I
Ion
Guest
Problem are the atheist scientists which use science to promote their atheistic beliefs not St. Augustine…
- Status
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
This thread isn’t about atheists, it’s about Catholics.
I
Ion
Guest
Wel then, why don’t you expose the scientists opinion of St. Augstine’s time?
G
grannymh
Guest
From post 56
“This points to the fact that St. Augustine’s knowledge of the 21st century is nil. Therefore, it is unrealistic to attempt applying his comments to the 21st century intersection of science and Catholic faith.”
Apparently, St. Augustine did understand human nature as described in chapters one through three, Book of Genesis. While Pelagianism is not described in post 1, it is part of the context of St. Augustine’s life and it does refer to the Divine Revelation found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Thus, the question remains. How did St. Augustine consider the eclipses and equinoxes as being similar to Original Sin which, in this century, is still being debated in various ways? Thank you.
“This points to the fact that St. Augustine’s knowledge of the 21st century is nil. Therefore, it is unrealistic to attempt applying his comments to the 21st century intersection of science and Catholic faith.”
If St. Augustine was referring to empirical observation of science, it is common sense to know which science he was examining. Was St. Augustine referring to microbiology? Yes or no? Was he referring to genetics and the human genome? Yes or no? To alchemy? Yes or no?
If the point is to consider how early Christians dealt with similar issues in their own search for truth, it is common sense to name the issues and then state their similarities. For example, when St. Augustine is speaking about equinoxes and eclipses (Source: post 1), then one should explain how equinoxes and eclipses are similar to human nature as described in the first three chapters of Genesis.
Apparently, St. Augustine did understand human nature as described in chapters one through three, Book of Genesis. While Pelagianism is not described in post 1, it is part of the context of St. Augustine’s life and it does refer to the Divine Revelation found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Thus, the question remains. How did St. Augustine consider the eclipses and equinoxes as being similar to Original Sin which, in this century, is still being debated in various ways? Thank you.
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
Who knows? Confessions isn’t a journal, and doesn’t tell of every detail of Augustine’s life and studies. I’m not talking about specifics here, I’m talking about general principles.
Augustine wasn’t talking about “equinoxes and eclipses” in relation to Human Nature or Genesis. A heretical group called the Manichees was making claims about these natural phenomenon which Augustine knew from his own observations and the studies of others.
I’m really not sure how what you’re writing here is relevant to the present conversation. If Augustine felt that eclipses and equinoxes are in any way relevant to the Genesis story, he doesn’t write about it in Confessions. He mentions natural phenomenon in the excerpts I posted as a means of describing how he avoided fully joining a heretical group (ie, they made doubtful claims about the natural world that were clearly false). This has nothing to do with Pelagianism or Genesis.
G
grannymh
Guest
From post 62 by grannymh
"If St. Augustine was referring to empirical observation of science, it is common sense to know which science he was examining. Was St. Augustine referring to microbiology? Yes or no? Was he referring to genetics and the human genome? Yes or no? To alchemy? Yes or no? "
From post 63
By using the analytical approach as a form of methodology, one may be able to discern both meaning and application from the following passage quoted in post 1.
I am not too sure if analysis would be considered an “overarching methodology” (Source: post 58); however, I do not see any red flags prohibiting it.
From post 1.
*** “A little background here: At this point in the Confessions Augustine is writing about a time in his twenties when he was a member of a heretical group called the Manichees. He began to doubt the validity of this heresy when he discovered that they were making claims contrary to what the scientists of his day had discovered about the natural world. Emphasis mine:
…I then kept in mind many true conclusions which they [the scientists] had drawn from creation itself, and I saw that these could be verified by calculation… I then compared them with the assertions of [the Manichees], who had written voluminously (and incoherently) on these subjects. What I read there was confirmed neither by any rational account of solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind that I had learned from books of secular philosophy. I was simply bidden to believe, and what I was required to believe did not correspond to the rational explanations I had worked out and discovered by my own observations; in fact there was a wide discrepancy.
Ok, so here we have Augustine beginning to doubt this heresy based on empirical, scientific observation and the study of scientific works written by others.” ***
Analyzing the above quote, we find these specifics.
That is a truthful, free speech statement.
In post 58, IbnFiktur’s last two sentences are: "The point here is not to debate the specifics of evolution, etc, but rather to consider how early Christians dealt with similar issues in their own search for truth. That is, after all, what Confessions is: Augustine’s search for truth. "
There is no problem with the example of “specifics of evolution” not being debated.
What needs to be discovered by analysis is how the science referred to by St. Augustine is similar to contemporary science when current Catholics are searching for truth. Above are 5 points, expressed by St. Augustine, which will be necessary to determine the amount of similarity to today’s issues, especially those found in the first three chapters of Genesis.
Blessings,
granny
Adam is the apple of God’s eye.
Example of literal truth and figurative language.
"If St. Augustine was referring to empirical observation of science, it is common sense to know which science he was examining. Was St. Augustine referring to microbiology? Yes or no? Was he referring to genetics and the human genome? Yes or no? To alchemy? Yes or no? "
From post 63
Who knows? Someone who is reading St. Augustine, as quoted in post 1, might be able to take an educated guess.
By using the analytical approach as a form of methodology, one may be able to discern both meaning and application from the following passage quoted in post 1.
I am not too sure if analysis would be considered an “overarching methodology” (Source: post 58); however, I do not see any red flags prohibiting it.
From post 1.
*** “A little background here: At this point in the Confessions Augustine is writing about a time in his twenties when he was a member of a heretical group called the Manichees. He began to doubt the validity of this heresy when he discovered that they were making claims contrary to what the scientists of his day had discovered about the natural world. Emphasis mine:
…I then kept in mind many true conclusions which they [the scientists] had drawn from creation itself, and I saw that these could be verified by calculation… I then compared them with the assertions of [the Manichees], who had written voluminously (and incoherently) on these subjects. What I read there was confirmed neither by any rational account of solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind that I had learned from books of secular philosophy. I was simply bidden to believe, and what I was required to believe did not correspond to the rational explanations I had worked out and discovered by my own observations; in fact there was a wide discrepancy.
Ok, so here we have Augustine beginning to doubt this heresy based on empirical, scientific observation and the study of scientific works written by others.” ***
Analyzing the above quote, we find these specifics.
- subject. “…solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind.”
- sources of information. “… books of secular philosophy.” and “…the assertions of [the Manichees], who had written voluminously…”
(Please note that Divine Revelation is not mentioned.) - persons. “…which they [the scientists]…” and St. Augustine himself.
- location of evidence. “…creation itself,…”
- method. “…calculation…”
- result. “…a wide discrepancy.”
That is a truthful, free speech statement.
In post 58, IbnFiktur’s last two sentences are: "The point here is not to debate the specifics of evolution, etc, but rather to consider how early Christians dealt with similar issues in their own search for truth. That is, after all, what Confessions is: Augustine’s search for truth. "
There is no problem with the example of “specifics of evolution” not being debated.
What needs to be discovered by analysis is how the science referred to by St. Augustine is similar to contemporary science when current Catholics are searching for truth. Above are 5 points, expressed by St. Augustine, which will be necessary to determine the amount of similarity to today’s issues, especially those found in the first three chapters of Genesis.
Blessings,
granny
Adam is the apple of God’s eye.
Example of literal truth and figurative language.
A
AugustinianPath
Guest
Rather sweeping generalizations… The nice thing about the scientific method is that it is based on logic and repeatable observations. Yes, “theories” are constructed in an effort to find plausible explanations for what is clearly understood to be fact (i.e., everytime I hold up a rock and drop it, it falls to the earth). Those theories occasionally must be expanded or sometimes even discarded when better explanations come into light. A classic example is the progression from Newton’s laws of motion to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. But was Newton lying? Was his effort a conspiracy to mislead those with a strong faith in God? Hardly. Newton wasn’t even wrong. His ideas only proved to be incomplete. The usefulness of his effort is still so highly valued that every first year physics student cuts his or her teeth by understanding Newton’s laws, how they came into existence, and why they are important. Rest assured that as that student’s knowledge increases, there will be a time to understand the limitations of Newton’s efforts and why Einstein was compelled to “expand” on Newton’s ideas. No student that cares to pursue a deeper understanding will be stunted or misled. There simply is no conspiracy. Indeed any student that progresses to the point of coming up with the next better explanation of how our universe works will be highly lauded (as Einstein was). So the fact is, scientists ARE accountable. The concepts put forth must ultimately withstand the rigor of countless skeptics that, rightly so, demand “proof” of the explanations offered.
I think it’s worthwhile pointing out as well, that some of the most brilliant physicists of our time are also Catholic priests.
I think Saint Augustine would be rather proud of the effort that these scientists, and indeed that the Church, puts into understanding how our universe works.God bless you all!
G
grannymh
Guest
From the opening post.
My apology. I do not know enough about all the Old Testament Scriptures to say for certain that St. Augustine argues that “scientific findings about the natural world should not be considered contrary to scripture, but rather that OT scriptures should be interpreted figuratively.” Source for quote is post 1.
Post 1 continues with St. Augustine’s reasoning. Emphasis is that of the OP.
If the answer is yes, St. Augustine referred to the first three chapters of Genesis, then what is his particular subject matter?
St. Augustine refers to “…solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind.” which are part of the material/physical world which is the domain of scientists. Yes, people who read about the “six days” which describe the creation of the material/physical world can certainly look to science for natural world explanations.
Another question is – what is the location of the evidence for St. Augustine’s remarks? In his first sentence, he is clear that the location is creation itself.
Yes, solstices, etc., are part of the material/physical world. The key question which needs to be asked by people living in this century is – What else is found in the first three chapters? There is no way that St. Augustine, with his brilliant mind, could miss Genesis 1: 26 and following.
Genesis 1:1-25 speaks about the natural world. Genesis 1: 26 to the end of chapter three, addresses the super-natural world. No way would St. Augustine suggest that God is figurative, meaning that God could only be interpreted in a figurative manner.
When God is considered real in the first three chapters of Genesis, would St. Augustine deny God’s creative power in creating human nature which is an unique unification of **both **the material/physical world and the spiritual super-natural world?
There is no valid reason to assume that St. Augustine’s concerns about the material/physical world in relationship to Scripture can be applied to the real events of human origin, original sin, and the promise of a Messiah.
I would like to address the following paragraph which I put in bold.
Yes, the opinions of scientists regarding the natural world should be respected. It should also be noted that these opinions are restricted to the material/physical domain. Natural science which seeks to explain the material world has consistently benefited society. Natural science is one of God’s gifts to humans. Obviously, scientific findings about the natural world are separate from the spiritual world, the domain of God.
My apology. I do not know enough about all the Old Testament Scriptures to say for certain that St. Augustine argues that “scientific findings about the natural world should not be considered contrary to scripture, but rather that OT scriptures should be interpreted figuratively.” Source for quote is post 1.
St. Augustine is doing a general good thing.
Post 1 continues with St. Augustine’s reasoning. Emphasis is that of the OP.
The one question I do not see answered is – Was St. Augustine referring to the first three chapters of Genesis as implied in post 1. “In summary: Augustine clearly argues that the opinions of scientists regarding the natural world should be respected, and that scientific findings about the natural world should not be considered contrary to scripture, but rather that OT scriptures should be interpreted figuratively.”
If the answer is yes, St. Augustine referred to the first three chapters of Genesis, then what is his particular subject matter?
St. Augustine refers to “…solstices and equinoxes and eclipses, nor by anything else of this kind.” which are part of the material/physical world which is the domain of scientists. Yes, people who read about the “six days” which describe the creation of the material/physical world can certainly look to science for natural world explanations.
Another question is – what is the location of the evidence for St. Augustine’s remarks? In his first sentence, he is clear that the location is creation itself.
Yes, solstices, etc., are part of the material/physical world. The key question which needs to be asked by people living in this century is – What else is found in the first three chapters? There is no way that St. Augustine, with his brilliant mind, could miss Genesis 1: 26 and following.
Genesis 1:1-25 speaks about the natural world. Genesis 1: 26 to the end of chapter three, addresses the super-natural world. No way would St. Augustine suggest that God is figurative, meaning that God could only be interpreted in a figurative manner.
When God is considered real in the first three chapters of Genesis, would St. Augustine deny God’s creative power in creating human nature which is an unique unification of **both **the material/physical world and the spiritual super-natural world?
There is no valid reason to assume that St. Augustine’s concerns about the material/physical world in relationship to Scripture can be applied to the real events of human origin, original sin, and the promise of a Messiah.
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
I think we’re arguing past each other granny. I agree with everything in your previous post.
The target audience for my argument were those Catholics and Christians who bend over backwards to disagree with scientists when they make claims about the *material *world that are contrary to a literal interpretation of some OT stories, ie age of the earth, global flood, etc. I am not claiming that the spiritual significance of these scriptures should be in any way diminished. Given that Augustine was one of the earliest architects of the Latin Christendom’s understanding of original sin, I should say that he wouldn’t diminish the spiritual significance of Genesis either.
The target audience for my argument were those Catholics and Christians who bend over backwards to disagree with scientists when they make claims about the *material *world that are contrary to a literal interpretation of some OT stories, ie age of the earth, global flood, etc. I am not claiming that the spiritual significance of these scriptures should be in any way diminished. Given that Augustine was one of the earliest architects of the Latin Christendom’s understanding of original sin, I should say that he wouldn’t diminish the spiritual significance of Genesis either.
G
grannymh
Guest
Two tiny corrections in my humble opinion as a cranky (feminine of snarky) granny.
1.The original Catholic architect of the “understanding” of Original Sin is St. Paul.
2.In some circles, certainly not yours, “spiritual significance of Genesis” [chapters one, two, & three] is a modern, wishy-washy, spineless version of Divine Revelation which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis.
Thank you for discussing the issues with me. You may have the last word.
Blessings,
granny
Adam is the apple of God’s eye.
Example of reality and figurative language.
I
Ion
Guest
John 6:60, disciples left Christ because they didn’t understand.
Scientist didn’t provide anything 100% proven by experiment.
If God called it a day, then I can call it a day even if it’s a way longer one.
Scientist didn’t provide anything 100% proven by experiment.
If God called it a day, then I can call it a day even if it’s a way longer one.
R
ReapReason
Guest
Translation of above quote: if i interpret genesis at face value as representing purely literal events, (as apposed to being a allegorical expression representing core values and beliefs), and if i assume that my face-value interpretation has an authority greater than that of science, then my literal interpretation of genesis is fact…because i say so…even though i haven’t studied Judaic traditions regarding the teaching of their faith and the modes in which their faith is expressed.
I
Ion
Guest
Why did you mention Newton? Or Einstein?Rather sweeping generalizations… The nice thing about the scientific method is that it is based on logic and repeatable observations. Yes, “theories” are constructed in an effort to find plausible explanations for what is clearly understood to be fact (i.e., everytime I hold up a rock and drop it, it falls to the earth). Those theories occasionally must be expanded or sometimes even discarded when better explanations come into light. A classic example is the progression from Newton’s laws of motion to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. But was Newton lying? Was his effort a conspiracy to mislead those with a strong faith in God? Hardly. Newton wasn’t even wrong. His ideas only proved to be incomplete. The usefulness of his effort is still so highly valued that every first year physics student cuts his or her teeth by understanding Newton’s laws, how they came into existence, and why they are important. Rest assured that as that student’s knowledge increases, there will be a time to understand the limitations of Newton’s efforts and why Einstein was compelled to “expand” on Newton’s ideas. No student that cares to pursue a deeper understanding will be stunted or misled. There simply is no conspiracy. Indeed any student that progresses to the point of coming up with the next better explanation of how our universe works will be highly lauded (as Einstein was). So the fact is, scientists ARE accountable. The concepts put forth must ultimately withstand the rigor of countless skeptics that, rightly so, demand “proof” of the explanations offered.
I think it’s worthwhile pointing out as well, that some of the most brilliant physicists of our time are also Catholic priests.
God bless you all!
Can you scientifically explain Haeckel’s embryos?
From wiki:
The exactness of Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent Design proponents recently and Haeckel’s intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory…
…
On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology…
…has said that “on a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct”
…
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[30] demonstrated that Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[31] On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel’s drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that “Haeckel’s much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution”.[32] But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team’s investigation of Haeckel’s drawings were showing them to be “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”
Where do you see similarities with Newton’s work?
I
Ion
Guest
Thats your opinion…Translation of above quote: if i interpret genesis at face value as representing purely literal events, (as apposed to being a allegorical expression representing core values and beliefs), and if i assume that my face-value interpretation has an authority greater than that of science, then my literal interpretation of genesis is fact…because i say so…even though i haven’t studied Judaic traditions regarding the teaching of their faith and the modes in which their faith is expressed.
And you didn’t read John 6:60…
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
Granny: You’re right of course about Paul. To be more clear I should have said that Augustine is one of the Church’s architects of the theolgy original sin outside of scriptural sources 
Ion: This thread isn’t about your views on science, it’s about Augustine’s. I’d appreciate it if you could keep your comments pertinent to the OP.
Ion: This thread isn’t about your views on science, it’s about Augustine’s. I’d appreciate it if you could keep your comments pertinent to the OP.
I
Ion
Guest
So, what would be st. Augustine view on the example of science I gave?Granny: You’re right of course about Paul. To be more clear I should have said that Augustine is one of the Church’s architects of the theolgy original sin outside of scriptural sources
Ion: This thread isn’t about your views on science, it’s about Augustine’s. I’d appreciate it if you could keep your comments pertinent to the OP.
You want to take a cite from him and label with it all the “science” produced nowadays?
I
Ion
Guest
This argument is smoked out: “We are the scientist and we proved…Your father is not a scientist and he doesn’t know…”
This is how evolutionist theory was pushed forward…
They proved nothing, only abusing the term scientist for what really is philosophy…
Before questioning the bible I will have to check personally everything they said; if I cant then I will drop it for lack of evidence…
J
jedicri
Guest
Has anyone read St. Augustine’s The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram) ?
Despite the title of his work, Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous.
Here is a sample of the first two books: books.google.ca/books?id=_s0kIgD0nCcC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22But+it+shows+that+to+Him+as+the+Word%22&source=bl&ots=A5SYB2W0-7&sig=u5qLKUmyPmVgiLqeC8O3zrts3CY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y
Despite the title of his work, Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous.
Here is a sample of the first two books: books.google.ca/books?id=_s0kIgD0nCcC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22But+it+shows+that+to+Him+as+the+Word%22&source=bl&ots=A5SYB2W0-7&sig=u5qLKUmyPmVgiLqeC8O3zrts3CY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y
Y
You
Guest
As someone said once that God called Himself a gate; but of course He is a gate and not a gate.
Likewise a year may not be a year and be a year too. The period is certain to have happened but its actual constraints may be given in a figurative way.
There are other ways a flood could be global without any of these problems. Indeed this globe was in fact flooded as geology shows; almost all of geology is the story of marine deposits.
Recent flood ideas, 6,000 yrs ago, were originally the product of a protestant Bishop in Ireland, and really are just one persons opinion and is not defined literally as such in Genesis.
The hebrew word אָרֶץ also appears here;
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth אָרֶץ. (that is, the planet)
2 Now the earth אָרֶץ was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
To recap אָרֶץ appears to mean ‘earth’ when He created the planet earth.
Periods of time in SS are nearly always symbolic; 40 days, 3 days and 3 nights, 40 years, and so on. Not to say these are not accurate periods of time only that several instances share the exact same time periods and so take on something of the mantle of symbolic meaning also.
A world-wide flood is nothing new to science as all of this world has been under water at some stage or another - all the earth was under water.
- Status