Creation, Noah, Jonah, and Fundamentalist Interpretations of Scripture

[Jocko_VT]

In this particular “hypothetical,”

Is this parishioner the parent of the students being taught? Is this parishioner likewise a catechist?

Yes, the parishioner was a parent of the student being taught. No, he was not, at the time, a catechist. But he is now. (And by “he,” I men “I”).

If he’s a parent, then the way to deal with it is to teach his children the difference between ‘literalist’ and ‘literal’ speech. (“It’s raining cats and dogs” is a good example. It literally means that it’s raining really, really hard – even if it literalistically can be misinterpreted to mean puppies and kitties are falling from the sky.)

This is precisely what he did.

If he’s not a parent, then this parishioner’s opportunities to step in are more limited.

Yes, and I think this is problematic. It’s effectively a self-perpetuating process of poor catechesis, or something worse (because it’s not just shallow, but incorrect). And I can’t imagine any easy solutions.

In the same way, if the parishioner in question isn’t a catechist, then perhaps he should consider becoming one. Depending on how the pastor interprets Scripture (let’s hope he doesn’t demand a fundamentalist approach to Scripture… right?!?), perhaps there’s an opportunity to discuss what’s being taught, in the context of volunteering to be a catechist.

I’m sure the pastor wouldn’t say he’s for a fundamentalist interpretation, but I’m guessing he leans closer to the literalistic interpretations than not. Part of the problem seems, I think, to be the poor understanding of science so many people have (it’s as bad as their handle on Church teaching). It leads to a certain twisting of scientific facts *and *religious truths to reconcile them in a way that does a disservice to both. And it’s completely unnecessary!

Finally, there’s the question of how said parishioner knows what’s going on in the CCD classes. From whom is he getting his information? Is he getting it second- or third-hand? A measure of prudence might be necessary to come to an understanding of what’s really being said in class…

Agreed. Alas, the same issues prevail in adult religious ed., where fundamentalist interpretations of scripture are bandied about and the person who suggests anything other than that the Bible is a perfect work of history and science is the odd man out. And, some of these adult ed. folks are catechists in the children’s CCD classes.

The whole issue comes to an interesting point when I’m teaching a 6th-grade CCD class, and the topic for the first three weeks covers how we’re to read the Bible as Catholics, what “biblical inspiration” really means, and what the Church’s take on evolution is, and my co-teacher explains to the students that she believes when the Bible says something, it must be true (and she’s approaching it literalistically–i.e…, specifically, Creation occurred in 6 days, the flood story happened exactly as reported in the Bible, etc.). And, she said it was “a matter of opinion.” It’s hard for me to know how to sort this out diplomatically and tactfully.

 

[goout]

…
Agreed. Alas, the same issues prevail in adult religious ed., where fundamentalist interpretations of scripture are bandied about and the person who suggests anything other than that the Bible is a perfect work of history and science is the odd man out. And, some of these adult ed. folks are catechists in the children’s CCD classes.

The whole issue comes to an interesting point when I’m teaching a 6th-grade CCD class, and the topic for the first three weeks covers how we’re to read the Bible as Catholics, what “biblical inspiration” really means, and what the Church’s take on evolution is, and my co-teacher explains to the students that she believes when the Bible says something, it must be true (and she’s approaching it literalistically–i.e…, specifically, Creation occurred in 6 days, the flood story happened exactly as reported in the Bible, etc.). And, she said it was “a matter of opinion.” It’s hard for me to know how to sort this out diplomatically and tactfully.

There is no excuse for ignorance, especially when that ignorance is presented as Church teaching. All you can do is speak the truth to the best of your ability.
Catechists have a sacred duty to educate themselves before they start teaching people.

This kind of fundamentalism will drive young people out of the Church very quickly when they reach the age of full and independent reason. Their reason will tell them something is not right. And even though they are not correct to abandon the Church, they are correct to follow their reason. In my mind, the catechist is culpable for this, not the young person who is given a distorted view of scripture.
And since no deeper alternative other than literalism has been presented, they have no compelling reason to embrace scripture.

 

[cfauster]

When you say it’s “accurate…as far as poetic prose goes,” what do you mean?

We are in agreement that it wasn’t meant to be scientific. We are in agreement that it is inspired by God (and, thus, completely “true,” even if not scientifically or historically factual).

The poetic “accuracy” of Genesis 1 that effectively conveys important spiritual truth includes, I think, clear distinctions between creator and creation, as well as the goodness of the creator and the creator’s work. For example, God thoughtfully prepares habitations where God’s creatures can flourish. Each has its place, its home. And in the minds of the ancient near eastern people, that includes the celestial bodies.

So, on the first day light/day and dark/night are separated from each other and organized into homes or habitations for inhabitants that are created on a later day. Waters above/sky gets separated from waters below/seas on Day 2, again for future inhabitants. Day 3 is the final home-building day, when land gets separated from seas (and the land also has plants - part of a well-furnished terrestrial habitat!).

Then, the inhabitants are created to be in the homes God has provided for them.

The order in which the inhabitants are created parallels the order in which their homes were prepared.

So, on Day 4, inhabitants are created for the homes made on Day 1: the sun is created to inhabit the day, and the moon and stars are created to inhabit the night.

On Day 5, inhabitants are placed in the homes created on Day 2: birds for the sky, sea creatures for the seas.

On Day 6, inhabitants are placed in the terrestrial home created on Day 3: land animals, and us humans.

The majesty and goodness of this monotheistic account contrasts sharply with the chaotic, violent polytheistic creation stories available to the ancient near eastern people.
Genesis 1 still speaks truth to us today. I agree that the important truths can get lost if one attempts to read the account as history or science.

 

[edwest2]

In this particular “hypothetical,”

Yes, the parishioner was a parent of the student being taught. No, he was not, at the time, a catechist. But he is now. (And by “he,” I men “I”).

This is precisely what he did.

Yes, and I think this is problematic. It’s effectively a self-perpetuating process of poor catechesis, or something worse (because it’s not just shallow, but incorrect). And I can’t imagine any easy solutions.

I’m sure the pastor wouldn’t say he’s for a fundamentalist interpretation, but I’m guessing he leans closer to the literalistic interpretations than not. Part of the problem seems, I think, to be the poor understanding of science so many people have (it’s as bad as their handle on Church teaching). It leads to a certain twisting of scientific facts *and *religious truths to reconcile them in a way that does a disservice to both. And it’s completely unnecessary!

Agreed. Alas, the same issues prevail in adult religious ed., where fundamentalist interpretations of scripture are bandied about and the person who suggests anything other than that the Bible is a perfect work of history and science is the odd man out. And, some of these adult ed. folks are catechists in the children’s CCD classes.

The whole issue comes to an interesting point when I’m teaching a 6th-grade CCD class, and the topic for the first three weeks covers how we’re to read the Bible as Catholics, what “biblical inspiration” really means, and what the Church’s take on evolution is, and my co-teacher explains to the students that she believes when the Bible says something, it must be true (and she’s approaching it literalistically–i.e…, specifically, Creation occurred in 6 days, the flood story happened exactly as reported in the Bible, etc.). And, she said it was “a matter of opinion.” It’s hard for me to know how to sort this out diplomatically and tactfully.

What’s the big deal with science? I just don’t get it. The ‘if you’ve got the science wrong then you’ve got the whole thing wrong’ approach baffles me. Especially regarding Creation.

Why is the “Church’s take on evolution” so important? Another ‘make or break’ issue brought up here often.

If the Bible is neither a science book or literal history then why add History class and Biology class to it? (Two places, by the way, where it is 100% forbidden to add religion.)

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

What if a Catholic believes that God formed Eve bodily from Adam’s side? Or that both were special creations?

Ed

 

[Jocko_VT]

What’s the big deal with science? I just don’t get it. The ‘if you’ve got the science wrong then you’ve got the whole thing wrong’ approach baffles me. Especially regarding Creation.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, Ed. No one has made the argument that you must have the science right in order to understand the Bible. Is that what you’re saying?

Why is the “Church’s take on evolution” so important? Another ‘make or break’ issue brought up here often.

It’s part of the curriculum we use. Aside from that, I’d argue that it’s important because it speaks to the relationship between science and religion and to the interpretation of the Bible and the meaning of biblical inspiration. If we take a fundamentalist, literalistic approach to the Bible, then we have to argue against Evolution and an old universe. And if we do that, then many Catholic children will eventually slip away from the Church for no other reason than they can’t reconcile their acceptance of science with that fundamentalist interpretation.

On the other hand, if we teach the children what I believe to be the Church’s position–i.e., that the Bible is not a science book or a history book, but teaches religious truths instead–and we address the evolution question (which is prevalent in our culture in the US), then we stave off such an exodus from the Church, and we help people learn how to read the Bible correctly.

If the Bible is neither a science book or literal history then why add History class and Biology class to it? (Two places, by the way, where it is 100% forbidden to add religion.)

If there weren’t so many people in our society trying to push religion into public school history and science courses, I’d probably agree with you. We have to teach within our particular context, though.

What if a Catholic believes that God formed Eve bodily from Adam’s side? Or that both were special creations?

What if?

 

[edwest2]

It’s right here:

“Part of the problem seems, I think, to be the poor understanding of science so many people have (it’s as bad as their handle on Church teaching). It leads to a certain twisting of scientific facts and religious truths to reconcile them in a way that does a disservice to both. And it’s completely unnecessary!”

To me, this reads as: “If we can staple a copy of the Biology textbook to the back of our Bibles, we’d get both right.”

So, God created everything out of nothing.

Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, and rose, bodily, Himself.

Right?

Parallel Verses:

New International Version
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

New Living Translation
“And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.”

English Standard Version
“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

Ed

 

[Jocko_VT]

It’s right here:

“Part of the problem seems, I think, to be the poor understanding of science so many people have (it’s as bad as their handle on Church teaching). It leads to a certain twisting of scientific facts and religious truths to reconcile them in a way that does a disservice to both. And it’s completely unnecessary!”

To me, this reads as: “If we can staple a copy of the Biology textbook to the back of our Bibles, we’d get both right.”

So, God created everything out of nothing.

Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, and rose, bodily, Himself.

Right?

Ed

“Part of the problem” does not equate to the whole problem. Thus, solving “part” of the problem won’t solve the entire problem.

Regardless, teaching the Church’s stance toward science generally, and evolution in particular, is part of the curriculum. In part, this includes actually explaining what evolution, as a scientific theory, says.

And this all ties into how we, as Catholics, approach the Bible. You seem to be saying it doesn’t matter how we approach the Bible.

 

[edwest2]

“Part of the problem” does not equate to the whole problem. Thus, solving “part” of the problem won’t solve the entire problem.

Regardless, teaching the Church’s stance toward science generally, and evolution in particular, is part of the curriculum. In part, this includes actually explaining what evolution, as a scientific theory, says.

And this all ties into how we, as Catholics, approach the Bible. You seem to be saying it doesn’t matter how we approach the Bible.

No, I didn’t say that or imply that. Hopefully, the following will make my position more clear: “If we do not teach science as ‘part of the curriculum,’ it risks the whole thing. If the science is wrong then the default will be literalism.”

It doesn’t matter to me if students get the science right or not. What does matter is that they understand God is God. That means He can and does do things no human being can do. To me, “actually explaining what evolution, as a scientific theory, says” is interesting but ultimately, unnecessary. If I become an adult and don’t understand a thing about the theory or even don’t have a correct understanding of the theory, it has zero impact on my life and religion. I have a specialized background in electronics. The theory was not required. Driving a truck does not require it. Working in IT does not require it. I know genius level people. Getting a Doctorate in Artificial Intelligence does not require it.

Without assuming anything negative about your thinking, the theory, based on my research, has no practical value. And I am grateful to the people who took me by the hand here, over the years, to explain the details.

Respectfully,

Ed

 

[Jocko_VT]

I appreciate your clarification. I’ll be brief because I think we’ve been talking past one another.

To me, “actually explaining what evolution, as a scientific theory, says” is interesting but ultimately, unnecessary.

Nonetheless, it’s part of the curriculum. I support this for several reasons. For example, understanding what the theory of evolution says reveals that it’s not in any way contradictory to Catholic teaching. Of course, if you’re a fundamentalist when it comes to interpreting the Bible, this won’t make any sense, so we need to be sure we understand that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is contrary to Church teaching.

When teaching children, given our context, we should, I believe, prepare them well for all this–they need to understand that science and their Catholicism are not in conflict. If they think otherwise, it’s because they misunderstand one and/or the other.

If I become an adult and don’t understand a thing about the theory or even don’t have a correct understanding of the theory, it has zero impact on my life and religion.

But if you reject the theory (or science generally), and say it’s because you’re Catholic and that the science contradicts your (fundamentalist) reading of the Bible, then that’s a non-zero impact on your life and your religion, I’d suggest.

I have a specialized background in electronics. The theory was not required. Driving a truck does not require it. Working in IT does not require it. I know genius level people. Getting a Doctorate in Artificial Intelligence does not require it.

Without assuming anything negative about your thinking, the theory, based on my research, has no practical value. And I am grateful to the people who took me by the hand here, over the years, to explain the details.

This makes me think we’re talking past one another.

 

[goout]

What’s the big deal with science? I just don’t get it. The ‘if you’ve got the science wrong then you’ve got the whole thing wrong’ approach baffles me. Especially regarding Creation.

Why is the “Church’s take on evolution” so important? Another ‘make or break’ issue brought up here often.

If the Bible is neither a science book or literal history then why add History class and Biology class to it? (Two places, by the way, where it is 100% forbidden to add religion.)

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

What if a Catholic believes that God formed Eve bodily from Adam’s side? Or that both were special creations?

Ed

No Catholic is forced to interpret the scriptures any particular way. If one wishes to believe that Eve was factually formed from Adam’s rib, fine.

To teach it to young people as medical fact is another story.
It’s irresponsible because it will violate the connection between reason and faith, and when their faith is challenged it will not stand up, because it is built on the house of cards called fundamentalism.

 

[edwest2]

So, this is another “fundamentalism is evil” thread. Some non-Catholic Christians build a Creation Museum and so what? Parents and their kids walk out believing it’s all true. On a practical level, using real-world examples, this causes what bad effect?

And I’m not saying I’m a Fundamentalist (and I have zero political affiliation, by the way), I’m only asking: what is the real-world effect?

I don’t think the correct words are faith and reason but faith and science. That’s the real issue/concern.

Ed

 

[Jocko_VT]

So, this is another “fundamentalism is evil” thread.

what is the real-world effect?

Ed

“The ‘literalism’ championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. ‘[R]efusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, [the fundamentalist approach] makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human…’”

Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini (44). Quoting the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

 

[edwest2]

“The ‘literalism’ championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. ‘[R]efusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, [the fundamentalist approach] makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human…’”

Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini (44). Quoting the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

That didn’t answer my question. I understand the divine and human aspects, and the incarnation. What’s being ignored is the question: “What if they (anybody) reject a certain theory about the development of life on earth?”

And there are constant questions here about what is factually historical in the Bible and what is not.

Ed

 

[Jocko_VT]

That didn’t answer my question.

Your question has been answered multiple times in the thread.

I understand the divine and human aspects, and the incarnation.

It’s good that you do. It’s important that every Catholic does, I think.

What’s being ignored is the question: “What if they (anybody) reject a certain theory about the development of life on earth?”

And there are constant questions here about what is factually historical in the Bible and what is not.

Ed

This question hasn’t been ignored. I don’t care if they reject science or the theory of evolution. That hasn’t been the topic of this conversation. That’s my point above about us talking past each other. You’re focused on that aspect, whereas the real topic has been avoiding fundamentalism in a context where it is rampant.

 

[Aaron_I]

So, this is another “fundamentalism is evil” thread. Some non-Catholic Christians build a Creation Museum and so what? Parents and their kids walk out believing it’s all true. On a practical level, using real-world examples, this causes what bad effect?

And I’m not saying I’m a Fundamentalist (and I have zero political affiliation, by the way), I’m only asking: what is the real-world effect?

I don’t think the correct words are faith and reason but faith and science. That’s the real issue/concern.

Ed

Ed,

Here is the point of the thread: “I’d like some opinions regarding how we are to read certain parts of the Bible in light of some of the Church’s teachings.” That’s from the opening post. He then references Pope B16 warning against a strict Fundamentalist interpretation and seeks clarification as to what that is, so that it may be avoided.

The “bad effect” is that when believers deny evolution as not compatible with the faith, some people will believe them. Some of those people will go on at some point to learn that evolution is true. They erroneously come to the conclusion that Catholicism is untrue and leave the Church. That is a pretty serious “bad effect”.

No one “needs” to believe evolution. People may choose to believe in literal 7-day creation. But when people say that 7-day creation MUST be believed, that’s where the danger lies. Incidentally, that was also the point of mentioning the Creation Museum: “if you can’t believe the first chapters of Genesis as literal historical fact, then there is no basis for Christianity”

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

Here is the point of the thread: “I’d like some opinions regarding how we are to read certain parts of the Bible in light of some of the Church’s teachings.” That’s from the opening post. He then references Pope B16 warning against a strict Fundamentalist interpretation and seeks clarification as to what that is, so that it may be avoided.

The “bad effect” is that when believers deny evolution as not compatible with the faith, some people will believe them. Some of those people will go on at some point to learn that evolution is true. They erroneously come to the conclusion that Catholicism is untrue and leave the Church. That is a pretty serious “bad effect”.

No one “needs” to believe evolution. People may choose to believe in literal 7-day creation. But when people say that 7-day creation MUST be believed, that’s where the danger lies. Incidentally, that was also the point of mentioning the Creation Museum: “if you can’t believe the first chapters of Genesis as literal historical fact, then there is no basis for Christianity”

Aaron,

Thank you. I’m reading this thread as a variant of similar threads going back years. Let’s start with your last paragraph. I was not aware, and to be honest, had no real reason to look into the various Christian denominations growing up. And I’ve read various things about Literalists over the years. I’m not going to walk into somebody else’s Church and tell the pastor, “You’ve got it wrong.” That never happened in the Catholic school I attended.

I remember watching a video of people standing outside the Creation Museum shortly after it opened and the vagueness was the primary thing that stood out. “Oh, this is bad.” “Not good.” Etc. For who? Why? These people did not identify themselves as Christians or not, they just created this unidentified atmosphere of vagueness. “This is bad/wrong.” Like “Now that this building is here, it will sweep across the country and… and… and…” What? The world would explode?

You use the word “danger.” What’s the danger? People will hear it and believe it? I had a friend who went through a period of religion/belief system shopping. I visited a few places he got involved with, talked to the adherents, and I had no idea what to expect. In one case, there was a symbol painted above the door, and since I had a reference book on such things (long story), I looked it up. I found it and my first thought was to tell my friend that what he found was a cult. No, not some scary movie cult but an unusual combination of several belief systems. He quit shortly after. I’m not sure why.

I’ve heard the “if they believe the theory is wrong, their science teacher will create such feelings of being lied to, they’ll never be any kind of Christian again!” So, science teachers hold the key to Catholic Church teaching? No, they don’t.

There was a recent wave of books put out by atheists that were anti-God, anti-Christian and anti-Religion in general. The phrase “Good without God” was put out there.

So the “gold nugget” here is “evolution is true.” Universal compliance is mandatory.

Just do a Search here. Type in Noah or Jonah. Do it on google with the words catholic answers. You’ll find “is it true” threads going back at least 8 years.

So unless an epidemic of Christians in general are losing their faith is going on right now because the science teacher told them the truth, I don’t know what’s going on here.

The Eucharist. Some Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. Some Catholics believe a lot or some things regarding perversions of human sexuality are OK. Among the top 3 questions here, masturbation is right up there.

I’ll be interested in seeing “this is true” quotes from Church documents.

Ed

 

[Gorgias]

So the “gold nugget” here is “evolution is true.” Universal compliance is mandatory.

It’s really not even about evolution. It’s about setting up religion as the enemy of science. That’s the danger here. If we assent to that invalid premise, then when folks find something that confirms a scientific assertion that seems to conflict with religious belief, they naturally assume that where science is right, religion must be wrong. So, the answer is to refuse to concede that invalid premise.

Can you assert a literal 6-day creation? If you wish. Can you insist that all must agree? Certainly not. And, moreover, since the Church does not teach it as true, one may not insist that all of Scripture be treated literalistically.

So unless an epidemic of Christians in general are losing their faith is going on right now because the science teacher told them the truth, I don’t know what’s going on here.

How would you ever be able to disprove such an assumption? Perhaps by looking at the numbers of millennials abandoning the faith? Yep; those statistics are out there.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Can you assert a literal 6-day creation? If you wish.

But, do you think we can then, as Catholics, defend that assertion based on the Bible, given that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is contrary to Church teaching? And if not, then how does that argument fit into Catholic religious life and the catechetical process?

 

[cfauster]

… I’m reading this thread as a variant of similar threads going back years … Just do a Search here. Type in Noah or Jonah. Do it on google with the words catholic answers. You’ll find “is it true” threads going back at least 8 years …

… And there are constant questions here about what is factually historical in the Bible and what is not.

Over in the Scripture subforum there’s a thread about whether it’s possible to read the Bible - or any text - without interpreting it at all. Is there a universally agreed-upon “face value” meaning that anyone and everyone able to read can directly - without “interpretation” - obtain from the Bible, or at least from certain parts of the Bible? If not, why not?

This post in that thread provides a helpful answer, I think.

 

[cfauster]

So, what about the particular Bible stories mentioned in this thread? Noah’s Ark? Jonah swallowed by a whale? What about when reason, or more specifically scientific reasoning, seems to conflict with a “face value” historically factual reading/interpretation of the text? Should we even bother trying to reconcile opposing interpretations to find the truth? Does it even matter whether individuals, or the Church as a whole, chooses one or another interpretation, literal/factual vs. figurative?

Protestant denominations have split over this. There are some Lutheran and other Protestant denominations where membership, or at least ordained leadership, requires assent to the proposition that the flood in Noah’s day was literally a global deluge, and that Jonah literally survived being swallowed by a whale.

Other denominations allow for greater variety of interpretations. But in those denominations, the mere discussion can sometimes annoy some people. Might it be better to just avoid such discussion? Why bother exploring the interface of science and religion, especially if we’ve already agreed that we can disagree, and that the Church is not going to enforce one particular view?

I can’t say it better than Pope Francis says it:

"The Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed the importance of scientific research for human life and health. The Church not only accompanies you along this demanding path, but also promotes your cause and wishes to support you. The Church understands that efforts directed to the authentic good of the person are actions always inspired by God. Nature, in all its complexity, and the human mind, are created by God; their richness must be studied by skilled men and women, in the knowledge that the advancement of the philosophical and empirical sciences, as well as professional care in favour of the weakest and most infirm, is a service that is part of God’s plan. Openness to the grace of God, an openness which comes through faith, does not weaken human reason, but rather leads it to move forwards, to knowledge of a truth which is wider and of greater benefit to humanity. "

OK, that’s fine for a practical, applied science like cardiology. But what does that have to do with “Nature, in all its complexity,” with the whole range of the “philosophical and empirical sciences” ?

It’s all connected. It’s all of a piece. There are many examples besides this one.