Was Augustine mistaken?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck_H
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Setting original sin as a “revealed truth” is contrary to the historical record. St Augustine himself argues the point and uses logic and historical sources for his arguments. That his argument was debated and finally accepted is a historical fact.

St Augustine however, leaves the door open in his passage quoted in my original statement. Why did he leave the door open? Possibly because he knew the profound effect that this argument would have on faith and morals. As I scan through the various threads I can see the marks of his argument over and over again.

Now if St Augustine had a sense that science would progress and show that some things that he himself believed as true were not seen rightly when faced with the reality of the situation (and I think he did) then he would have left a door open for future debate and discussion.

Since the doctrine of original sin is fundamentally based on Genesis then Genesis can be rightfully put to the test against existing knowledge from age to age.
I can give the old and tired arguments of Galileo’s fight with the church but I believe that has been hashed to death and can see fault on both sides. The truth of Galileo isn’t so much a “I told you so!” thing. The fundamental effect of Galileo was that man could no longer make the claim that HE was the center of the universe. It was humbling that we turn out to be a small planet revolving around a small sun out of the arm of a spiral galaxy which is a relatively small galaxy in a family of big galaxies. While not a proven scientific fact, we still have to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, God is gathering in His souls from many spots in this vast creation.

Equally, if the reality of the human condition is God directed Ascent rather then God punishment-reaction Descent then that brings about a fundamental change also. That change does not affect God, He still created us, He still decided to share His life with us, He still brought a selected part of humanity to one side and gave them what was needed to advance both theologically and mentally. He still became one of us through His Son and gave us the next step in our change. What changes is us. Again we are humbled from the sheer audacity that we could do anything that would make God angry. we may be forced to view ourselves as not the be all-end all of creation but see ourselves in the reality that we are the hairless apes that God chose to invest Himself in.

Before anyone can fall back on “doctrine”, it is important to realize that Jewish scholars and theologians developed traditions and doctrines that God blew off as simple nonsense. These were God’s chosen people. Now we are the new chosen but He only promised to walk with us and be with us until the end. He in no way promised that we would get it all right, all the time and from what I have seen and read, we are painting ourselves into the same corners that trapped the Jews of Jesus’ time.

I could sit back and play the gnostic and make my assertions into my own truth. That would be the path to self delusion.
That is why I put them out here.
 
Why do you think that it was St. Augustine that created this doctrine? He may have coined the term “original sin” which I am not sure if he did or not. But this belief is discussed by St. Paul in Rm 5:12-21; 1Cor 15:22 and it is also mentioned in the Old Testament in Gen and in Ps 51:7. This doctrine is a “reveal truth” and was not created by St. Augustine.

With that being said it is a revelation that answers certain questions that science cannot answer.

There seems to be a movement out there trying to get rid of this doctrine. This is not the first time I have heard of this and it is a doctrine that will not go away nor will it ever clash with science for science does not ask the appropiate questions nor can they.
 
First let me pose a real time question that is bugging me to death.

How does one post replies without “quotes”? My browser has no apparent way to do that. (See? I am just human after all.) forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
:rolleyes:

Just for citation.

“The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo, who, in the belief that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell, concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[5][6] because of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, and it became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.”

The problem with the argument you give is that it is circular. Both Psalms and Paul are effectively basing their ideas on Genesis. As such, if Genesis falls as absolute truth they are left without support. To say that science can’t ask these questions since they are spiritual denies the human spirit in science. Now I will give the point that, lately, science seems to plagued by men who are determined to use it as a tool to destroy God and religion. That is scientism and a very basic heresy. But I do not concede that science itself has no connection to spirituality since both are equally invested in seeking truth.

Science has a lot to tell us of the evolution and formation of humans, both organically and mentally. I have pointed out in other posts that primates alone have the ability to self deceive. Now, think about that and the ramifications it has for spirituality. Man can effectively deceive himself that God really isn’t there or, even more, egotistically deceive himself that he can fool God. As bugs bunny might say…“what a maroon!” The hypotheses brought into the light from brain development studies suggest that God has to root that tendency out of us so I am not letting man off the hook.

None of my contentions suggest that God is out of the picture. They simply suggest that current science may show us a new paradigm for approaching the fact of man’s dilemma.
 
ERose said:
Chuck,

What is your definition of science?
Click to expand...
Science can be defined as the organized study of physical phenomena consisting of formation of hypotheses that are then tested against the null hypothesis in experimentation. Science can also be the formulation of hypotheses that expect certain phenomena to be found if the hypothesis is correct and if they are the hypothesis is regarded as being closer to fact. (truth can be used equally with fact)

Theistic science is all of the above in the trust that we will eventually know how God did it (all of it-universe, planets, bugs, man etc.) Creation is proving to be a process based on what we know from the above definition. (Kenneth Miller)

Atheistic science is the belief that since we know some of the process, God can be eliminated as the source. Note here that I describe it as a belief. (Richard Dawkins)

Agnostic science simply pleads ignorance based on the idea that God can’t be experimentally proven but allows the possibility. (Albert Einstein).
 
Chuck_H said:
A quote from St Augustine

“But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions.”.
Click to expand...
No. Augustine was not wrong. It might be helpful to show the rest of the quote…
“Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be [false].”(De Gen. ad litt. i. 21, 41, cited by Providentissimus Deus, 18) "
Click to expand...
Good rule of faith. 👍
 
Sorry, maybe I should clarify.

This quote from Augustine is not the contention. It was used to show that Augustine himself was open to the possibility of being shown to be wrong if suitable evidence was presented.

The question is posed whether or not St Augustine was wrong about original sin based on what we now see as biological evidence of a polygenic source for homo sapiens sapiens which directly conflicts with Genesis. While this may not seem to be a big deal to most people it is my contention that ultimately this data may be successfully used to create convincing arguments that Eden was impossible and that produces a possibility that Biblical referrals to and Augustine’s own arguments about the stain of original sin may not be defensible.

This is a posed question and in no way should be taken as an attack on anything. It is a debatable position.

What is not debatable is that the data is already being used by influential atheistic scientists to “debunk” religion. It is a problem already for the Church and will only increase in pressure and stridency.

If you haven’t already, go back and read my opening statement.

Chuck H
 
Chuck_H said:
…It was used to show that Augustine himself was open to the possibility of being shown to be wrong if suitable evidence was presented.
Click to expand...
I understand, but the rest of the quote shows quite clearly that Augustine is not proposing that the claims of science can ever be of sufficient authority so as to overturn an article of Catholic faith. He says “…whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be [false].”

Consequently, it is fine to change one’s mind with regard to things that are not definitive. However, dogmas are definitive and no amount of scientific treatises can overturn the truth of dogma. That’s what Augustine is affirming.

Now, I have a degree in science and have learned enough science to know that no matter the data, scientific hypotheses are always and forever provisional. That’s simply the nature of science. Such theories are no more than ideas, made up by man, which attempt to explain nature. The object of scientific study and the processes involved are limited. Such theories can certainly be classified as either “good theories” or “bad theories” scientifically speaking, but none can be seen as absolutely and forever true.

According to Stephen Hawking, for instance, scientific theories are “always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how may times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure the next time a result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” (Stephen Hawking, A Briefer History of Time, p. 14).

Why would you expect that any Catholic dogma–which is infallible and irrevocable by its very definition–can be revoked by a provisional scientific hypothesis? Such a view is incongruent with a proper understanding of the interaction between science and religion.

Yes, atheist have always opined that they have finally “disproved” Christian dogma. They’ve been claiming this for thousands of years. Yet atheism still accounts for only about 5% of all beliefs. It seems to me they are a sect struggling to even survive, willing to claim any clownish hypothesis as though it were the proof they’ve always been looking for.
 
This may come as a shock to you

But that was a 👍 GREAT:thumbsup: answer. The first one that didn’t just fall back on the old “it says so so we gotta believe it.”

You are right on two points.
  1. I did misread Augustine, I read it as him allowing for rethinking. Your second post got the message home finally, thanks for correcting me.
  2. I agree, Science can never state the absolute. If we did we would declare the end of science (and lose our grant money).
No matter what happens with genetics and population studies the church can fall back on scriptural interpretation and revealed truth.

The question now comes how this all plays out. At least one of the tribunal of Galileo warned the others that what we declare as heresy now may prove us heretics in the future. Frankly with subjects like this heresy seems a strong word to apply to any debated side. whether man needs saving from original sin or a brutish deceptive genetic predisposition we definitely need saving.

Thanks. Again good argument.

Chuck H
 
The typical response is to concede polygenism biologically but to maintain Adam and Eve as the first true humans. But the simplistic “nothing is ever proven in science” tack just doesn’t cut it for me. Yes, it’s true, scientific theories are never “proven” in the strict, logical sense. We can’t have a metaphysical certainty the sun will rise tomorrow, or that a tree won’t turn into a grasshopper before our eyes, or that tomorrow water won’t be H3O instead of H2O. But we can have a moral certainty of these things. In mathematical/probabilistic terms, the Bayesian posterior probability approaches 1, even if it can never get to exactly 1. It’s close enough that should a “revealed” religion attempt to contradict these things, we would know it to be false - no matter how much its adherents railed against “atheist” astronomy, biology, or chemistry. Its adherents would no doubt come up with how-could-it-have-been scenarios, with angry sun gods taking the sun away, tree gods deciding they’d had enough of staying in one place, and so on. We couldn’t “prove” their religion wrong in a strict sense. But it’s taking advantage of the same “nothing is ever proved in science” loophole as is the case here. With regard to polygenism:
  1. Monogenism not an infallibly defined, de fide dogma. It’s a traditionally held belief, perhaps held as “theologically certain”.
  2. However, geocentrism was in the same category. Heliocentrism (or, specifically, the earth’s motion) was held by the Holy Office as “at least erroneous in faith” and “contrary to Scripture”. According to St. Bellarmine heliocentrism was like denying Christ was born of a virgin!
  3. If the Church can err once on a matter like this she can err again. These sorts of beliefs are shown not be infallible. It’s a nice, convenient explanation for why man came to be upon the earth and why Christ came to be upon the earth: because the earth is the unmoving center. Only it just doesn’t happen to be the case. Now I ask, if God would “specially create” man why wouldn’t he “specially create” man’s habitation? Why would he allow the earth to develop over billions of years but not man himself?
  4. Thus, monogenism is a nice, convenient explanation for man’s sinful tendencies. Only, according to the scientific evidence, it doesn’t appear to be the case either. There is zero evidence for monogenism. There is zero evidence for a population bottleneck of two. There is abundant genetic evidence of vast polymorphisms (diversity) in the human genome, well beyond what one could expect from an initial population of 2 (only allowing 4 alleles) and natural processes (mutations) to bring about the diversity. This is enough for a moral certainty that polygenism is true and monogenism is false. Now the traditional believer will no doubt come with all sorts of how-could-it-have-been explanations such as God miraculously introducing more genetic diversity (with the same alleles found in apes and chimpanzees, no less). But this is in the league of the sun god I alluded to earlier. It’s just too ad hoc and not something an honest inquirer would be likely to accept.
  5. Moreover, man’s sinful tendencies are well explained by evolution. We see all of them in lower species.
  6. Finally, the very basis for faith depends on things which can only be known to a moral certainty. You can only have a moral certainty that the witnesses to the resurrection were telling the truth; that they were not lying or mistaken. You can only have a moral certainty that the man who represents himself as Benedict XVI really is the Pope. An impostor could have taken his place. (And this is just what the sedevacantist conspiracy nuts say about Paul VI! It’s the same exact same loophole.)
 
You have made several valid points.

But, Just Dave is right. Science can never offer the kind of proof that it would take to shake the doctrine.

The Galileo episode is a good case in point. [For his time] Galileo got nowhere due to two factors. His published work was bound to be seen as an attack on a hard held belief ,and even though we consider it convincing today with the telescopes and astronomical data we have. Movement observation was not enough to move the theologians for that time.

Now given all the points about the variation and genetic proofs in man. It is prudent for science to let the Church mull all of this over and come to its own conclusions. It must be admitted that Rome also has come a long way since the Galileo affair. That is evident from the Vatican now having biologists and astronomers whose job it is to be a gateway to the theologists in quiet.

A strident argument against Eden and thus against Paul’s and Augustine’s original sin serves little more than to create a resistance that slows down forward movement. Pelagius and his followers may have had a bit of the truth in the early years of the Church (Pelagian Heresy) but the argument was made in a time of ignorance.(by ignorance I am merely claiming the scientific term of not having sufficient data) Given the writings available to the then Doctors of the Church that argument was doomed to fail.

A reading of the current doctrines towards unbaptized children shows that the church does evolve. St Augustine sent them directly to hell which to us sounds almost absurd. The current doctrine is one of relying on the grace and mercy of God and even states that He makes the rules but is not bound by them so one may safely assume that He has a way of making sure that any innocents have a huge loophole through which to slip into Heaven.

In science we have an ongoing problem that new technology seems to always out pace our means to use it.The lab evolves slower than the technology unless one has a grant from Bill Gates. I use this example to show that science evolves slowly also. If our labs are always behind the times is it no surprise that theologists might have to play catch up also.

My sense is that what has been argued here in this thread is already being argued in some form within the church. The impact and directions such discussions could take would be tremendous. I mean, look at the incredible chaos the simple theory of evolution has created. To its credit, Rome has been steadfast in maintaining that evolution does not pose a threat to theology and it doesn’t. We are a flawed creature and have to work our way out of the flaw so how we got there is moot. Simply presenting the data and letting the theologians work it out lets the stance of the church evolve in a manner that is suitable for the people who rely on it for their spiritual life.

There must have been a reason why there were several hundred years between Moses and Christ and that reason was most likely time for the people to evolve to the point where the next step could taken, accepted and incorporated.

It is factual that in the history of western religion, absurd things have been promulgated as side doctrines by ruling from a position of basic biological ignorance. Equally it is also factual that the Holy Spirit usually finds ways to get rid of them as the human becomes less ignorant. I have seen actual threads in this site that start off with, " The doctrine used to be this, but then was revised and updated and we no longer believe that". The apostle Paul gave an early dictum that women should be silent in church. That was obviously sidelined and then simply rejected defacto without a lot of hoopla.

Even here, I see that a simple posed question is perceived as threatening to some and viewed as scandal so it is probably not time. If the science is true then God will take care of it and the right theologian, the right pope will come along at the proper time and nudge the doctrine.

Sound right?
 
Chuck_H said:
You have made several valid points.

But, Just Dave is right. Science can never offer the kind of proof that it would take to shake the doctrine.
Click to expand...
Again, science cannot offer metaphysical proof like you get in geometry or mathematics or formal logic. But science can offer circumstantial proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or to a moral certainty. It is just like how we are able to “prove” the guilt of criminals in court. If polygenism is at that stage (and it is my contention that it is), then the only case that can really be made for it is: believe it because we say so, or because it was tradtionally believed. That’s not convincing. It’s just like the sun gods and tree gods. Nor is it convincing to say “God revealed it - so it must be true” - how do we know what God has revealed or are we sure we have understood it properly? Abraham really had no way of knowing to a metaphysical certainty that it was God speaking to him. A devil could pretend to be God and tempt one to kill one’s son with all kinds of highfalutin reasons.
Now given all the points about the variation and genetic proofs in man. It is prudent for science to let the Church mull all of this over and come to its own conclusions. It must be admitted that Rome also has come a long way since the Galileo affair. That is evident from the Vatican now having biologists and astronomers whose job it is to be a gateway to the theologists in quiet.
Click to expand...
The Church’s attitude seems to be sensible. I wouldn’t be surprised though to see a tacit reversal just as like what happened with geocentrism. And I will frankly say I do not feel bound to believe monogenism, even though it is still the Church’s “official” teaching - that can change, just like geocentrism.
A reading of the current doctrines towards unbaptized children shows that the church does evolve. St Augustine sent them directly to hell which to us sounds almost absurd. The current doctrine is one of relying on the grace and mercy of God and even states that He makes the rules but is not bound by them so one may safely assume that He has a way of making sure that any innocents have a huge loophole through which to slip into Heaven.
Click to expand...
Yes, so there’s no reason to think the Church might not “evolve” on this point as well. And I think we’ve for the most part “evolved” out of the simplistic idea the God was royally PO’d when Adam ate out of the wrong tree (which God put in the Garden in the first place; entrapment, anyone?) and thus decided to punish the entire human race. This doesn’t mean original sin isn’t a reality. Anyone with two eyes can see that it is.
My sense is that what has been argued here in this thread is already being argued in some form within the church. The impact and directions such discussions could take would be tremendous.
Click to expand...
My sense also. Anthropology also does not lend support to the fall of man, but shows a gradual rise in morals, civilization, etc.
Simply presenting the data and letting the theologians work it out lets the stance of the church evolve in a manner that is suitable for the people who rely on it for their spiritual life.
Click to expand...
Sure.
Even here, I see that a simple posed question is perceived as threatening to some and viewed as scandal so it is probably not time. If the science is true then God will take care of it and the right theologian, the right pope will come along at the proper time and nudge the doctrine.
Click to expand...
Sound right?
Click to expand...
Yes, as long as the Church also realizes the predicament that scientifically literate people are in, as well as the simple uneducated folk. It’s a “scandal” to the scientifically literate people if the Church insists on holding to ideas they can know, at least to beyond a reasonable doubt, are wrong. It’s a “scandal” to the simple if what was true yesterday is false today. It’s a delicate balancing act, to be sure.
 
I wish we had a wandering theological student or a priest in on this. It would make for a fascinating conversation. Preferably a person who enjoys the discussion.

It would also thwart the science tendency to preach to the natives.

“Me have lighter, you dumb!”😃
 
As a side line

Just when genetics thinks it has all the kinks worked out. There is some reason to think that DNA is not the be all end all molecule. I have been talking with David Penney (New Zealand) and the work on microRNAs are strongly suggesting that RNA is still the dominant molecule. It is strongly suggested as the first information molecule but the prevailing wisdom was that DNA replaced it.

Now it turns out that much of gene expression is controlled by MiRNA and so far no one knows what controls MiRNA so the paradigm is suggested that RNA built proteins and then DNA and then inserted itself into the DNA much like RNA viruses do today. That suggests that RNA is the command molecule and DNA is the “hard disk” for storing sequence.

Who would have thought!
 
Chuck_H said:
I wish we had a wandering theological student or a priest in on this. It would make for a fascinating conversation. Preferably a person who enjoys the discussion.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, especially if it’s one of a “traditional” bent. Sometimes all you get is repetitions of the Church’s traditional doctrine at higher and higher volume. In their mindset, it must be true because the Church said so, and that’s that. They don’t care about what the scientific evidence may or may not say, but only about how science could possibly be used to prop their own point of view. There are, in fact, many even on this forum who still attempt to promote a young earth, global flood, deny evolution, and so on. I’ve had plenty of experience arguing against those with this mindset. It’s a waste of time. Strangely, most of the time an exception is made for heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (which gives away the ENTIRE ball game, though they don’t see it). But the human mind has an infinite capacity apparently for cogntive dissonance.

IOW, they have blinded themselves to the elephant in the living room and imagine if they just ignore it it will go away.
It would also thwart the science tendency to preach to the natives.
Click to expand...
“Me have lighter, you dumb!”😃
Click to expand...
Sorry, no apology forthcoming from me. It’s theology and philosophy that have been doing the “preaching”.
 
Chuck_H said:
As a side line

Just when genetics thinks it has all the kinks worked out. There is some reason to think that DNA is not the be all end all molecule. I have been talking with David Penney (New Zealand) and the work on microRNAs are strongly suggesting that RNA is still the dominant molecule. It is strongly suggested as the first information molecule but the prevailing wisdom was that DNA replaced it.

Now it turns out that much of gene expression is controlled by MiRNA and so far no one knows what controls MiRNA so the paradigm is suggested that RNA built proteins and then DNA and then inserted itself into the DNA much like RNA viruses do today. That suggests that RNA is the command molecule and DNA is the “hard disk” for storing sequence.

Who would have thought!
Click to expand...
How does genetics think it has all the kinks worked out? Does any geneticist really think this? Your scenario is certainly interesting as far as origin of life but isn’t really relevant as far as monogenism vs. polygenism.
 
Chuck_H said:
Science can be defined as the organized study of physical phenomena consisting of formation of hypotheses that are then tested against the null hypothesis in experimentation. Science can also be the formulation of hypotheses that expect certain phenomena to be found if the hypothesis is correct and if they are the hypothesis is regarded as being closer to fact. (truth can be used equally with fact)

Theistic science is all of the above in the trust that we will eventually know how God did it (all of it-universe, planets, bugs, man etc.) Creation is proving to be a process based on what we know from the above definition. (Kenneth Miller)

Atheistic science is the belief that since we know some of the process, God can be eliminated as the source. Note here that I describe it as a belief. (Richard Dawkins)

Agnostic science simply pleads ignorance based on the idea that God can’t be experimentally proven but allows the possibility. (Albert Einstein).
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out to one thing here toward my argument of separation between science and religion. As your definition states above science is the study of the physical universe not the spiritual one. I think that there is a danger when one branch of knowledge starts asking questions outside it boundries. Thus you get scientism which is a religion or you get the young earth croud.

My personal opinion on these matters is that God created the universe to work naturally through the laws that were established for it. As a result man is a natural creature that evolved. I can see Adam as being the first primate that could preceive the existence of God and God introduced Himself to Adam and established a covenent with him which Adam broke and here we are. This is all speculation on my part and is something we will never know here on earth. I do not care how much info we gather scientifically, we will never know the first human being(s) and how he came about. We can know something, but not enough to formulate a scientific theory that can possibly eliminate the doctrine of original sin.

Also It should be point out that the belief of the earth being the center of the universe, it being flat, etc were never classified as true doctrines of the Catholic church. They were popular beliefs of the majority of people at the time including the pope, bishops, theologians, etc. But they were never classified as de fide.
 
As both a student of science and a student of theology, I don’t agree that we should separate science and religion. In fact, I think to claim a separation is simply fooling oneself, as you cannot completely rid yourself of your a priori worldview while entering the study of science or religion, no matter how hard you try. The one will always provide a context for the other.
I think that there is a danger when one branch of knowledge starts asking questions outside it boundries.
Click to expand...
Such boundaries are artificially constructed by man, to help us categorize, organize, and specialize. Often that is helpful, but the boundaries should not be treated as absolutes. In reality, Truth is not divided into such boundaries. In science, for instance, there are sub-boundaries. However, since we seek to go further in science, it is necessary to seek a scientific “theory of everything,” or “universal theory” precisely because we suspect that the sub-divisions within science must be congruent with one another if we want them to be considered “good theories.”

From a Catholic perspective, we believe that the Truth is revealed to us through nature. Consequently, if we are to fully understanding both science and theology, there ought to never be any real contradictions. However, we all know that in science and in theology, there are apparent contradictions which we have not yet been able to explain. That doesn’t mean that they are true contradictions, however. It just means that while we can know some things about the natural and supernatural revelation of God, that which we know is far less than that which we must still contemplate further. We must admit that we do not “fully” understand either science or theology.

Here’s what I teach my confirmation class, which is what I think St. Augustine was trying to get at… God gives us his revelation in two ways: 1) Natural revelation – God speaks through the things he has created, and 2) Supernatural revelation – God speaks directly, supernaturally. Whenever & however God speaks, he always speaks the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whenever we think we have come across an apparent contradiction in what God has spoken, the error is in our failure to properly understand the Author’s intent.

With regard to Divine revelation of the “natural” sort, scientists trust that truth can be discovered by discerning the nature of things. For instance, when observing lightning on particular occasions (particular truth), we can reason or infer things about the truth of lightning in general (general truth). Anyone who has spent any significant time studying science has come across what seem to be “apparent contradictions.” For example, light seems to behave as a particle. However, it also seems to behave like a wave. This wave-particle duality can be an “apparent contradiction” to some, but we accept it as true, although complex and not quite fully understood…a “mystery.” A mystery that gifted men and women may come to understand more deeply after further contemplation, while others may never see past the apparent contradiction. Thus, when scientists encounter apparent contradictions in the study of nature (natural science), we do not presume that nature is fraudulent, filled with error. Instead, we accept a priori that God’s revelation is inerrant. When faced with apparent contradictions in nature, we conclude that we haven’t perfectly understood the truthful material very well*, and therefore we have more work ahead of us.* Scientists accept that there are still things they do not understand. In other words, nature contains some “mysteries” which we are still trying to contemplate. While we are aware that there are “apparent contradictions” in God’s natural revelation to us, we also know that they cannot be true contradictions in nature, but instead result from our own lack of ability, our own failure to understand that revelation properly.

Same thing goes for the Divine revelation of the “supernatural” sort. It is complex. It is filled with mystery. We can sometimes come across “apparent contradictions” which we find perplexing, but we trust that such are the result of a lack of understanding on our part, not characterized by “fraud” on the part of the Author.

In other words, God’s natural revelation and God’s supernatural revelation are not erroneous, but true. There can be no true contradictions within or between them. It would be foolish to accuse the Author of Divine Revelation of error. We instead admit humbly that something in our own understanding must be lacking, and we are called to further contemplation. In this way, it is in God we trust above our own limited talents.

Catholic hermeneutics continue to insist that “if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”(St. Augustine, Ep. lxxxii., i. et crebrius alibi., as cited by Pius XI, *Providentissimus Deus, *21).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top