Little Green Men
#21
(08-14-2019, 06:05 PM)Augustinian Wrote: I agree that this sort of dismissal of the classical cosmology of the Fathers has lead to erroneous concessions within the Church and theologians in the past century. Namely, the adoption of this purely naturalistic cosmology has lead to scientific truths being elevated above that of Scriptural truths. I have often heard people cite St Augustine and St Thomas when it comes to an allegorical or symbolic readings of Genesis. While at the same time overlooking the fact that both Augustine and Aquinas also accepted a literal reading of the creation accounts in Genesis. And it is this view of Scripture that many modern Catholics, even among traditionalists, have honestly lost. The acceptance of the modern view that science somehow trumps Revelation, therefore we need to re-interpret Genesis to fit our new worldview rather than reassess scientific assertions in light of Scripture. A classic example being those who state that the 'accounts of Genesis are the result of the author's own perspective of creation at that time.' Many are trusting in the wisdom of men above that of Wisdom Itself, and this is a serious issue that has lead to the question of extraterrestrial life forms and a minimization of our own place in the universe beneath the imago Dei which man was intended to be.

Where science and revelation contradict, shouldn't science trump revelation?  I get that not everything under the umbrella of science is proven fact, and that there may be explanations that are ultimately true that fall outside of what science is currently looking at.  But in those cases where something has been scientifically proven, or proven to the best of our ability to prove something, if it then contradicts Scripture, why shouldn't science trump it?  Is it really more reasonable, is it really the simplest explanation, to say for every contradiction that the science is either misunderstood or a deception, than it is to say that the particular scripture is not to be taken literally?
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • SeeTheLight
Reply
#22
(08-15-2019, 09:22 AM)Melkite Wrote: Where science and revelation contradict, shouldn't science trump revelation?  I get that not everything under the umbrella of science is proven fact, and that there may be explanations that are ultimately true that fall outside of what science is currently looking at.  But in those cases where something has been scientifically proven, or proven to the best of our ability to prove something, if it then contradicts Scripture, why shouldn't science trump it?  Is it really more reasonable, is it really the simplest explanation, to say for every contradiction that the science is either misunderstood or a deception, than it is to say that the particular scripture is not to be taken literally?

Because the danger lies in Scripture no longer being the inerrant Word of God. If reason trumps Revelation, and Revelation is found to be lacking or wrong, then it is erroneous and is undermined as an authority.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Behold this Heart which has so loved men that It spared nothing, even going so far as to exhaust and consume Itself to prove to them Its love” - Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/

Malachi Martin was right.
Reply
#23
(08-15-2019, 10:54 AM)Augustinian Wrote: Because the danger lies in Scripture no longer being the inerrant Word of God. If reason trumps Revelation, and Revelation is found to be lacking or wrong, then it is erroneous and is undermined as an authority.

If Revelation can be found to be erroneous, and not possessing the authority it claims, wouldn't you want to know it?

If Scripture is inerrant, and science proves a literal interpretation of a scripture to be false, then the authority undermined, in my opinion, is not that of Scripture itself, but the person forcing a literal interpretation on it that, obviously, could not have been intended by the author, if it is truly inerrant.  If it must be taken literally, only then would it prove Scripture to be false.

In my mind, the danger of being unwilling, at all costs, to recognize the authority of science, even in the face of a religious contradiction, puts one in the same place as the fundamentalist of any other false religion.  If, for the sake of argument, your religion is false as well, such a mind set prevents you from ever being able to be freed from it.  If your religion is really true, authentic science can never truly contradict it.  You have nothing to lose by granting science its due authority, even when it initially seems to contradict Scripture.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#24
(08-15-2019, 12:12 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-15-2019, 10:54 AM)Augustinian Wrote: Because the danger lies in Scripture no longer being the inerrant Word of God. If reason trumps Revelation, and Revelation is found to be lacking or wrong, then it is erroneous and is undermined as an authority.

If Revelation can be found to be erroneous, and not possessing the authority it claims, wouldn't you want to know it?

If Scripture is inerrant, and science proves a literal interpretation of a scripture to be false, then the authority undermined, in my opinion, is not that of Scripture itself, but the person forcing a literal interpretation on it that, obviously, could not have been intended by the author, if it is truly inerrant.  If it must be taken literally, only then would it prove Scripture to be false.

In my mind, the danger of being unwilling, at all costs, to recognize the authority of science, even in the face of a religious contradiction, puts one in the same place as the fundamentalist of any other false religion.  If, for the sake of argument, your religion is false as well, such a mind set prevents you from ever being able to be freed from it.  If your religion is really true, authentic science can never truly contradict it.  You have nothing to lose by granting science its due authority, even when it initially seems to contradict Scripture.

I'm not sure that's the best way of stating it, Melkite—science trumping Revelation—because, simply, that can never happen. Natural and Supernatural Truth are both from God, "who can neither deceive nor be deceived," so there is never any conflict.

The only possibility of conflict is when there is interpretation. That's just as likely on the side of science as on the side of Scripture. Given the importance of Scripture and the guarantees we have that the text itself and the literal sense (the meaning intended by God, not just our own reading of the words here and now) is inerrant and inspired, our defeault position will be to hold the interpretation we have of Scripture (especially when supported by experts or the common understanding of the Church) until the science is well-founded and suggests that this interpretation is problematic. However, if well-established, and it does not question a dogma of the Faith or what touches on dogma, then when well-established, the Church does modify her understanding of things, and so should we.


Several areas could be pointed out where biological or physical sciences have developed such that the earlier interpretation has been cast aside. The global universality of the flood, for instance, was generally assumed, but as the physical dynamics of the earth were determined by more and more scientific study, it became not only safe to abandon the notion that the Flood was physically universal, and the common understanding has come to understand it as anthropologically universal. The interpretation of "all the earth" is at issue. One who understands the earth to be a globe (which the Hebrews did not) would understand this. A Hebrew would simply (based on other Hebrew idioms in Genesis which are not true universals, like "all Israel"), would likely have simply understood all of the land that was inhabited. This, combined with the physical issues of no vast reservoir of water, etc. makes the global universality far less likely, and that is why the common opinion (while not obliging any interpretation) is now that it is safe (and more probable) that the flood was a local one, sufficient to destroy all by the 8 human beings on the ark.

Likewise the Catholic scientist has to worry about asserting what is in conflict with doctrine, especially publicly. That's half the problem of the science-religion problem is that scientists publicize their work to those who have no ability to understand or analyze these things.

What you describe, however, is nothing but St Áugustine's (and after him St Thomas') principles for interpreting Scripture.

Assert the literal meaning of the words. But when there is a good reason to question these, do not hold so tightly to them that when proven wrong you make Scripture out to be wrong and thus make it harder for people to convert, and easier for the enemies of God to mock us.

Dogma and what touches on dogma matters. We must never assert our opinions, or even common understanding which are not dogmatic as dogma, else we will end up harming the Faith, not helping it.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, LionHippo
Reply
#25
Oh wise one *cough* tell me true...

I was always sending this homeless guy catholic stuff to his Wal-Mart phone and now that he's not homeless, (he lives next door), he was telling me how he would show that Catholic stuff to his homeless pal who used to be a deacon or something but is now a pagan or something, and his pal said: 'he's trying to convert you', to which my homeless friend relied: 'you can't convert, I think you have to be born one'.  

An all-too-common misconception.




Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)