This discussion may go into perhaps a fruitful area by bringing up an example of theology and science. I am looking into one orthodox doctrine that has enjoyed a resurgence, and that is Palamas’ energies of God. I mention this because it is an example of theology that stands purely on theological grounds, and yet I, for one, may speculate that it is consistent with our understanding of the world of quantum mechanics (QM). Clearly I am speculating, and this in no way renders the doctrine guilty of odd science.
Briefly, the doctrine emphasises the transcendence of God and also He is not in any way part of the Creation. Yet it also teaches the imminence of God - but ensures the distinction. This may to some, contrast with Thomist teaching of God as the primary cause, as this may link God to His Creation.
Scientifically, I am inclined to the view that both indeterminacy and the ‘reality’ of QM may be understood as resulting from the activities (dynamics) of the energies, and these ensure the creation conforms to God’s will in every sense of creation.
I offer this as an example where science may be correct in so far as it is science, and yet speculation may continue without harming either theology or science.
If you have hard facts of biology or physics sitting on your laboratory table right in front of you … are you suggesting that we should - - every once in a while - - completely ignore the witness of our eyes and ears in order to preserve a point of theology or metaphysics that cannot be confirmed one way or the other until you pass to the Undiscovered Country?
Christians have been adjusting their views on scripture in light of scientific advances for centuries - for me, the question is “why would we stop now?” Does anyone think our theology would be improved by revisiting (and rejecting) heliocentrism, etc?
If one believes that both scripture and nature have the same author, then it’s not one versus the other - both are sources of God’s revelation to us, and we can use them in a complementary way. It’s not a zero-sum game.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!!!
