Putting this literal Genesis thing to bed ...

[Thomas]

It seems that the science v religion argument just will not go away.

Fr Stanley Jaki, priest and physicist, states in Bible and Science:

Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley’s description of 'bibliolaters.' … The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.

The Alexandrian school of Clement and Origen taught the ‘Four Senses of Scripture’ and the importance of allegory. In De Principiis Origen states that spiritual teachings could be gleaned from historical events, and sometimes the lessons could only be taught through stories that, taken literally, would "seem incapable of containing truth."

Again from Origen:

… For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. (De Principiis 4:16)

Now Origen was accused of heretical teachings, and one of the accusations was an over-indulgence on allegory, at the expense of the literal word. This claim is mediated however, by a careful reading of his arguments which boil down to:
1: Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God.
2: The ‘corporal’ or literal sense should not be adopted when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.

Whilst St Augustine is presented as believing in a literal interpretation, it’s worth reading the following:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch19)

And again

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation. (Ibid 2:9)

In short, Augustine is saying that there is no dispute between science and religion, and where sound scientific reasoning casts doubt upon the text, then it should be understood that the text is a spiritual, not a scientific, treatise.

It should be noted that Augustine did not believe in a literal ‘six days’ of creation, but rather the days signified an ordering other than the physical and temporal duration of time. (cf City of God, 11, 6)

+++

Lastly it’s worth quoting The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This is required reading for anyone studying Catholic Theology.

In the section "The Divine Work of Creation" the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:

as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood.

As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis — opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest. (The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan, pps 92-93)

+++

 

[Devils' Advocate]

where sound scientific reasoning casts doubt upon the text, then it should be understood that the text is a spiritual, not a scientific, treatise.

Science vs religion is never going to go away. It is weaved into the fabric of humanity.

The quoted part of your statement gives me pause. As going back in time the portions of the Bible that were considered to be literal over spiritual text was larger and larger the further back one goes. Which suggests that as science advances forward, further parts of the Bible will have to move over to the spiritual, not literal category.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

As going back in time the portions of the Bible that were considered to be literal over spiritual text was larger and larger the further back one goes.

What do you base this on? I doubt ancient societies had such a binary relationship to the literal as we do today, something I think is a social construction perhaps born out of the enlightenment or earlier phenomena. Look at shamanic descriptions of events, they appear absurd to the literal mind.

EDIT:

Science vs religion is never going to go away. It is weaved into the fabric of humanity.

Are there any indication that this exists outside western or westernised societies?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

It seems that the science v religion argument just will not go away.

Don't worry. Science will catch up with scripture one day.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

You may be right that this is primarily an Abrahamic religion issue. I am not familiar enough with the Far East, and other religions to know.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

(Deleted) Oops, wrong post.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems that the science v religion argument just will not go away.

Of course it will not go away as long as many if not most Christians still have reason to reject science based on their sincere understanding of scripture and the beliefs of the NT authors and church fathers.

Many do try to put it to bed, but they are simply putting under the pillow and sleeping on it. I creeps out the next morning still live and well.

Fr Stanley Jaki, priest and physicist, states in Bible and Science:


The Alexandrian school of Clement and Origen taught the ‘Four Senses of Scripture’ and the importance of allegory. In De Principiis Origen states that spiritual teachings could be gleaned from historical events, and sometimes the lessons could only be taught through stories that, taken literally, would "seem incapable of containing truth."

Again from Origen:


Now Origen was accused of heretical teachings, and one of the accusations was an over-indulgence on allegory, at the expense of the literal word. This claim is mediated however, by a careful reading of his arguments which boil down to:
1: Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God.
2: The ‘corporal’ or literal sense should not be adopted when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.

True, but Origen's beliefs were not only accused of being heretical, but the are in reality were and remain so today in tradittional Christianity.

Whilst St Augustine is presented as believing in a literal interpretation, it’s worth reading the following:

And again

In short, Augustine is saying that there is no dispute between science and religion, and where sound scientific reasoning casts doubt upon the text, then it should be understood that the text is a spiritual, not a scientific, treatise.

It should be noted that Augustine did not believe in a literal ‘six days’ of creation, but rather the days signified an ordering other than the physical and temporal duration of time. (cf City of God, 11, 6)

You, as usual provide a selective reference of Augustine. In reality Augustine made a number of alternate ways which he stated that Genesis may be interpreted, but nonetheless held firmly to a version of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Lastly it’s worth quoting The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This is required reading for anyone studying Catholic Theology.

In the section "The Divine Work of Creation" the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:

This true, modern revisionism is the rule in some churches of modern Christianity to make things fit science as well as they can and still believe scripture, but the Roman Church does not remotely represent Christianity as a whole today nor in history.

The dismissive manner of the beliefs of the church fathers does not match history, the reason for the origins of the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity, and the majority of the Protestants with not share this view, nor acknowledge the Roman Church as Catholic. Actually the above reference is a bit weak and spineless concerning any support for science, and still leaves the question open to individual choice within the church

 

[shunyadragon]

What your references clearly indicate is the growing schism in Christianity where on the conservative side, the literal interpretation is believed based on scripture and the dominant view of the church fathers, and the implications of the literal interpretation of Genesis (which varies, but remains literal in opposition to science.) in opposition to modern revisionism in the Roman Church and liberal Protestants to make peace and harmony with science and still be faithful to doctrines and dogmas of Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

Science vs religion is never going to go away. It is weaved into the fabric of humanity.

I rather think a particular view of science is weaved into the post-Enlightenment western mindset, not the fabric of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

I rather think a particular view of science is weaved into the post-Enlightenment western mindset, not the fabric of humanity.

I do not consider 'the fabric of humanity' here is an issue. You need to explain this further as to why you claim this.

The conflict between science and religion was progressive throughout the history of Christianity due to the advancement of the sciences. and reluctance of an entrenched religion to change. The early history the conflict was not apparent, because the knowledge of science was not in conflict except for philosophers like Lucretius. By the time of Calvin, who still believed in a literal Genesis, the Sun was no longer the center of the universe. The writings of Calvin and other Protestant Reformation reformers like Luther were very influential in maintaining the literal understanding of Genesis in Protestantism.

 

[Thomas]

Of course it will not go away as long as many if not most Christians still have reason to reject science ...

I know, and that's a great shame, as really it's a side-show.

The problem is allowing these admittedly noisy and it seems influential elements to shape one's beliefs and opinions. The reality is belief in the traditional Christian doctrines and dogmas does not require a rejection of science. You can take the issue up with them, or rather the right-wing political think-tank that seems to have misled so many American Christians about the biblical support for creationism and Intelligent Design. But please don't assume we all think like that, or that's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Thomas]

This true, modern revisionism is the rule in some churches of modern Christianity to make things fit science as well as they can and still believe scripture, but the Roman Church does not remotely represent Christianity as a whole today nor in history.

LOL. Oh dear ... traditionalism or revisionism ... we can't win, can we?

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL. Oh dear ... traditionalism or revisionism ... we can't win, can we?

It makes it tough to even getting a draw, considering unresolvable chasm between fundamentalist Christianity, and the liberal revisionist Christianity concerning how to deal with science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know, and that's a great shame, as really it's a side-show.

It may be a shame, but I consider it more of a problem than just a side show. The poles are variable, but between 35 and 45% or more of the Christians in the USA believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The problem is allowing these admittedly noisy and it seems influential elements to shape one's beliefs and opinions. The reality is belief in the traditional Christian doctrines and dogmas does not require a rejection of science. You can take the issue up with them, or rather the right-wing political think-tank that seems to have misled so many American Christians about the biblical support for creationism and Intelligent Design.

I never said it is a requirement to believe in a literal Genesis. I have said it is a consistent reasonable belief based on scripture, church fathers beliefs, and the writings of Protestant Reformers, which are oft cited by those that belief.

But please don't assume we all think like that, or that's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

Never assumed all Christians, nor the Roman Church teaches the literal view specifically. My understanding of the view of the Roman Church is that it leaves the decision up to the the individual conscience.

 

[Thomas]

It may be a shame, but I consider it more of a problem than just a side show. The poles are variable, but between 35 and 45% or more of the Christians in the USA believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Which, to be fair, makes that less than 'most' and, comparing the percentage of US Christians to the global figure, not most by a long way.

I can understand it not being a sideshow if you're in it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which, to be fair, makes that less than 'most' and, comparing the percentage of US Christians to the global figure, not most by a long way.

The statistics in the other thread reflect the USA, except Europe and the Orient (China, Japan etc.) I believe the trend is toward fundamentalist Christianity in the third world at the expense of the moderate churches and the Roman Church. I will check the statistics.

http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634

The countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).

Consistently with previous polls, in the United States, acceptance of evolution was higher among respondents who were younger, with a higher level of household income, and with a higher level of education. Gender was not particularly important, however: the difference between male and female respondents in the United States was no more than 2%.

The survey was conducted on-line between September 7 and September 23, 2010, with approximately 1000 participants per country except for Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Russia, and Turkey, for which there were approximately 500 participants per country; the results were weighted to balance demographics.

I can understand it not being a sideshow if you're in it.

The problem of the side show is in Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which, to be fair, makes that less than 'most' and, comparing the percentage of US Christians to the global figure, not most by a long way.

The polls are for all Americans including many non-Christians (40-47%, average about 44-45%). You take out the non-Christians and the number of Christians that endorse a literal interpretation increases.

I can understand it not being a sideshow if you're in it.

Your rude sarcasm does not flatter your argument, it more reflects your frustration in communication. The problem of the side show is in Christianity and likely 45%+ Christians of the USA.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Your rude sarcasm does not flatter your argument

I don't think Thomas has ever been as rude or sarcastic in your discussions as you perceive him to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think Thomas has ever been as rude or sarcastic in your discussions as you perceive him to be.

Maybe in your experience, because the two of you are close to agreement, but nonetheless explain this.

I can understand it not being a sideshow if you're in it.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Maybe in your experience, because the two of you are close to agreement, but nonetheless explain this.

I actually don't see how you read that as rude or sarcastic, I'm not saying you are wrong I just cant read it in any other way then he seeing your point of it.