? Would you trust Ken Ham to teach you about science?

@fmiddel

But…Galileo was centered out.

Of course. I have said this several times, and I have explained why.

@fmiddel

Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy?

I don’t know why they were so ignorant. As I’ve pointed out, many previous writers weren’t ignorant about this. Galileo wasn’t. He was a better expositor of Scripture than they were. It amazes me that they could be so ignorant while so many other people knew this stuff.

@fmiddel

So why did this matter?

It mattered because the result of their ignorance in this case was the prosecution of Galileo for an imaginary crime, and the attempted suppression of an incredibly valuable scientific fact. It matters when people prosecute other people wrongly on the basis of their ignorant blundering.

@fmiddel

So…they liked their own interpretation better than his? Like Ken Ham?

Of course they did, but they didn’t see it as their interpretation. Like Ken Ham, they saw it as what Scripture actually said. They didn’t believe it was their interpretation, they believed it was the actual word of God. They didn’t prefer their interpretation because it was their interpretation. They didn’t even think of it as their interpretation. They preferred it because they thought it was divinely inspired truth revealed in the Bible. Just like Ken Ham.

This, once again, is the lesson we learn from the Galileo affair: “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”. That’s what Ken Ham does. He’s wrong too.

[fmiddel]

@Jonathan_Burke

I have explained this at least a dozen times. I have not been remotely evasive. I have said repeatedly that it was considered theologically dangerous because it contradicted Scripture and therefore undermined inspiration, threatening the authority of Scripture. In addition, it challenged the Church’s authority.[/quote]

And you imply that the Church was wrong to be threatened by that. Hindsight seems to show that the perceived threat was legitimate. The Church’s authority was undermined. From a Roman Catholic point of view, it’s hard to imagine that the world has “gotten better.”

Of course, from a Reformation perspective, recognizing the abuses of authority, that wouldn’t be the case.

No, not just accuracy. I have already explained what makes an interpretation inspired.

Actually, you didn’t. You said the original authors were inspired, which begs the question (already asked) how we interpret those authors correctly (or, to be consistent in terminology, with “inspiration”).

I have not criticized the medieval Church for lacking inspired inspiration. I have criticized them for confusing fallible uninspired interpretation with divinely inspired inspiration.

I would argue that all interpretation is fallible and should be approached and communicated in humility. This has nothing to do with “inspiration.”

Perhaps a course on hermeneutics would help you. I recommend this.

Perhaps condescension is out of place here.

So what you’re now saying is that inspiration doesn’t really enter into it at all. You just need the right course or book. If only the medieval Church could have read that right book or taken the right course…

On the issue of whether or not evolution is true, of course it is. Evolution is a fact. Simple.

And yet…not everybody agrees. Where do we go for the final authority? You? Scientists? Let’s keep in mind that the medieval Church didn’t have such access…in fact, they saw themselves as that authority and saw themselves as responsible to do it correctly.

I agree. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the Church should have known this. Many people knew this. It wasn’t a novelty. Galileo knew it. Augustine warned about it. The Church just plain blundered.

That “it wasn’t a novelty” is irrelevant. The physical humors were not a novelty either. That doesn’t make it correct.

[quote]The scientific community is a more reliable guide to scientific facts than the non-scientific community. Especially those in the non-scientific community who are uneducated and untrained in science and whose worldview is challenged by scientific facts. Here’s Augustine 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 hold 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.

Do you think that’s wrong? Would you trust Ken Ham to teach you about science?[/quote]

Ah…so theology defaults to science where science is established? So…about a hundred years ago, God didn’t exist because science had established that the universe was infinite. It wasn’t until the discovery of the Big Bang that this was overturned.

God had no place in the universe because everything was determined and predictable. Science was reduced “increase in precision.” Until quantum mechanics and relativity turned that on its head.

Today, people are banking on superstring theory–an idea that it may physically impossible to empirically verify.

But “established scientific fact” always trumps theology?

I don’t know why they were so ignorant. As I’ve pointed out, many previous writers weren’t ignorant about this. Galileo wasn’t. He was a better expositor of Scripture than they were. It amazes me that they could be so ignorant while so many other people knew this stuff.

And, as I’ve already explained, it wasn’t about ignorance. It was about maintaining authority (illegitimate) and maintaining stability and order (legitimate), based on what was then the best established science.

You argue that this isn’t the case because their stated reasons were biblical interpretation and theology.

By the same argument, we can all agree that George Bush only attacked Iraq to remove a despot. There were no other reasons. Because that was the stated reason. Regardless of the fact that there were (and are) many other despots in the world that the U.S. did not strive to remove–despots in regions, say, where there is no oil…

But let’s just take them at their word regardless of any other data. That’s just good history, right?

It mattered because the result of their ignorance in this case was the prosecution of Galileo for an imaginary crime, and the attempted suppression of an incredibly valuable scientific fact. It matters when people prosecute other people wrongly on the basis of their ignorant blundering.

Yes, that’s why it matters from our point of view. That’s legitimate.

Why did it matter to them? I’ve asked this numerous times and you don’t seem to have the imagination to see why it mattered to somebody else. Almost as if the medieval Catholic church looked ahead and said, “Hey, how can we screw things up and make the world worse generally, and more specifically, how can we piss off Jonathan Burke many centuries in the future?”

FYI, nobody really thinks that way. 99.9% of people (Hitler included (Godwin’s Law invoked!)) actually believe they are doing the right thing, or at the very least, the least worst thing.

Of course they did, but they didn’t see it as their interpretation. Like Ken Ham, they saw it as what Scripture actually said. They didn’t believe it was their interpretation, they believed it was the actual word of God. They didn’t prefer their interpretation because it was their interpretation. They didn’t even think of it as their interpretation. They preferred it because they thought it was divinely inspired truth revealed in the Bible. Just like Ken Ham.

Uh…like everybody. Nobody holds to an interpretation they believe to be false. That would be insanity.

[quote]This, once again, is the lesson we learn from the Galileo affair: “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”. That’s what Ken Ham does. He’s wrong too.

Sure. But they had reasons. And those reasons are never just about who gets to determine opinion. Never. Not ever.

Were they wrong? Absolutely. Did they believe they were doing the right thing? Absolutely.

Any one of us can fall into that trap. Nobody is immune.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@fmiddel

I would argue that all interpretation is fallible and should be approached and communicated in humility. This has nothing to do with “inspiration.”

@fmiddel

This is a fine sentiment…

But does that mean you would reject the testimony of your eyes if Science (aka “a convincing durable pattern of test results”) if this Science contradicted a portion of Biblical text?

It should be noted that the modern stance of the Catholic Church is that there can be NO CONFLICT between observable science and God’s cosmos. And the Evangelical community has borrowed and adopted a stance more similar to the Roman Catholic stance from the 1600’s !!!

[fmiddel]

@gbrooks9

This is a fine sentiment…

But does that mean you would reject the testimony of your eyes if Science (aka “a convincing durable pattern of test results”) if this Science contradicted a portion of Biblical text?[/quote]

No.

[quote]It should be noted that the modern stance of the Catholic Church is that there can be NO CONFLICT between observable science and God’s cosmos. And the Evangelical community has borrowed and adopted a stance more similar to the Roman Catholic stance from the 1600’s !!!

There should be no conflict between God as revealed through nature and God as revealed through scripture. I don’t know what “observable science” means (nitpicking, I know), because science itself is human interpretation that is sometimes wrong.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@fmiddel

There should be no conflict between God as revealed through nature and God as revealed through scripture. I don’t know what “observable science” means (nitpicking, I know), because science itself is human interpretation that is sometimes wrong.

Well, as the Catholic Church views this criteria, when Human Science seems to have convincingly established a new understanding of the Cosmos, the Church interprets scripture to be consistent with the new Understanding.

And, if 50 years later, there is yet ANOTHER Understanding … the Catholic Church calmly and sincerely explains how the earlier interpretation was flawed.

It’s very simple - - and I have to admit, I admire the Catholic Church’s position !