Question for Catholics

[Tatian]

I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science. However, it seems to me that the Catholic church doesn't seem to wrestle with it so much. The pope has organized conferences with lecturers such as Stephen Hawking and also have many Clergy who maintaine advanced degrees in all fields of science. This is much less for the Protestant movement, and it's something I lament.

When I was contemplating this, I began to wonder what the difference maker is. I tinkered with the idea that perhaps it's because Catholics don't maintane a few of Sola Scriptura. Protestants will read the scriptures, such as Genesis and come to the "plain meaning" of it and conclude that science is at odds with scripture. They will say that sense this is God's only infallible word and that there is no other word of God but scrpture, than all other truths must submit to it.

So could it be that because the Catholic Church maintains that God's spoken word is through other means, such as the church itself, that they can allow science to be informative to what scripture means? For example, sense science overwhelmingly agrees that evolution is how life developed that the Catholic church can allow that information to help them conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are not a literary account of how everything actually developed?

Please feel free to correct and inform me where I am mistaken.
Thankyou.

 

[ebia]

I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science. However, it seems to me that the Catholic church doesn't seem to wrestle with it so much. The pope has organized conferences with lecturers such as Stephen Hawking and also have many Clergy who maintaine advanced degrees in all fields of science. This is much less for the Protestant movement, and it's something I lament.

When I was contemplating this, I began to wonder what the difference maker is. I tinkered with the idea that perhaps it's because Catholics don't maintane a few of Sola Scriptura. Protestants will read the scriptures, such as Genesis and come to the "plain meaning" of it and conclude that science is at odds with scripture. They will say that sense this is God's only infallible word and that there is no other word of God but scrpture, than all other truths must submit to it.

So could it be that because the Catholic Church maintains that God's spoken word is through other means, such as the church itself, that they can allow science to be informative to what scripture means? For example, sense science overwhelmingly agrees that evolution is how life developed that the Catholic church can allow that information to help them conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are not a literary account of how everything actually developed?

Please feel free to correct and inform me where I am mistaken.
Thankyou.

Well, you've posted in the Anglican forum not the Catholic one, but we have very similar approaches to your question.

We see no conflict between science and scripture providing each is read to answer the questions it is written to address. Science isn't competent to answer questions like "why are we here?". Scripture isnt trying to answer questions like "how long did it take God to create things and what mechanisms did he employ".

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Well, you've posted in the Anglican forum not the Catholic one, but we have very similar approaches to your question.

We see no conflict between science and scripture providing each is read to answer the questions it is written to address. Science isn't competent to answer questions like "why are we here?". Scripture isnt trying to answer questions like "how long did it take God to create things and what mechanisms did he employ".

I agree with ebia. My view on science is pretty much the same as the Catholic view. And I am not Sola Scriptura but Prima Scripura; that is, I put Scripture first, but also take Tradition, Reason and Experience into account, as per the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. (Wesley was an Anglican; Methodism as a separate denomination wasn't really his idea.)

 

[MichaelNZ]

Scripture isnt trying to answer questions like "how long did it take God to create things and what mechanisms did he employ".

St Augustine teaches not to depart from the literal sense of Scripture unless it is clearly untenable (for example, when Jesus says "I am the door", we do not believe that He is literally made of wood). The Book of Genesis is not portrayed as metaphor, therefore, we must take it literally.

In the Book of Exodus, God clearly says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11). If the 'days' were actually long eras, as those who try to reconcile the Bible to secular atheistic evolution believe, then it would make no sense for God to mention the six days of Creation when giving a reason to keep the Sabbath day holy.

Jesus Himself said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). Evolutionists believe that man evolved millions of years after nothing exploded and made everything.

There are three options here.

1. Was Jesus lying?
2. Was Jesus ignorant of modern science?
3. Was Jesus right?

If option 1 is true, then Jesus is not God since God cannot deceive. If option 2 is true, then Jesus is not God because God is all-knowing. Therefore, we are left with only option 3 - that Jesus was right and that Adam and Eve were created on the fifth day of Creation. There is a lot of scientific evidence to back up the Biblical Creation story. If you're interested, visit www.creationtoday.org

 

[Tatian]

This forum says Anglican and old Catholic. Am I missing something? But hey, if Anglicans don't have a sola scriptura view, then it is good to have your perspective as well.

So what do you think of Creation and evolution. If science weren't around, I could see why Christians would come to the conclusion that the world was created in 6 literal days. But science is unanimously against this view. There are only a few responces to this possible.

1) The entire community of scientists are incorrect in their interpretation of the natural order.

2) Creationist theology is wrong in its interpretation of scripture.

It seems to me Prima Scriptura has the same problem as Sola Scriptura. What do you do when sources of information conflict?

I myself maintaine the same view as ebia. That when interpreted within the area's they were intended for, there is harmony. So then Prima Scriptura and science shall never meet one another and thus there is never a conflict? Is this typical with the Anglicans?

3)

 

[ebia]

This forum says Anglican and old Catholic. Am I missing something? But hey, if Anglicans don't have a sola scriptura view, then it is good to have your perspective as well.

Anglicans vary on how they stand with regard to sola Scriptura, but either way usually are happy with science and reading Genesis as answering other questions.

Old Catholics are not the same as (Roman) Catholic.

So what do you think of Creation and evolution. If science weren't around, I could see why Christians would come to the conclusion that the world was created in 6 literal days. But science is unanimously against this view. There are only a few responces to this possible.

1) The entire community of scientists are incorrect in their interpretation of the natural order.

2) Creationist theology is wrong in its interpretation of scripture.

Genesis isn't trying to answer the question "how old is the earth?". Genesis 1-11 is interested in such questions as:
Who created
What/who are god(s)
What is the nature of creation
Where does humanity stand in all this
If there is a good creator why is there so much suffering and why doesn't the creator do something about it
Etc

It's a prologue to the bible proper. It explains what the problem is. The actual narrative of what God is doing about the problem can then begin with the call of Abraham.

I myself maintaine the same view as ebia. That when interpreted within the area's they were intended for, there is harmony. So then Prima Scriptura and science shall never meet one another and thus there is never a conflict? Is this typical with the Anglicans?

3)

Yep.

 

[PaladinValer]

I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science. However, it seems to me that the Catholic church doesn't seem to wrestle with it so much. The pope has organized conferences with lecturers such as Stephen Hawking and also have many Clergy who maintaine advanced degrees in all fields of science. This is much less for the Protestant movement, and it's something I lament.

Well, to remind you: Anglicans are Catholics but not Vatican or Roman Catholics. We are English Catholics.

Anglicanism, like Vatican Catholicism, doesn't have issues with science. Theistic Evolution is very prevalent and I would say is probably par for the course or it is heading towards that direction.

As for your comment about Protestantism, honestly, I can't entirely agree. Mainline Protestants are like Anglicans and Vatican Catholics when it comes to science and there is a growing number of even Evangelical Protestants who are embracing the totality of modern science without it having issues with their faith, including evolution.

When I was contemplating this, I began to wonder what the difference maker is. I tinkered with the idea that perhaps it's because Catholics don't maintane a few of Sola Scriptura. Protestants will read the scriptures, such as Genesis and come to the "plain meaning" of it and conclude that science is at odds with scripture. They will say that sense this is God's only infallible word and that there is no other word of God but scrpture, than all other truths must submit to it.

I don't believe sola scriptura is the problem. That many Lutherans, even LCMSs, have no problem with evolution is striking.

So could it be that because the Catholic Church maintains that God's spoken word is through other means, such as the church itself, that they can allow science to be informative to what scripture means? For example, sense science overwhelmingly agrees that evolution is how life developed that the Catholic church can allow that information to help them conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are not a literary account of how everything actually developed?

Please feel free to correct and inform me where I am mistaken.
Thankyou.

It isn't just Catholic Christians like we Anglicans and Old Catholics, those of the Vatican, or those of the Eastern or Oriental churches: many Protestants also will probably point to St. Augustine of Hippo who essentially wrote that, if there is overwhelming evidence that suggests the Holy Scripture is wrong, it means that your interpretation is what is in error, not the Holy Writ.

I have no theological problem with evolution, and I'd warrant that most people here in STR would be in the same boat with me.

 

[Albion]

I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science.

Hard to say whom you have in mind when you say "most Protestants," but we here don't participate in any such struggle.

 

[Tatian]

I am Protestant myself, and when I say most I would say Weslyan movements such as Free Methodist, Calvalry Chapel which is especially prevalent on the West Coast of the U.S., the Baptist denominations almost entirely which makes up the largest chunk of Protestantism, and most Calvinists, such as EB Free. There are some who accept theistic evolution, such as the United Methodists and one of the synods of Lutheran and Presbyterian, but they are not the majority.

Ahhh, ebia, you remind me that the word Catholic simply means "universal". =)

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

This forum says Anglican and old Catholic. Am I missing something? But hey, if Anglicans don't have a sola scriptura view, then it is good to have your perspective as well.

So what do you think of Creation and evolution. If science weren't around, I could see why Christians would come to the conclusion that the world was created in 6 literal days. But science is unanimously against this view. There are only a few responces to this possible.

1) The entire community of scientists are incorrect in their interpretation of the natural order.

2) Creationist theology is wrong in its interpretation of scripture.

It seems to me Prima Scriptura has the same problem as Sola Scriptura. What do you do when sources of information conflict?

I myself maintaine the same view as ebia. That when interpreted within the area's they were intended for, there is harmony. So then Prima Scriptura and science shall never meet one another and thus there is never a conflict? Is this typical with the Anglicans?

3)

Personally, I cannot believe Young Earth Creation because it is flatly contradicted by science... unless God were to make everything appear old, confounding all scientific attempts at dating. He could do that, but why would He? It seems very out of character to me. General Revelation (God's created universe) cannot be intentionally deceptive, else God is a liar.

Since as an orthodox Christian, I believe God is the Creator, I obviously cannot believe A-theistic Evolution. However it happened, God had to be behind it all.

That leaves Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creation as the remaining possibilities. I'm undecided between them but lean toward TE. In either case, I think the Framework Interpretation best fits my understanding.

I do not believe Scripture and science are in conflict, but that interpretations that put them in conflict are wrong.

 

[PaladinValer]

I am Protestant myself, and when I say most I would say Weslyan movements such as Free Methodist, Calvalry Chapel which is especially prevalent on the West Coast of the U.S., the Baptist denominations almost entirely which makes up the largest chunk of Protestantism, and most Calvinists, such as EB Free. There are some who accept theistic evolution, such as the United Methodists and one of the synods of Lutheran and Presbyterian, but they are not the majority.

Ahhh, ebia, you remind me that the word Catholic simply means "universal". =)

Actually, I would disagree with your data: most Methodists are United Methodists...and most Protestants are mainliners, not Evangelicals, and even then, the trend is to leave literal 6-day Creationism than towards it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Personally, I cannot believe Young Earth Creation because it is flatly contradicted by science... unless God were to make everything appear old, confounding all scientific attempts at dating. He could do that, but why would He? It seems very out of character to me. General Revelation (God's created universe) cannot be intentionally deceptive, else God is a liar.

You've hit on exactly why I find the same argument of "well, He just made it look old" just as distasteful.

God is truth, not deception. It is a title associated with...a different being altogether. Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this! Reps are coming your way!

Since as an orthodox Christian, I believe God is the Creator, I obviously cannot believe A-theistic Evolution. However it happened, God had to be behind it all.

Absolutely.

That leaves Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creation as the remaining possibilities. I'm undecided between them but lean toward TE. In either case, I think the Framework Interpretation best fits my understanding.

That's a large part of it. The Creation stories teach us that God, not nature, is divine and worthy of worship (Genesis 1) and it also gives basis for the literal Torah (Genesis 2), along with the Framework Interpretation and others as well.

 

[Tatian]

Paladin, my friend (I'm ah poet and didn't no it =) I think our experiences with Protestantism is significantly different. But, I didn't make the claim that Free Methodism is more prevalent than United. I simply mentioned them amongst the ones counted on the side of Creationism. Along with calvinist protestantism and nearly all the Baptist denominations and the Cavalry Chapel movement, this should make up the majority of Protestants.

 

[Tatian]

Read this, Paladin.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PaladinValer]

Paladin, my friend (I'm ah poet and didn't no it =) I think our experiences with Protestantism is significantly different. But, I didn't make the claim that Free Methodism is more prevalent than United. I simply mentioned them amongst the ones counted on the side of Creationism. Along with calvinist protestantism and nearly all the Baptist denominations and the Cavalry Chapel movement, this should make up the majority of Protestants.

...but it doesn't make up the whole of Protestantism. That's the problem.

Read this, Paladin.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what YECism is. What does this source have to do with your claim that most Protestants teach anti-science? The very link suggests otherwise if you read it carefully.

 

[HereIStand]

Well, I'm not Catholic either, but would classify myself as a something of a high church evangelical (within the PCUSA). I also believe in a 6 literal day creation according to Genesis. And I would by implication see the earth as young, seeing Genesis and Adam and Eve as historical. Yet, I think it is probably difficult to persuade someone to accept a young earth scientific argument if that person is not already predisposed to accept such an argument.

Some form of theistic evolution or more likely a form of intelligent design are probably more widely held to within the evangelical world than a 6 day creationist belief. I take the evangelical magazine Books and Culture and that seems to be the prevailing consensus in it.

I think holding to a 6 day creation belief is important for affirming our faith that we are created in the image of the Trinity. It becomes more problematic to affirm that if Adam and Eve are seen as metaphorical instead of as literal historical beings.

 

[ebia]

Well, I'm not Catholic either, but would classify myself as a something of a high church evangelical (within the PCUSA). I also believe in a 6 literal day creation according to Genesis. And I would by implication see the earth as young, seeing Genesis and Adam and Eve as historical. Yet, I think it is probably difficult to persuade someone to accept a young earth scientific argument if that person is not already predisposed to accept such an argument.

Some form of theistic evolution or more likely a form of intelligent design are probably more widely held to within the evangelical world than a 6 day creationist belief. I take the evangelical magazine Books and Culture and that seems to be the prevailing consensus in it.

I think holding to a 6 day creation belief is important for affirming our faith that we are created in the image of the Trinity. It becomes more problematic to affirm that if Adam and Eve are seen as metaphorical instead of as literal historical beings.

No it's not, and you should not be promoting that view here.

 

[HereIStand]

No it's not, and you should not be promoting that view here.

I'm sorry. What view are you referring to? Why do you object to it? Here means the Anglican sub-forum? Why would that view not be promoted here?

 

[ebia]

I'm sorry. What view are you referring to? Why do you object to it? Here means the Anglican sub-forum? Why would that view not be promoted here?

If you're not Anglican...

 

[Albion]

No it's not, and you should not be promoting that view here.

I have to concur with HIStand. I've read his comment several times and I still can't identify what he should not be saying. You did specifically say he should not be promoting "that view" so it doesn't look like you mean he should not be posting anything because he's not an Anglican.