I didn't mean to gloss over the point about the church's record regarding faith and science. It is clear religious folk have botched this quite often, Copernicus and Galileo proving an excellent example of this kind of wrong thinking about science. But let's not pretend science is the innocent victim here. It is a far stretch to assume scientists stand alone as the unbiased, objective, agendaless heroes of a new world order. We all have our biases don't we?
The difficulty with Genesis, as I've pointed out in a previous post, is that it has been drafted to serve as an answer to when and how by both sides of the argument, which I think misses the point entirely. Both sides of the creation / evolution debate generally assume that time is constant, which, I believe, Einstein disproved some time ago.
I must admit that I struggle with stem cell research. I've no doubt that helpful information can be gained from such research and that some benefit is possible through their use. Science is certainly capable of such wonders. But I cannot yet find my way for this noble end to justify the means. Adult stem cell research is great, and from what I can tell very promising, but destroying a human embryo to harvest a stem cell - this I have problems with. But surely this is not my lack of faith in science, but rather my faith in the value of human life conferred at conception.
Of course you are also married to a mysterious, fascinating woman. I use this example to illustrate two different types of knowing, one of which provides a meaningful context for the other. Your point that Steph doesn't tell you to believe the earth is flat is well made, but I believe it misses my point. I'm not telling you to believe the earth is flat, and I'm not defending the Church for telling you to believe that. They got that wrong.
My mom didn't let me watch the TV show Batman when I was a kid. She felt it encouraged violence and was from the devil. I think she got that wrong (surely the devil could do better, or worse depending on perspective). But I'm not going to stop believing in my mom to fix it.
The difficulty for me with this whole line of argument is it's circularity. Those who claim certainty is not possible are generally overly certain about this.
I'm writting a book. A bit from Chapter 1 about Copernicus...
ReplyDeleteThe Sun Doesn’t Revolve around the Earth?
New ways of perceiving reality are rarely welcomed and readily embraced. Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest by order of the Church for supporting and defending a new way of seeing things. Before Galileo, Copernicus developed this revolutionary perspective about the relationship of the earth to the Sun, sparked in his pursuit by even more ancient astronomy calling into question the commonly held view that the earth sits motionless at the center of the universe with the sun and stars in revolution around the earth.
Believe it or not, objections to Copernicus’ ideas were theological and biblical in nature. Martin Luther himself cited the biblical story from Joshua 10 where the sun miraculously stood still in opposition to any claim that the sun did not in fact revolve around the earth. If the sun could be made to stand still then clearly the Bible teaches that the Sun is in motion around the earth.
Others objected with the following verses from scripture.
“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come before him! Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. ” (1 Chronicles 16:29–30, ESV)
“He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. ” (Psalm 104:5, ESV)
Any claim that the earth is in motion was seen as a clear contradiction of scripture, rejected as such, and those supporting the claim were mocked at best and vilified at worst.
I find that people often react this way to the claim that they are not the center of the universe whether or not the subject is astronomy. Our tendency is to assume we are at the center. Everything revolves around us. Even when we abandon this view in the area of astronomy, we firmly maintain our grip on this way of viewing ourselves personally within our relationships with God and others.
I think we figured it out here; It's your mom's fault!
ReplyDeleteOr is it my mom?
Dang this circular logic!
So if Scripture was flatly wrong on this, and we learn more about the truth of our universe every day, is there a small possibility that we may find other truthiness in the Bible to be, shall we say, wrong?
It's not that simple. A wrong use of scripture is, by definition, user error. It doesn't say anything about scripture.
ReplyDeleteI consistently describe my experience mornings and evenings as "sunrise" and "sunset". This language, if taken literally, would imply that I believe the sun revolves around the earth. Anyone who heard me sway that and made that assumption would be incorrect, not because I'm incorrect, but because they have misinterpreted my language.
It is no good as an argument to point to Luther's misuse of the Bible to support his opposition to Galileo and Copernicus' ideas as evidence of the Bible being flatly wrong. In fact, Luther was flatly wrong in the way he used the Bible. I've been wrong a few times myself, so that just puts me in good company.
I'm confused by this. Luther was wrong, because he misinterpreted what the Bible said?
ReplyDelete“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come before him! Worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. ” (1 Chronicles 16:29–30, ESV)
“He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. ” (Psalm 104:5, ESV)
I think Luther was right. That IS what it says.
Whatever I might say here is kind of irrelevant. The Christian answer is always the same; Man made the mistake, man misunderstood. God is perfect as is His Holy Word.
I might add that had you and I been raised in Iran you would say the same...about the Quran and Allah.
I don't worship science. It's fallible. The reason I TRUST science, is because it ADMITS it is fallible and in need of CONSTANT revision and improvement. Just like me!
Maybe we should change the subject. I'm getting lots of snarky comments. Maybe I need to put some naked pictures on here to get some sinners on my side!
I get the confusion I think. I'm really not trying to play games with words here.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about language, even everyday English, is that communication is constantly moving in and out of literal and figurative. One of the keys to understanding is always discerning is the language literal? Is the referent literal?
I get what it says in the verses you quoted. If taken literally, as Luther did, as I likely would have in his place, then sure...maybe you're right..of course the earth is constantly in motion and the Bible is wrong if what is meant is that the earth is not in motion in any sense. But, only insisting in a literal interpretation demands this conclusion.
But even if we do insist on a literal interpretation, which I don't think the text itself demands, there are still interpretive options beyond the one Luther took. Perhaps the world is established in it's orbit; it shall never be moved from its orbit.
One of the principles of interpretation I try to use consistently is to try to determine the overall point of the writer. This text is a poem. It lends itself by its very genre to a figurative interpretation.
It seems reasonable to me to say that for Luther to use it to settle a scientific question via a literal interpretation is stretching the application of the text beyond its intent.
I'm sorry about the snarky comments. Hopefully not all of them have that tone. For those that do, it is simply a great demonstration of how the immature expose their immaturity by speaking where not invited.
Right on bro. Sorry for whining.
ReplyDeleteIt's a joy that we can disagree and still agree to love one another. Thanks for that!
G'nite.
J