Augustine's view of evidence.

[Dark Matter]

"Christians have a special intellectual and moral obligation to follow Augustine's advice: we have a duty, he said, to show that our Scriptures do not contradict what we have reason to believe from reliable sources outside them."
J.P. Moreland from the introduction to the "Creation Hypothesis"

Anyone disagree with Augustine's statment of Christian duty and evidence? If so, on what basis? For those that don't know, Augustine is one of the Church's fathers.

Dark Matter

 

[Vance]

I think one important aspect of Augustine's statement (which I have quoted in full elsewhere, along with many other statements of his along the same line) is that we are talking only about reliable, and thus convincing, evidence, and when we have a "reason to believe" the evidence. This does NOT mean, as so many YEC's would like to characterize it, letting scientific explanations simply control our reading. If the evidence IS convincing, however, then we should attempt to show how Scripture can be consistent with that evidence.

Further, much of our understanding of the evidence from nature itself is only partial, so we can not be entirely, 100% convinced of every point (any point?). So, we must consider the degree to which our conclusions about the natural world and its history should be held. It is when it rises to the level of substantial reliability that I believe the duty arises that Augustine talks about. At THAT point, we should consider how, IF that natural explanation is true, it fits with Scripture. Even then, such matters are held and taught tentatively and with humility, since they are NOT salvation issues.

We have no duty, for example, to attempt to show how Scripture does not contradicct every new scientific or psuedo-scientific theory, conclusion or phenomenon going.

 

[Delta One]

Hi Dark Matter,

I for one don't really care that Augustine was a "church father" or what he believes. I only believe in what the Bible says and as to whether or not it's text indicates that it should or should not be taken at face value. Can I assume that this Augustine fellow was one of the Christians who believed that the earth was flat, or that the universe was geocentric? For that is exactly what science taught at that time up until a few hundreds of years ago.

 

[Dark Matter]

Hi Dark Matter,

I for one don't really care that Augustine was a "church father" or what he believes. I only believe in what the Bible says and as to whether or not it's text indicates that it should or should not be taken at face value. Can I assume that this Augustine fellow was one of the Christians who believed that the earth was flat, or that the universe was geocentric? For that is exactly what science taught at that time up until a few hundreds of years ago.

I have no idea what Augustine thought about those ideas. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on that. My point in this post is that the Church historical has not necessarily held the myopic interpretive view of scripture that YECism touts today. You should care how the historical church interpreted scripture. It is a necessary part of responsible hermaneutics. Of course, you don't have to agree, the fathers have been wrong on issues, and corrected, but you should be educated on why and what, and it matters.

Dark Matter

 

[SBG]

"Christians have a special intellectual and moral obligation to follow Augustine's advice: we have a duty, he said, to show that our Scriptures do not contradict what we have reason to believe from reliable sources outside them."
J.P. Moreland from the introduction to the "Creation Hypothesis"

Anyone disagree with Augustine's statment of Christian duty and evidence? If so, on what basis? For those that don't know, Augustine is one of the Church's fathers.

Dark Matter

Well J.P. Moreland only pulled out a very small piece of what Augustine said. Augustine laters goes on to say that if we take what learned men say about science as truth in such a way that we go back to the Bible and don't believe what the Bible says, so we change it to fit, we are dangerously in error.


" But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up."

AUGUSTINE’S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF GENESIS chpt 20.40

 

[Delta One]

Dark Matter,

I have no idea what Augustine thought about those ideas. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on that.

Vance?

My point in this post is that the Church historical has not necessarily held the myopic interpretive view of scripture that YECism touts today. You should care how the historical church interpreted scripture. It is a necessary part of responsible hermaneutics. Of course, you don't have to agree, the fathers have been wrong on issues, and corrected, but you should be educated on why and what, and it matters.

You've listed only one. And I can similarly name an early church father who did believe in a literal creation, namely Theophilus. When their toughts go directly against the Holy Scripture, I should not care about what they believed. If it goes against the Scripture, it is wrong. I believe this because the Bible is the Inspired Word of God - it is the ultimate source of truth to which all theories should be compared to if possible to see their validity.

 

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter,
You've listed only one. And I can similarly name an early church father who did believe in a literal creation, namely Theophilus. When their toughts go directly against the Holy Scripture, I should not care about what they believed. If it goes against the Scripture, it is wrong. I believe this because the Bible is the Inspired Word of God - it is the ultimate source of truth to which all theories should be compared to if possible to see their validity.

No question. You will find many early Church fathers who were young earth. My argument is that given the state of knowledge today, they would not have been.

Just consider the following. If you believe that:
1. The earth is not the center of the galaxy
2. The universe is expanding
3. The earth revolves around the sun
4. The earth is a sphere

Then you have aquiesed your theology to the input of evidence from the natural world. However, since these were aquiesed before your experience in life, you fail to feel the weight of the shift. To be consistent, however, and integrous in your theology, you might find the need to reconsider these natural truths and return to the arcane interpretations of scripture before scientific pursuit brought these truths to light.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

Well J.P. Moreland only pulled out a very small piece of what Augustine said. Augustine laters goes on to say that if we take what learned men say about science as truth in such a way that we go back to the Bible and don't believe what the Bible says, so we change it to fit, we are dangerously in error.


" But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up."

AUGUSTINE’S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF GENESIS chpt 20.40

I fully accept these words of Augustine. They do no harm to my argument. If fact, they both must be taken together. Augustine is stating that:
1. It is wrong to believe an interpretation of scripture that is against good evidence from the natural world
2. It is worse to use evidence from the natural world to make atheistic claims.

YECism fails in point 1. Old Earth Creations fails in neither point.

Dark Matter

 

[SBG]

I fully accept these words of Augustine. They do no harm to my argument. If fact, they both must be taken together. Augustine is stating that:
1. It is wrong to believe an interpretation of scripture that is against good evidence from the natural world
2. It is worse to use evidence from the natural world to make atheistic claims.

YECism fails in point 1. Old Earth Creations fails in neither point.

Dark Matter

Well selective hearing always works.

The problem exists that there is not a consesus of what the evidence says. You may enjoy the umbrella of the majority, but majority isn't always correct. We can look into history and see how often the majority has been wrong. We can also look into history and see how often the Bible has been wrong...never.

You are aware that evidence needs interpretation, without it, it cannot say anything, correct? You are aware interpretations come from a case of logic, correct? And you are aware that logic comes from personal beliefs, correct?

Because one uses logic, does not mean one will be correct. So, using a case and saying because it uses logic it must be correct, is completely illogical.

 

[Vance]

Augustine was assuredely a geocentrist, but I doubt he believed in a flat earth, given the state of scientific knowledge at the time.

But, I would agree that Augustine would not be a geocentrist today, since he made it clear that he would let the evidence from the natural world inform his understanding of Scripture. So, as scientific evidence advanced, to the extent that it conflicted with any interpretation of Scripture he held, he would consider whether the scientific evidence was correct, or his interpretation.