Is theology ALWAYS reworked to fit science?

Faith & Science Conversation
24

I would challenge this statement - Christians have kept the accepted theology, and were able to handle discussions outside of this, as would anyone who is curious about our surroundings. The constant appeal to the heliocentric outlook is tedious as it is abundantly clear this was the current “science” derived from Hellenic sources, and Christians corrected this. At no point did this change in natural philosophy cause a change in our understanding of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the Law, or Salvation. It seems as if this acceptance of faulty outlooks on science and theology inevitably stems from those who want to promote biological evolution and those against them, the YEC and IP proponents - none of which imo have much in the way of theological insights or contributions to Orthodoxy.

And yet we have this endless repetition - we are supposed to adjust scripture to fit in with such odd outlooks, clothed in so called scientific garb! :weary:

EDIT: I should have said heliocentric outlook is one of two from Hellenic sources, and the other is geocentric (see my comment below). The latter was widely accepted until Copernicus developed his heliocentric view, and the debates raged on from that time. The debate was fuelled mainly by those who defended the geocentric view. During this period most of the educated belonged to the Roma Catholic tradition and this is how biblical quotes and authorities are part of that debate. Christians who supported heliocentric outlook finally won the debate.

1 Like
25

Yeah, no. The reason why Christians accepted it was because they found it in the Bible. Looking at Christian arguments for geocentrism, we find they consist almost entirely of Bible verses, not scientific observations. Christians didn’t use theology to correct geocentrism, they used science.

2 Likes
26

The usual rhubarb; if anything this should serve to warn Christian scientists from being too eager to accept anything that sounds scientific, esp if it seeks to sound theological. Since Wikipedia stand tall in this forum, I (drum roll please) present:

_"Although the basic tenets of Greek geocentrism were established by the time of Aristotle, the details of his system did not become standard. The Ptolemaic system, developed by the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD finally standardised geocentrism. His main astronomical work, the Almagest, was the culmination of centuries of work by Hellenic, Hellenistic and Babylonian astronomers. For over a millennium European and Islamic astronomers assumed it was the correct cosmological model. Because of its influence, people sometimes wrongly think the Ptolemaic system is identical with the geocentric model.

Ptolemy argued that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, from the simple observation that half the stars were above the horizon and half were below the horizon at any time (stars on rotating stellar sphere), and the assumption that the stars were all at some modest distance from the center of the universe. If the Earth was substantially displaced from the center, this division into visible and invisible stars would not be equal.

In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by a system of two spheres: one called its deferent; the other, its epicycle. The deferent is a circle whose center point, called the eccentric and marked in the diagram with an X, is removed from the Earth. The original purpose of the eccentric was to account for the differences of the lengths of the seasons (autumn is the shortest by a week or so), by placing the Earth away from the center of rotation of the rest of the universe. Another sphere, the epicycle, is embedded inside the deferent sphere and is represented by the smaller dotted line to the right. A given planet then moves around the epicycle at the same time the epicycle moves along the path marked by the deferent. These combined movements cause the given planet to move closer to and further away from the Earth at different points in its orbit, and explained the observation that planets slowed down, stopped, and moved backward in retrograde motion, and then again reversed to resume normal, or prograde, motion._
The deferent-and-epicycle model had been used by Greek astronomers for centuries along with the idea of the eccentric (a deferent which is slightly off-center from the Earth), which was even older. In the illustration, the center of the deferent is not the Earth but the spot marked X, making it eccentric (from the Greek ἐκ ec- meaning “from,” and κέντρον kentron meaning “center”), from which the spot takes its name."

27

I’ve not read this book, Jay, but I have read the Fathers extensively, and reach a diametrically opposite conclusion about their views on the pre-fall world. My fairly extensive review of sources is here.

It’s far from complete, but typical enough that on reading further material from St Basil this week, in the midst of a passage explaining the positive role of carnivores, poisonous plants etc in the context of the good creation of Genesis 1, I was surprised when he suggested that roses before the fall had no thorns.

Note that he was basing this on a strictly limited literal interpretation of the curse on Adam - to say that poisonous plants and fierce animals were part of the original creation, but that the text specifically excepts thorns, may be erroneous, but is scarcely letting ones imagination run wild, nor creating a radically different pre-fall world.

Almost the only exception, and that within close bounds, is Chrysostom. Otherwise the idea of a radical cosmic fall dates mainly to the time of the Reformation, when modern science was beginning to be in the air.

The Patristic attitude to then-contemporary science was, predominantly, cautiously respectful, whilst recognising (in a way unusual today) science’s epistemological limitations, and treating the Bible as the word of God - capable of misinterpretation, but utterly truthful in itself. @AdCaelumEo AdCaelumEo has made a significant point in the context of Evolutionary Creation.

1 Like
28

You didn’t address what I wrote. Specifically, you didn’t address the issue that the earlier Christians found geocentrism in the Bible, and argued in favor of it from the text of the Bible.

29

There was a huge discussion about exactly this topic a while ago:

30

Yawnnnnn… there is always something else and some question we must answer - good heavens!

31

That kind of response is why support for Biologos is growing.

32

There is no scriptural case for heliocentrism - it’s just not there, and this was a major point in the whole debate. You cannot find any Biblical support for it.

Those who know their history know that the geocentric side used both scientific arguments and scriptural ones, and that they privileged the scriptural side of their case. Heliocentrists, on the other hand, had to argue without the support of scripture aside from arguing in general ways that God was the creator of what they observed in nature.

1 Like
33

Er in case it wasn’t clear (I’ve edited my posts), both GJDS and I meant to write “geocentrism”. I realise this led you to misread my post.

34

Ha - I also misread your posts. I was writing in support of what you were saying. :slight_smile:

1 Like
35

Yeah sorry about that, GJDS originally wrote “heliocentrism”, and because I understood he meant “geocentrism” I didn’t correct it. Unfortunately I then repeated his mistake! I could see you were supporting what I said.

36

Since theology is merely human interpretation of the Bible, why should it not be subject to revision when it strays off the topic of theology, and into the area of science where it doesn’t belong?

3 Likes
37

Hi Jay,

You pose a very good question. So far, no one has talked about the doctrine of accommodationism, which is highly relevant to the discussion. Moreover, it was championed by both Augustine and Calvin. I think you would agree, Jay, that they are two of the most important theologians in the history of the church.

Rather than write a long essay, I’d rather find out how familiar you are with this classical approach to the Scriptures and science. What do you know about it? Do you agree with Augustine and Calvin that accommodationism is a valid hermeneutical approach? If not, why not? Do you think it can be fruitfully applied to Genesis?

If you could share some thoughts–and it’s fine for you to simply say you’re unfamiliar or uncertain–then I can try to mold my next post in the thread to your specific questions, concerns, and interests.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like
38

For the halt and the lame:

Accommodationism:
"A term coined by Austin Dacey to describe those

“who either recognize no conflicts between religion and science, or who recognize such conflicts but are disinclined to discuss them publicly”

I don’t know anyone participating on these boards that fit this category.

39

That is not true. Creatio ex nihilo has been affirmed by the Big Bang, and many scientists are trying to overturn the theological understanding of cosmology which has been confirmed by modern science.

The new science of ecology has demonstrated that theology is right to criticize the Darwinian understanding of the “Selfish Gene.”

Christian theology has shaped and formed modern science. New science has helped to correct old science3 which some have confused with Christian theology.

40

Perhaps some additional information may clear this odd exchange - both the geocentric and heliocentric (the former earth is centre, the latter the sun is centre) were provided by Hellenics. The geocentric model became the predominant one (I am uncertain on this, but I think it proved more accurate for navigation as it considered the stars in its model).and this was boosted by Aristotle’s view that everything fell to the earth, so the earth must be the center.

Once Christian scientists began to question the geocentric model, the usual controversy ensued, and each camp tried to bolster their side by seeking Biblical quotes - not all that dissimilar to positions adopted on this site. Atheists (mainly) made much of these debates and disagreements, and now we have the banal views that somehow Christian theology was found to be wrong and science made it right - as I said, rhubarb!!!

41

Quoting myself again, with just a few examples…

Ephraim the Syrian on the First Day: “Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the First Day continued for twelve hours each.”

Basil’s Hexaemeron says that before the third day of creation, there was nо natural necessity for waters to flow downward until God’s command came. He also emphasizes the instantaneous nature of God’s creation. For example, on the Third Day: “At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up… Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants … all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth.”

Most Patristic authors embraced the instantaneous nature of creation.

Ambrose: When Moses says “In the beginning God created,” he intends to “express the incomprehensible speed of the work.” … “He (Moses) did not look forward to a late and leisurely creation of the world out of a concourse of atoms.” (Against Greek cosmology.)

Athanasius: “As to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants… No one creature was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command.”

Ephraim describes the activity of the Spirit on the First Day: “[The Holy Spirit] warmed the waters and made them fertile and capable of birth, like a bird when it sits with its outstretched wings on its eggs and by its warmth gives them warmth and produces fertility in them.” Regarding the Third Day, Ephraim says, “The herbs, at the time of their creation, were the productions of a single instant, but in appearance they appeared the productions of months. Likewise the trees, at the time of their creation, were the productions of a single day, but in their perfection and fruits, which weighed down the branches, they appeared the productions of years.”

Plants and trees appeared on earth, the Fathers repeatedly agree, before the very existence of the sun.

Chrysostom: “(Moses) shows you that everything was accomplished before the creation of the sun, so that you might ascribe the ripening of the fruits not to it, but to the Creator of the universe.”

Basil: “The adornment of the earth is older than the sun, that those who have been misled may cease worshipping the sun as the origin of life.”

Ambrose: “Before the light of the sun shall appear, let the green herb be born, let its light be prior to that of the sun. Let the earth germinate before it receives the fostering care of the sun, lest there be an occasion for human error to grow. Let everyone be informed that the sun is not the author of vegetation… . . How can the sun give the faculty of life-growing plants, when these have already been brought forth by the life-giving creative power of God before the sun entered into such a life as this? The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant.”

Basil teaches that the “kinds” of Genesis are fixed to the end of time: “The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the kinds through resemblance, until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct…”

Ambrose is even able to fix the month of the creation of heaven and earth using Scripture: “He created heaven and earth at the time when the months began, from which time it is fitting that the world took its rise. Then there was the mild temperature of spring, a season suitable for all things. Consequently, the year, too, has the stamp of a world coming to birth… In order to show that the creation of the world took place in the spring, Scripture says: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months, it is for you the first in the months of the year” (Ex. 12:2), calling the first month the springtime. It was fitting that the beginning of the year be the beginning of generation.”

42

It would be useful to delineate between various opinions found in Patristic writings and tenets of the Christian faith. Some pondered on what light may be, and how “days” may be “days of creation” and perhaps not our days - the teaching the God created, and John1 (through the power of the Word) doe not change or is modified in any way.

Many also referred to current opinion, and some may have stated a reference - we all tend to do that and I think the opinions expressed in this and other forum testify to that.

1 Like
43

… and neither is it if one views evolution as God’s chosen mechanism. :slight_smile: