The Book of Urizen. The Web of ReligionWhat kind of psychological model can be constructed for popular belief? Themodel that we use does not necessarily have to be true for the majority ofpeople, i.e., it need not have sociological accuracy. What it must do is allowus to see how the effects of the Darwinian revolution would affect people whosebeliefs more or less closely adhered to the outlines of that model.
The period after the 1660's has been characterized as seeing "the first ofdivorce between religion and science."[1]The divorce between religion and science came about partly as the result of theprojects of individuals within the Royal Society. Men such as Wilkins, andNewton attempted to provide a basis for the scientific basis of their faith,but this meant that rather than proceeding from arguments based on Biblicalauthority to explain the action of nature that they proceeded from argumentsbased on nature to theological speculations. This has been characterized asreason reinforcing faith. "The best ally of theology was natural philosophy.God could be seen in and through his creation." John Smith was to assert thatthe universe was created so that God "might reflect his own glory" in it. God created the universe "in a thoroughly scientific and rational manner" andendowed it with "immutable laws," but seemed to have no current function. Theresponse of some was to assert that God intervened in the affairs of theuniverse. The Calvinist response was that God was working out His plan ofsalvation and damnation, while the Catholic response was that God intervened inresponse to prayer, whether from earth or from "the celestial court." The"Christian rationalists," however preferred to think of God as a watchmaker.His sole part in creation was to create the clock and set it motion, thereafterit ran on its own accord.[3] In this imagewe recognize the forerunner of Paley's argument from design. Newton's "General Scholium," at the end of his Principia, gives astatement of natural theological reasoning: A God that is simply something behind nature and which operates to set thingsin motion is not one that is the object of intense devotion. The falling off ofintensity may be characterized as lukewarmness. Alec Vidler quotes Froude'sdescription of the Anglican church. The Church of England was, as a religious body, largely inactive and the othergroups were more active only because they had grievances. One dissident groupwithin Britain was the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals within English society have been described as "rich andprosperous men" who "practised an almost monastic austerity." This austeritywas marked by prayer, reading of the Bible, and examination of conscience.These people devoted themselves to good works, including the abolition of theslave trade.[10] The Evangelicals were alsomarked by "conversion," an emotional experience related to the "born-again"experience of modern charismatics and fundamentalists. This was accompanied bya rejection of amusements, including novel reading. Even Handel's oratorioswere suspect because they had been performed at Vauxhall. The Evangelicals wereespecially united "in their opposition to any open treatment of the sexual orbodily functions." Drusilla Way described the Medici Venus as "a naked womanthoroughly ashamed of herself."11 The period of Wesleyan growth ended in the 1840s. The Church of Englandexperienced a decline in attendance beginning in the 1880's. Jaroslav Pelikan has described the intellectual situation in the churches.Beginning with the opening of the seventeenth century he describes a periodwhen orthodoxy (orthodox religious beliefs, not necessarily those of theOrthodox churches) was in a state of crisis. After noting the decline ofrespect for religious orthodoxy in Anglican England, Catholic France andProtestant Scandinavia, he says the "orthodox doctrine could not commanduniversal respect any more."[13] TheAnglican church was reputed to be open to "different or even contradictorypoints of view," and open to the toleration of "visions and privaterevelations."[14] Many of the churches adhered closely to what we have come to callfundamentalism. This can be characterized by a literal acceptance of the Bible,a belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, and an acceptance of thetraditional ascriptions of authorship to Moses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Johnamong the sacred authors. It followed that within this form of religious belief that God was solelyresponsible for creation. Further, he did not work through intermediaries oragents, either natural or supernatural. The earth and the various species thatcreated it were created directly by God and the issue of natural forces beingthe agents through which God worked did not arise. Other characteristics of the popular Protestantism include what Max Weber hasdescribed as the search for certainty. Protestantism did away with therequirement for works and substituted salvation by faith. Within the morestringent Calvinist traditions, however, there was an emotional problem.Calvinistic doctrines hold that one cannot be certain of salvation.Congregations were therefore urged to ignore any emotional uncertainty abouttheir election and to lose themselves in certain kinds of work. This amounts,within a certain kind of religious tradition, to a form of distraction. Theimmersion in worldly affairs, accompanied by charitable work, was a way offorgetting one's uncertainty about eternal salvation. Its more sentimental formcan be seen exemplified in Richardson's Pamela, and a more realisticportrayal of this search for certainty can be found in Scott's The Heart ofMidlothian.[15] This popular Protestantism contrasts strongly with the Catholic emphasison works and with the usual attitude of the Church towards the relations ofreason and science to religion. Pelikan has quoted one writer as noting, "Theabsence, among Tuscans, of any of the open hostility between science andorthodoxy that raged beyond the alps." This was in part because theologysubsumed every science within itself. The French Catholics could agree with theformula that "Jesus Christ [is] the depth of all knowledge." The literal interpretation of the Biblical, anti-Copernican doctrine is givenby Galileo in these words: Galileo quotes an epigram, which he assigns to Cardinal Baronius, "That theintention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not howheaven goes" (186). His final defense, however, stems from the fourth sessionof the Council of Trent that it is "perverting into senses contrary to that ofthe holy Church or that of the concurrent agreement of the Fathers thosepassages, and those alone, which pertain to faith or ethics, or which concernthe edification of Christian doctrine" (203). Within this tradition there is an adherence to the belief that the objects offaith differ from the objects of the intellect. A writer such as St. John ofthe Cross asserts, in The Ascent of Mount Carmel, that faith is a formof darkness to the intellect. John, in discussing the desire for locutions, asserts that reason and faithexist in harmony: The problem of reconciling faith in revealed religion and the claims of reason,in either its philosophical or scientific formes, is not unique toChristianity. The other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, alsowrestled with the problem. Moses Maimonides, in his Guide for thePerplexed, postulates a split within the objects of perception: Maimonides links mental perception to matter. This connection to the materialworld subjects mental perception to the same limitations as physicalperception. These limitations vary with the individual, and with the extent towhich he exercises his mental powers. However, Maimonides postulates that"Prophets and our sages" declared "a limit...to human reason where it musthalt."[29] Maimonides has arrived at aposition analogous to the distinction made above between the objects of faith,and the objects of reason. Faith objects are supra-, or trans-, rational. Within the Islamic translation, and very nearly contemporary with Maimonides,is Averroes, The Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the ConnectionBetween Religion and Philosophy (the Fasl al-Maqal), which justifiesthe use of pagan philosophy within Islam. Averroes justifies the study ofphilosophy by using the tradition of Islamic law. Thus his first chapter openswith the proposition that the law makes this study obligatory. His propositionis phrased contingently, "If teleological study of the world is philosophy, andif the Law commands such a study, then the Law commands philosophy." He limitsphilosopphy to the "study of existing beings and reflections on them asindications of the Artisan," and maintains that that more perfect knowledge ofthings leads to a more perfect knowledge of the Artisan. Averroes defends the second hypothetical clause by citing the authority of SuraLIX , 2 of the Quran, "Reflect, you have vision" as establishing "theobligation to use intellectual reasoning." He also finds a combination ofintellectual and legal reasoning recommended by Sura VII, 185. Averroes finds that the study must be conducted in the best manner, which is bydemonstrative reasoning. In order to engage in this study the "religiousthinker" must learn logic. Averroes compares this to the process of learninglegal reasoning, and just as the latter is not heretical, neither is theformer. Apparent conflicts are resolved by stipulating first that demonstrativeand scriptural (primarily Quranic) truth cannot conflict, but that if theScripture does appear to conflict with demonstrative conclusions it is is thescriptures that must be interpreted allegorically, or metaphorically. Averroes situates Islam within a framework of accommodationism by making thevery point that Augustine had made earlier, that God worked to accommodate Hiswords to the intelligence and experience of the people. Averroes proposition is"The double meaning has been given to suit people's diverse intelligence. Theapparent contradictions are meant to stimulate the learned to greater study."Averroes justifies this idea in these words; Islam and Judaism, like Christianity, struggled with the relations of therevealed relgion to the pagan philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and the rest ofthe Classical tradition in philosophy. This could only be done by assertingthat the truths of reason and of faith were compatible, and that the Scripturalrevelation, whether Biblical or Quranic, could be subjected to analysis as atext that is rife with polysemy. The multiple meanings might be mutuallyexclusive, for example, reading the creation story as six periods of indefiniteduration precludes the literal reading as six 24 hour days. The multiplemeanings might also be simultaneously true, the Song of Songs, for examplebeing both a literal wedding, and an allegory of God's love for Israel, or theChurch, or the soul's longing for Divine union. Essentially, the conflictbetween faith and reason was resolved by shifting things into the realm ofallegory, or metaphor. The three monotheistic religions thus incorporated, tovarying degrees, the pagan philosophies. Christianity has, in its very makeup, a need to be syncretistic andaccommodationist. Its inner logic required that it prove itself at first to itsJewish brethren as the true Israel, and later to include the Greek philosophersamong those to whom the Holy Spirit had spoken in various ways. JaroslavPelikan has described the process by which Christianity came to position itselfto the Jews as the true Israel, and the way in which it confronted the Greekphilosophers.[35] The syncretism withrespect to Judaism meant that it had to include the Old Testament within itscorpus, and explain to the Jews that the New was the fulfillment of the Old. Toreject as Marcion did the Old Testament would have been to cut itself of fromthe ground on which it had arisen in the first place. One method of dealing with the relationship of Judaism to Christianity was toinsist that certain parts of the Scriptures were not to be taken literally.Thus, in the example cited by Pelikan, the Epistle of Barnabas maintainsthat the injunction against eating unclean animals must be taken in a spiritualsense.[39] Had Christina, in Butler's TheWay of All Flesh, taken this attitude she would not have been troubled overthe eating of blood. Likewise, baptism replaces circumcision, and is prefiguredin the exodus through the Red Sea. The relationship with classicism was more problematic. Pelikan does not takenote of this, but as Christianity spread among the educated population of theGreek and Roman world, the converts would initially be men trained in thephilosophy and rhetoric of the Greeks and Romans. It is possible, of course, toreject totally and radically the beliefs in which one was raised, but whatfrequently happens is that the layers of rejected beliefs remain, and showtheir hidden faces from time to time. In order to survive and thrive within thepagan world Christianity had to find strategies that would allow itscontinuance, and that would be persuasive to those who listened indifferentlyto the Church and its opponents. Rather than reiterate material that is readily available elsewhere, thefollowing table briefly summarizes the positions of various patristic writersas they faced the problems of confronting Judaism and pagan culture, It shouldbe noted that I am not asserting that these writers were in all casesconsciously syncretic or accommodating with regard to non-Christian elements,only that their positions tended in one direction or another. Further, that thedominant strand within this period was one that incorporated both Hebraic andthe Classical elements, however uneasily. Click here for this table, if you're browser is table friendly. Christianity is more than a set of dogmatic beliefs or even a set of mysticalpractices. It is rooted in the conviction that certain things happened inhistorical time. The chief event is the Incarnation, death and resurrection ofJesus. It is possible to accept the historical existence of Jesus and rejectthe resurrection. This is the position of Frazer in The Golden Bough.The teachings of Christianity then become a set of ethical propositions, and assuch they have no greater weight than similar propositions from Laotse,Confucius, or Buddha. The evidence for Christianity rests on the authority ofcertain historical texts. This authority depends "on the genuineness of a text,its historical credibility, and its author." This does not establish certainty,that comes from supernatural sources. It shows "the continuity with theteachings of Christ and the apostles."[66]The study of the Gospels as historical documents and "the church's doctrinalunderstanding of the person and work of Christ" were to be in harmony. PaulJohnson notes that the Protestants, whose understanding of Christianity wasbased on the doctrine of sola scripturas, "appeared to be on infinitelystronger ground than the Catholics, who relied for their dogmatic justificationon the unscriptural authority or magisterium of the Church." TheEvangelical position was to treat both Testaments as "historical records," anyquestioning of the accuracy of these documents was a denial of their divineinspiration.[67] The findings of science could be subsumed into Christianity, but an attack onthe historical status of the events recorded in either the Old or New Testamentwould put the whole structure of Christianity in doubt. The problem of the higher criticism is dependent upon one's attitude towardsthe Bible. It is possible to have several attitudes towards the Bible. It canbe regarded as the inerrant word of God. It can be regarded as the word of Godas spoken to men of a certain historical era and accommodated to their minds.It can be dismissed as pious hogwash. It can be thought of as the product of amale chauvinist agrarian society. The first attitude rests on a contingentproposition. This proposition can be stated as "If any part of the Bible can beshown to be false, then the whole of the Bible is untrue." In order for this tohappen the proof must be accepted emotionally as well as logically; it is notenough to simply demonstrate the existence of conflicts within the Bible. Theexistence of two variants for the death of Saul can be glossed as reportage bytwo different people, one of whom is lying, but which have been recorded by theauthor.[69] In the same way the fact thatNoah took only two of the unclean animals aboard the Ark can be glossed bysaying that the antediluvian patriarchs had prior knowledge of the definitionof clean and unclean animals but that it was not formally codified andpublished to the Hebrews until Moses. It is when the logical proof combineswith the emotional validation of this proof that a loss of faith happens. Thisloss of faith due to the contingent nature of the faith espoused appears tohave happened to Samuel Butler, and probably happened to less well knownindividuals as well. The second attitude is one that is more in line withhistorical trends of Catholicism and liberal Protestant churches. Pius IX, in his 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura, and in its attachedsyllabus, the "Syllabus of Errors," attacked the dogmas of liberalism andrationalism. The attack which is most relevant for a consideration of theCatholic Church's position regarding either science or the interpretation ofscripture comes in paragraphs 5 and 12 of the Syllabus: Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris recognizes that the patristic writersincorporated much of the methodology of the classical philosophers: In his consideration of the natural sciences Leo refuses to recognize adistinction between the truth of science and the truth of religion. The question of the inspiration of the Scriptures also involved questions ofcredibility and content. One thing that was important was the nature of one'sacceptance of the inspiration of the scriptures. Was it to be a priori regardedas true and holy becuase it was inspired, or did an experience of the holinessand truth precede an a posteriori acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible.Leo appears to regard the inspiration as something that is an a priori fact.The acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible as having an "a prioriauthority" meant that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers in all things. Acorollary to this is that the Bible is inerrant in all of its teachings,including matters of science. The opening of Genesis was thus a literal historyand not a mere mythology.[82] Paul Johnson has described the situation of the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth century Church. Pius XI, in Mit Brennender Sorge, addressed the German Bishops on thesituation of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany. Although primarily addressedto the concerns of the Catholic Church in the Germany of 1937, the encyclicaladdresses the exclusion of the Old Testament from the Bible: The hostility of the Catholic church to Biblical scholarship was modifiedsomewhat during the reign of Pius XII. The encyclical Divino afflanteSpiritu attributed inerrancy to the Bible, but also gave "officialrecognition to the existence within Scripture of various literary forms andtherefore the need of paying attention to `the outlook...and condition of lifeof the sacred writer, and age in which he lived.'" This formed a basis, atVatican II, for a reexamination of the question of inerrancy. This confirmedthe Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of ecclesiology: "neither Scripture norChrist was accessible except through the tradition of the church -- at anyrate, the tradition of the primitive church, if not the church tradition ofsubsequent centuries."[87] Pius, in his encyclical Humani Generis, written in 1950, seven yearsafter Divino Afflante Spiritu, examined the relations of science andreligion. He wrote: Pius, in referring to Vatican Council I, makes these assertions: The demythologizing aspect of Scripture studies is also condemned. This wouldwork against interpretations that see, for example, Enoch as a solar figure. Pius shows his lack of scientific understanding in this, and in the subsequentparagraph. He regards certain things as "clearly proved," thereby opening thedoor to a posthumous pardon to Galileo, but relegating evolution to the statusof an hypothesis. The usual remonstrance of a scientist, particularly abiologist, regarding evolution is that evolution is a fact. What isthehypothesis or theoretical aspect of evolutionary bioloby is the mechanism bywhich the fact was brought into existence. The vagueness, at least in English,of "some sort of scientific foundation" implies that Pius has no directknowledge of the scientific evidence, and that what familiarity he has with itis not sufficient to convince him of the truth of the hypothesis. The next paragraph immediately qualifies this by proclaiming the liberty ofscience and religion to take account of the evolution of the body. Pius also, in the subsequent paragraph, takes sharp issue with the theory ofpolygenism. There can be no question of multiple ancestors, nor can it be saidthat Adam is a amerely symbolic name for the mass of men living at the time ofthe fall. The fall was a personal decision by one man. This is explicitlystated by Pius as being the consensus of the Magisterium. The pontiff then returns to the question of Biblical hermeneutics, and he makesthe assertion that the opening chapters of Genesis, while not necessarilyhistorical in the same way as Tacitus or Gibbon, "pertain to history in a truesense." He recognizes the metaphorical nature of the language, and sees inthese chapters a statement of "the principal truths which are fundamental forour salvation." This language he recognizes as being "adapted to the mentalityof a people but little cultured," thereby allying himself with both Augustineand Galileo in his description of the primitive tribes. Pius effectively left the door open to readings of the Scriptures thatemphasized its polyvocal and polysemic nature. This is a return to theprinciple that different meanings inhere in the verses of the Bible, and thatsome are to be interpreted literally, others in a figurative sense. The comicstories of Jonah and Tobias then are not only comedies of God's grace, butalso, in the case of Jonah, the prefiguration of Christ. The Second Vatican Counci, basing its decree on 1 Tim. 6: 14 and Ti. 2:13,affirmed that "The Christian dispensation" was "the new and definitivecovenant," and there was to be no "new public revelation before the gloriousmanifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."[98]The Council then delineated the manner of transmission of the Gospels. TheApostles, according to the Council, handed on what they had received by their"oral preaching," "their example," and "by observances handed on" the thingsthey had received from Christ. The Apostles, "in order to keep the Gospelforever whole and alive within the Church" handed on their teaching authorityto the bishops.[99] The Council describedthe apostolic teaching as being "preserved by an unending succession ofpreachers till the end of time." The doctrine that was handed on by theApostles "includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life andincrease in faith of the People of God." Scripture, the Council held, was inspired by God, and is "sacred and canonical"in its entirety. This however, was qualified by the following propositions:First, "God chose men." Second, "they made use of their powers and abilities."Third, this was done so that the writers "as true authors, consigned to writingeverything and only those things which He wanted." The Council then opens up the realm of interpretation by asserting that "Godspeaks in sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, so the interpreter ofsacred Scripture...should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writersreally intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." Theapplication of the principles of Dei Verbum would leave any discussionof Christ's pigmentation or racial characteristics in a state of indeterminacy,at least as far as these verse are concerned. When the Council turned to the principles of exegesis, it affirmed that theChurch strove to "move ahead toward a deeper understaning of the sacredScriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words." The Church, even during the nineteenth century, had not always been intolerantof speculation. John Henry Newman, in his conversion book Essay on theDevelopment of Christian Doctrine, had described the process wherebydoctrines had developed. In Newman's view doctrines might be present in theoriginal deposit of faith in embryonic form and achieve their final form onlyhundreds of years later. Pelikan has described Newman as finding "the notion ofa static tradition unacceptable." History, for Newman, is the medium in whichdoctrine develops. His acceptance of development also implied "the acceptanceof the churchly character of doctrine, and hence the affirmation of theauthority of the church, past and present." The project of the Natural theologians was an attempt to establish thereasonableness of Christianity by arguing from nature. John Locke sawrevelation as a supplement to the discoveries of reason, as Johnson writes"revelation can provide truths which unaided reason cannot; and if revelationindicates a doctrine which reason itself would deem improbable (but no more),then revelation should be trusted."[112]This is in accord with those "radical theologians" who had insisted that "areligion of nature and reason" was inscribed in the human heart and thatmankind was to judge the truth of any religion by these natural attributes. A fundamental defect of the kind of rational Christianity advocated by Paleyand his disciples is that it is without emotional appeal. It is very hard tolove, or pray to, a distant watchmaker. Christianity had become a kind ofethical discussion society in which salvation was to come from obeying certainrules. This is to emphasize "forms and institutions at the expense ofspirit."[116] The attitudes that we have called the fundamentalist and the accommodationistpositions are summarized in the table below. Click here, if your browser is table friendly. The Biblical theory of creation can be put quite simply. The account in Genesisis true. There is no consideration of symbolism, no accommodation to thescientific level of nomad shepherds. What is fatal to this positionintellectually is the emergence of the higher criticism and the finding offossils that should not be where they are. The position of the natural theologians is more complex, but it can besummarized as accepting revelation, and looking for confirmation in the worldof nature. What it finds in nature confirms its belief in the existence of Godand His attributes. What will break natural theology is its lack of emotionalappeal, and its insistence on design. When it becomes possible to postulatecreation without the presence of a designer, then natural theology will dieoff. Only the accommodationist position has the syncretistic ability to absorb thefindings of science and Biblical scholarship and to emerge with the structureof its faith intact. Those people, such as Butler, who had grown up in one ofthe former beliefs were fated to find substitutes for the lost faith. Thesesubstitutes could be either a benign retirement, such as Butler, or a hostilecritique of Christianity and evolution, as with Nietzsche. This is not the only problem within Genesis. The story of the flood, forexample, has two variants which are conjoined. In one variant God has Noahbring two of each kind aboard the ark (Gen. 6:19-22). In the second variant,which immediately follows the first, Noah is ordered to take seven of the cleananimals and two of the unclean (Gen. 7:1-5). One problem with the secondvariant is that Noah lived before Moses and it is not until the law is given toMoses on Sinai that the clean and unclean animals are delimited. Anotherproblem is that one story demands a far smaller number of animals aboard theark than the other. A solution to the first problem that allows the believer tokeep his faith unchanged is to assert that the patriarchs already knew thekinds of animals that were unclean, but this knowledge was forgotten by theJews until Moses brought the law down. This solution, however, does not resolvethe conflict between the two versions over the number of animals brought aboardthe ark. A solution that is more human and more probable is to assert that twoseparate traditions are recorded, and that in order to unite the two traditionsthey were both accorded sacred status within the Biblical text. This solutionhas the advantage that it also encompasses the discrepancy over the number ofanimals brought aboard. The presence of at least two traditions within the Biblical text of Genesismeans that the traditional ascription of authorship to Moses could not besustained. Eventually there would be four hands found to be at work within thePentateuch. These authors would be known as P, J, E, and the Deuteronomicauthor. The introduction to the Pentateuch in The Jerusalem Bible givesa brief statement of the then current assessment of the authorship of thePentateuch: The text of the New Testament was not found to be in any better order. Thethree synoptic Gospels were found to originate in a common source, called "Q"(from the German Quelle, or "source"). J. A. Fitzmyer has described the"Two-Document Hypothesis," which was originally put forward by C. Lachmann, C.H. Weisse, C. G. Wilke, and H. G. A. Ewald in the first third of the nineteenthcentury. This hypothesis asserts that Mark is the original Gospel, and thatthere is a common source for material that is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. This second source is the one called "Q." A necessarycorollary of this is that Matthew and Luke drew material from "Q" independentlyof each other.[121] The relationship of the four documents can be pictured as shown in thepreceding illustration. "Q" is entirely suppositious. Its existence has never been confirmed. This doesnot mean that it never existed. The existence of a lost source for the Gospels,however, means that God did not act to preserve that source. This would appearto suggest that the source was defective in some way. If it was defective, thenthat calls into question the divine inspiration of the rest of the Gospels. The reasoning behind this goes as follows: God inspired the writers of theGospels. In order to ensure that the Gospels were preserved free of error Heworked through history in such a way as to ensure that the texts were preservedand transmitted correctly. A lost text means that there was some error in it.But Matthew and Mark preserved material from the lost text. Either theypreserved only the correct material, or they preserved some material that wasnot correct. If they preserved material that was not correct, then they mayhave other material that was not correct. This proposition contradicts thebelief that he preserved the Bible from error. It therefore cannot be proventhat the Gospels and the rest of the Bible were divinely inspired. The attack from the Higher Criticism was not the only threat to Biblicalversions of creation. There were also attacks that came from the sciences. Thedisplacement of the earth from the center of the universe to somewhere on theperiphery was not in itself a rejection of Biblical notions; the Bible saysnothing, as far as I know, about the relative position of the sun, earth, andstars. Dante's conception of the center of the universe is that it is in thecenter of the earth and the spot where Satan resides. It is also the spot thatis furthest from the dwelling of God. The Dantean conception, somewhatmodified, seems to be the one that many people have of the Biblical andMedieval notion of astronomy. This, however, was not necessarily the doctrineof the church. What was more threatening to the church, in both its Protestantand Catholic varieties, was the introduction of motion to the earth and itsremoval from the sun. This meant that the story given in Joshua of the sunstanding still was in error. Given the predilection for Biblical inerrancy thiscast in doubt not just that particular story but the whole truth of theBible. Of more immediate import, as far as evolution is concerned, is the fact of theflood. It was assumed that God created the earth and that it had stayed prettymuch as He designed. There may have been an occasional earthquake here andthere, or a volcanic eruption that buried a city or two and their inhabitantswith them, but on the whole the surface of the earth had not changed since thecreation of Adam. The surface of the earth had not changed and neither had the number of speciesthat existed. If it could be shown that the surface had changed greatly sincethe creation, or if it could be shown that species had vanished, then, ineither case, there would be evidence against the Bible as a scientific textbook. The processes of thrust and folding might result in the layers be folded. Insome cases the thrusting and folding might result in the layers appearing to beintermingled. In this case the presence of the fossil markers serves as measureof when the events occurred. Huxley describes the nature of fossilization inthese words: Cuvier had noted the existence of species that were not found on the earth atthe present time. He was not the first to notice this fact. Earlier writers,such as John Ray had noted that some fossils did not resemble living animals.He noted the appearance of "Cornua Ammonis" and said that he had seenexamples of "five or six distinct species." Ray contended that philosophers hadbelieved that the disappearance of one or more species would be to render theuniverse imperfect. The logic behind this being that if God created the worldwith x number of species, a creation that had taken place before thefall when the universe and nature were perfect, then the existence ofx-1, or x-y species is a falling off from that state ofperfection. Divine providence, in order to be providential, must have a care topreserve all the species that had been established. Ray simply decided thatsome species lived so deep in the ocean or remote from the shore that they werenever seen. Fossils continued to be found throughout the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, as they continue to be in the present. The table below shows some ofthe major fossil finds of mastodons and mammoths and other fossils. The mostimportant point is not the time of discovery of these fossils, but theinterpretation that was placed on them and their relation to the eventsrecorded in the Bible. John Ray, as already noted, had thought that the marine fossils simply showedthat there were more varieties of shell fish and that they lived deeper thanhad been previously thought. Other writers derived different views, or elsesimply confessed their ignorance as to how the shells arrived in thesetroublesome places. Click here, if your browser is table friendly.The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circlesconcentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, andalmost in the same plane ....[Further citations about the planetary system.]This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceedfrom the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if thefixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by thelike wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One ....[Commentabout light.]
This Being governs all things, not as thesoul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he iswont to be called Lord God pantokratwp [pantocrator], or UniversalRuler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants;and Deity is the dominion of God over his own body, as those imagine whofancy God to be the soul of the world, but over Servants .... [Argument aboutwords characterizing God.] He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent andomniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; hispresence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things and knows all thingsthat are or can be done....[Description of attributes of God.] And thus muchconcerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, doescertainly belong to natural philosophy.
Newton links discourses aboutGod to discourses about nature. This linkage characterizes the attempt to probeinto the mind of God based on the findings of natural science. This has led tononbelievers, such as Stephen Weinberg, characterizing the universe aspointless.[5] It has led to Alan Lightman'squestioning of twenty-seven cosmologists, including Weinberg, on their viewsabout the relation of science and religion. It has led to books such as RobertJastrow's God and the Astronomers, and to Stephen Hawking's belief thata theory of everything (TOE) would illumine mind of God.It was orthodox without being theological. Doctrinal problems werelittle thought of. Religion, as taught in the Church of England, meant moralobedience to the will of God. The speculative part of it was accepted becauseit was assumed to be true. The creeds were reverentially repeated; but theessential thing was practice .... About the powers of the keys, the realpresence, or the metaphysics of doctrine, no one was anxious, for no onethought about them. It was not worth while to waste time over questions whichhad no bearing on conduct, and could be satisfactorily disposed on only bysensible indifference.[7]
Theliberals within the Anglican church included William Paley and Sydney Smith.Paley's best known for the argument from design, but his ethical system hasbeen characterized as utilitarian and therefore "congenial to hiscontemporaries."[8] Smith was a contributorto the liberal Edinburgh Review and a champion of "the helpless and thepersecuted."[9]...Moses was addressing a primitive people, to whom material thingsalone appealed and whom he was endeavouring to withdraw from the service ofidols. It would have been to them a pretext for idolatry if he had spoken tothem of nature spiritual in substance and nobler than all corporeal creatures;for they would paid them Divine worship, since they were prone to worship asgods even the sun, moon, and stars, which was forbidden them (Deut. 4.).
This accommodationist attitudewas not confined to priests and theologians. When Galileo wrote in his owndefense he proved himself to have a better knowledge of patristics andhermeneutics than his opponents such as Bellarmine. Galileo's Letter to theGrand Duchess Christina, written in 1615, he quotes generously fromAugustine's De Genesi ad literam. He refers, for example to "a mostuseful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statementsabout things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Augustine's statement is:Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, weought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor ofour error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter mayreveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old orthe New Testament.[19]
Galileodefends Copernicus and his doctrine on the grounds that Copernicus "neverdiscusses matter of religion or faith...." Further, the Copernican system isnot based on arguments from scripture, but solely upon "physical conclusionpertaining to the celestial motions." Copernicus knew that if his doctrine wereproved true it could not contradict a correct understanding of Scripture(179-80).The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth movesand the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read thatthe sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err, itfollows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes an erroneous and hereticalposition who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earthmovable. (181)
The basic tenet of what will become fundamentalismis stated by Galileo in an opening subordinate clause, "Since the Bible cannoterr...." In this sentence the idea of Biblical inerrancy is thematized(assigned the leftmost position). This foregrounds the concept of inerrancy andthen leads into the conclusion that any position contrary to the Bible isheretical. Galileo qualifies this in his subsequent paragraph by agreeing that"the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning isunderstood" (181). This immediately qualifies his agreement and moves theargument into the realm of hermeneutics. The question now is whether or not hisdetractors have applied generally recognized hermeneutic principles to theinterpretation of Scripture. Galileo immediately moves into a statement of theaccommodationist position:These proposition uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in thatmanner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities ofthe common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those whodeserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositorsshould produce the true sense of such passages, together with the specialreasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is sowidespread and so definite with all theologian that it would be superfluous toadduce evidence for it. (181-2)
Later on Galileo asserts that theBible is designed to be understood by all men. "It is necessary for the Bible,in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak of manythings which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the baremeaning of the words is concerned" (182). Galileo believes that there are twomethods of knowing God; one is through the knowledge of nature; the other isthrough the knowledge of revelation. The opinion of Tertullian, which continuesthrough the medieval period and which can be found in Newman's Idea of theUniversity, that there are two ways of knowing God, is cited, "We concludethat God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly bydoctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word"(183).[20]Faith, we know, affirms what cannot be understood by the intellect.St. Paul refers to it ad Hebraeos in this way: Fides est sperandumsubstantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium. In relation to our discussionhere, this means that faith is the substance of things to be hoped for and thatthese things are not manifest to the intellect, even though its consent to themis firm and certain. If they were manifest, there would be no faith. For thoughfaith brings certitude to the intellect, it does not produce clarity, but onlydarkness.[21]
The intellectualdarkness is not because the objects believed are dark, but because faith castseverything in such a powerful light that the intellect cannot grasp theseobjects and comprehend them. The lack of clarity is not because the doctrines,the objects of faith cannot be expressed clearly, but because these objects liebeyond the capabilities of reason. This mystical doctrine implies the divisionof knowledge into two kinds of objects. Objects of the intellect, i.e.,physics, biology, medicine and so on. These are subject to intellectualoperations but they are not the objects of a supernatural operation. The directknowledge of God is an object of faith.[22]It is only the objects of faith that can lead to mystical union with God. Thisposition is given by John in the opening of chapter 8 of The Ascent:Before dealing with faith, the proper and adequate means of unionwith God, we should prove how nothing created or imagined can serve theintellect as a proper means for union with God, and how all that can be graspedby the intellect would serve as an obstacle rather than a means, if a personwere to become attached to it. (125-6)
Implicit in this paragraphis a forecast of the failure of the project of the natural theologian such asPaley. Paley may not have yearned for mystical union with God, but John isclearly warning that while a knowledge of nature may take us part way toknowledge of God it cannot take us all the way.We should make such use of reason and the law of the Gospel that,even though -- whether we desire it or not -- some supernatural truths are toldto us, we accept only what is in harmony with reason and the Gospel law. Andthen we should receive this truth, not because it is privately revealed to us,but because it is reasonable, and we should brush aside all feeling pertinentto the revelation.(174)
Reason and faith are conjoinedfor John. The essential criterion in this paragraph is that the locution bereasonable. However, it can be reasonable and be from a source other than God,i.e., it can from diabolical or human sources. The locution is in effectsubjected to a constant interrogation and is not accepted blindly as being ofdivine inspiration. Further, rather than being an object to be sought, asfrequently happens within modern charismatic sects, it is rejected as beinginferior to the ultimate object of religious faith, divine union.A writer several centuries earlier than John, Peter Abelard, had attempted toassert that "faith is subject to reason." This proposition was rejected asheretical by the Church.[24] Concretely,this means that faith is at least equal to reason. A dogma, such as that of theTrinity or the Incarnation, cannot be rejected because it is not in agreementwith reason. The Catholic tradition "made more of the rational proof for itsdoctrine than confessional Protestantism had, even at the height of theorthodox era." Aquinas had argued that "grace does not abolish nature, butcompletes it." In this nature is only part of reality; the whole is composed ofnature and supernature, that which is beyond the scope of the natural butunderlies it as the basis for the particular beings that make up the naturaluniverse. As Protestantism moved away from the confessional posture there weresome "who took it to be `the chief business of preachers to show thereasonableness of the doctrines they teach.'"Know that for the human mind there are certain objects ofperception which are within the scope of its nature and capacity; on the otherhand, there are, amongst the things which actually exist, certain objectgswhich the mind can in no way and by no means grasp: the gates of perception areclosed against it.
Maimonides splits the objectsinto those that fit with the scope of perception, and those that transcend theperceptual mechanism. He further postulates that the mind can understand partof a thing, but can not understand other parts. Further, the comprehension ofone thing does not imply the comprehension of other things, even if they arerelated. He describes the limits to human intellect by saying:A boundary is undoubtedly set to the human mind which it cannotpass. There are things (beyond that boundary) which are acknowledged to beinaccessible to human understanding, and man does not show any desire tocomprehend them, being aware that such knowledge is impossible, and that thereare no means of overcoming the difficulty....
These things include thenumber of stars, the number of animals, and other such things. A separatecategory is the subjects of metaphysics, physics, and the "exact sciences."These are "things whicn man very much desires to to know," and which have beeninvestigated by "thinkers of all classes, and at all times." Investigators aremisled because they are moved by desire, but "human reason is entirely unableto demonstrate the fact [that their propositions are true] by convincingevidence."[28] The reason why we have received a Scripture with both an apparentand an inner meaning lies in the diversity of people's natural capacities andthe difference of their innate disspositions with regard to assent. The reasonwhy we have received in Scripture texts whose apparent meanings contradict eachother is in order to draw the attention of those who are well grounded inscience to the interpretation which reconciles them. This the idea referred toin the words received from Exalted (III, 7) "He it is who has sent down to youthe Book, containing certain verses clear and definite" [and so on] down to thewords "those who are well grounded in science."
Aquinas, as said previously,uses this idea, the differing capacities of people, to justify non-literalreadings of the Pentateuch.[33] Averroesdoes not draw from this premise that everyone must be taught the allegorical orphilosophical interpretations of Scripture, but rather that the majority shouldbe taught by other methods, which are provided by the Law. The scriptures, inthe Averroistic view, teach the masses by means of dialectic, which isapparently legal reasoning, and by rhetoric. These methods are best suited tothe masses, who cannot be led to demonstrative reasoning and philosophy. Syncretic vs. Non-Syncretic Views of Judaism and Greco-Roman Culture Judaism Greco-Roman Culture Syncretic Non-Syncretic Syncretic Non-Syncretic * Luke 24:27-- * Cerdo & Marcion * Acts 10:34-35 * * Tatian--denies Beginning of -- denial of Hebrews 8:541 Greek version of identification with canonical status to immortality of prophecies of Old Old Testament.40 soul.42 * Also Testament cites immorality of pagan myths. * * First Epistle of * Justin--Christianity Clement to the Tertullian--insists retained "whatever Corinthians--Phoenix that while pagan in the law of Moses as Emblem of philosophers may was `naturally Resurrection.44 have studied good, pious, and Scripture, that righteous.'"43 they never understood them.45 * Epistle of * Justin--asserts * Barnabas -- Moses that "Christ had Hippolytus--attacks speaking in been `known in part adoptionism because spiritual terms even by the heretics had regarding the Socrates.'"47 "deserted the Holy eating of forbidden Scriptures of God" meat.46 in favor of Euclid and Aristotle.48 * Origen--accepts * Origen--accepts * allegory of Philo allegorical and incorporates it interpretation of into Christian pagan myth.50 typology.49 * Jerome--attacks * Justin--sees Marcion "as a Moses as the source representative of for the Platonic the hatred and doctrine of the contempt for the creation in works of the Timaeus.52 * Creator that marked Justin-- "Whatever many heretics."51 things were rightly said among all men are the property of Christians.'53 * * Origen -- traces Augustine--defends Phaedrus to the Old Testament Bible.55 against Manicheans.54 * Cyprian & * Tertullian -- Ambrose/Augustine--P incorporation of lato acquainted Old Testament with Bible.57 prophecies as referring to Christ.56 * Augustine--Cicero's Hortensius turned Augustine's prayers toward God.58 * Clement of Alexandria--"indebte d to the Timaeus."59 * Origen--draws parallel between suffering of Socrates and that of Christ.60 * Gregory of Nyssa--treatise on the soul "betrayed its ancestry in the Phaedo.'61 * Boethius--Consolatio n of Philosophy is treatise in classical philosophy * Gregory I--instructs Augustine (of Canterbury) to adapt both pagan temples and pagan holy days to Christian practice.62 * Fourth Lateran Council (1215) -- decree on transubstantiation.6 3 * Council of Trent (1551) -- decrees that "transubstantiation" is proper terminology.64
Thesyncretism seen here was in Christianity at its conception. Later developmentsin Christian practice and doctrine cannot be attributed solely tocorruption, or the political domination of the Church by Emperors, whetherRoman, Byzantine, or other. When Gregory advised Augustine of Hippo toincorporate pagan holy days and temples into Christianity, he was not advisingAugustine to corrupt Christianity by barbarism, but rather to Christianizebarbarism by substituting Christian symbolism for pagan meaning. Practiceswhich might have their roots in Druidic rituals, such as Christmas trees, couldthus be incorporated by assigning meanings such as eternal life to theevergreen tree, and Jesus, as the light of the world, to the candles on thetree.[65] The problem of incorporating thegood from the secular world into the religious sphere of Christianity reappearsin the medieval period, as it attempts to respond to the discovery ofAristotle; in the Renaissance, as it attempts to respond to humanism and thediscoveries of astronomy; in the Enlightenment, as it attempts to respond tothe higher Criticism; and in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, as itattempts to respond to discoveries in biology and physics. The response is notalways one of accommodationism on the part of all parties, but eventually somemeans must be found of facing the issues raised by challenges from secularsociety.Geologists and astronomers on the one hand, and biologists andanthropologists on the other, combined to present a historical picture of theearth's origins, and of man's habitation of it, which was wholly incompatiblewith the historical account in the Old Testament. Secondly, study of thescriptural texts using the new methods of historical analysis, and with theassistance of philology and archaeology, revealed the scriptures as a much morecomplicated collection of documents than anyone has hitherto imagined, abewildering compound of allegory and fact, to be sifted like any other ancientliterature.[68]
The response ofthe Evangelicals was to ignore the findings of the higher criticism. Some ofthose who looked into the "higher criticism," such as David Strauss, lost theirfaith.5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to acontinual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of humanreason.[71]12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede thetrue progress of science.
Quanta Cura and thesyllabus essentially attack the basis of liberal democracy and assert theChurch's triumphal role in relation to society and in relation to otherknowledge. The reign of John XXIII and the declarations of the second VaticanCouncil would eventually reverse Pius's proclamations on democracy, but in theensuing hundred year period the official doctrine of the Church would remainhostile to Biblical scholarship, and only grudgingly accepting of science....it is most fitting to turn these truths, which have beendiscovered by the pagan sages even, to the use and purposes of revealeddoctrine, in order to show that both human wisdom and the very testimony of ouradversaries serve to support the Christian faith--a method which is not ofrecent introduction, but of established use, and has often been adopted by theholy Fathers of the Church....[T]hose venerable men, the witnesses andguardians of religious traditions, recognize a certain form and figure of thisin the action of the Hebrews, who, when about to depart out of Egypt, werecommanded to take with them the gold and silver vessels and precious robes ofthe Egyptians, that by a change of use the things might be dedicated to theservice of the true God which had formerly been the instruments of ignoble andsuperstitious rites.[73]
Leo, inthis passage, recognizes the incorporation of classical thought intoChristianity. He also gives a justification, which he applies solely to theincorporation of philosophy, that is also applicable to the incorporation ofother elements into Christianity. The argument, as already noted, is that theincorporation of a pagan or secular element into the Christian religion doesnot corrupt Christianity, but rather makes holy that which has a profaneorigin.[74] Leo, however, was not one toseek an accommodation with the "higher criticism" or with secular science.Fourteen years later he turned to the topic of the Scriptures and the teachingof Scripture in Catholic education,. and in the life of the Church. InProvidentissimus Deus Leo describes the higher criticism in thesewords:There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an ineptmethod, dignified by the name of the "higher criticism," which pretends tojudge of the origin, integrity, and authority of each book from internalindications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historicalquestions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness ofhistory is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should bemake with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldomof great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other lightwill be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemiesof religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the sacredbook;s and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into thereflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw onthe Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine;it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes oferror, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their ownpersons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy andrationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of allprophecy and miracles, and of everything else that is outside the naturalorder.[75]
Leo condemns the ideathat the examination of the Bible for any textual purpose other than asconfirmation from internal evidence of such things as the dating of events andso on. Implicitly condemned is the idea that the work of separate authors canbe seen in documents such as the Pentateuch. Further, the "higher criticism"will necessarily lead to the "demythologizing" of the Bible.There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between thetheologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his ownlines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rashassertions, or to assert what is not known as known."
Leo goes on to assert that theChristian must follow the rule of Augustine and either reconcile the findingsof physical science with Christianity, prove it to be false, or believe that itis false.[77] Leo recognizes that thefindings of physical science are not profitable with regards to salvation, muchof the Bible can be regarded as the representation of things in figurativelanguage. The writers of scripture, and the commentators on scriptures, may, indiscussing physical matters, have presented ideas that were current in theirtimes, but which are today recognized as incorrect. Leo is content to leave thefaithful at liberty with regards to dis puted matters....Biblical studies had always been dangerous. Heresies arisingfrom them were as old as Marcion, older indeed than the canon. Many of the mostdistinguished Renaissance biblical scholars, from Erasmus down, hadsubsequently had works condemned in Tridentine times. On the other hand, theCatholic Church could not simply abandon biblical studies to the Protestants --that would be to betray the orthodox tradition stretching back to Papias andincluding all the great doctors of the Church.
In 1893,in his encyclical Providentissimus Dei, Leo XIII had issued a severewarning to the more enterprising scholars. `All those books,' he insisted, `andthose books in their entirety, which the church regards as sacred and canonicalwere written with all their parts under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.Now, far from admitting the coexistence of error, Divine inspiration by itselfexcludes all error, and that also of necessity, since God, the Supreme Truth,must be incapable of teaching error.'
This intolerant statement wasnot followed by any "systematic persecution." That was deferred until the reignof Pius X. Pius in Lamentabile Sani provided his own syllabus ofcondemned errors. Among the propositions condemend was the proposition that"The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural andtheological sciences."[84] Pius, in hisencyclical E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, came out in firm oppositionto rationalism and semi-rationalism. George Tyrell, a convert and a Jesuit, wasexcommunicated for asserting "the right of each age to adjust thehistorico-philosophical expression of Christianity to contemporary certainties,and thus put an end to this utterly needless conflict of between faith andscience which is a mere theological bogey."Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblicalhistory and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name ofGod, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrowhuman thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world: hedenies his faith in the true Christ, such as He appeared in the flesh, theChrist who took His human nature from a people that was to crucify Him; and heunderstands nothing of that universal tragedy of the Son of God who to Historturer's sacrilege opposed the divine and priestly sacrifice of His redeemingdeath, and made the new alliance the goal of the old alliance, its realizationand its crown.[86]
Implicit inPius's denunciation is the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Third Reich. However,he is also attacking the resurgent Marcionism within the Nazi influencedchurches. This had led to the the exclusion of the Old Testament from someBibles published during that era, and to the revision of certain passages inthe New. One such passage was "salvation comes from the Jews," which wasmodified into an anti-Semitic statement.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which hasnot been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains theorigin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheisticopinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribeto this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every ideaof a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate theirdialectical materialism.
Pius asserts that evolutionhas not been proved, but the Pontiff's opinion is also linked to the fear ofCommunism. His rationale is that the emphasis on a purely mechanistic andmaterialistic variety of evolution predisposes one to accept the rationale ofdialectical materialism. These ideas, of course, are not necessarily linked,but Pius seems to envision a "slippery slope" in which men give up the idea ofa personal god, then the idea of any god, and finally embrace the Communistparty....[S]ome go so far as to pervert the sense of the VaticanCouncil's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they putforward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunityfrom error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or ofmoral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of theScriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infalliblemeaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account ofthe Analogy of Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge thedoctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of HolyScripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead ofexplaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ OurLord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinelyrevealed truth.
Further, according to their fictitiousopinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefullyworked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yieldnow to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. Bymeans of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is asealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method,they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those whoadhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
Pius condemns the assertionthat the Bible is not inerrant in matters other than faith and morals, therebyextending to it a greater degree of infallibility than he claimed for himself.his second assertion, referring to the judgment on the Fathers and of theTeaching Church (the magisterium) it would seem that he is condemning what heshould be affirming. The qualification, however, is that the norm of HolyScripture is interpreted by unaided human reason. In other words he iscondemning the idea that the Scripture judges tradition, and asserting thatScripture and tradition are intertwined. This precludes a radicalinterpretation of the Scriptures and asserts that Biblical scholarship takesplace within a hermeneutic tradition.A myth that seems originally to have described the discovery of sexbecame the most profound of accounts of the fall, and the Canaanite celebrationof cosmic and human fertility were transformed into festivals of the covenantbetween the people of Israel and a just and merciful God.
Other incidents and evencertain prophecies would be reinterpreted so that key doctrines are negated.For example, the Greek word parthenos, like the Latin word virgo,refers to a woman's age, not to her experience. The prophecy in Isaiah wouldthen foretell that a young girl would bear a child, not that the young ladywould be a virgin.[92]Pius, towards the end of the encyclical, treats the the relations oof theChurch and "the positive sciences." He asserts that the proposition "that theCatholic religioun take these sciences into account as much is possible" istrue with regard to "clearly proved facts," but that in regard to "hypotheses,having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained inSacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved," such is not necessarily thecase. Pius characterizes these hypotheses as "conjectural opinions," andmaitains that if they conflict with revealed doctrine, "the demand that they berecognized can in no way be admitted."[93]For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does notforbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences andsacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiencedin both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in asfar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming frompre-existent and living matter for the Catholic faith obliges us to holdthat souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such away that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and thoseunfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness,moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to thejudgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpretingauthentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Somehowever, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if theorigin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were alreadycompletely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to nowand by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources ofdivine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in thisquestion.[94]
Pius's decreelimits the areas in which science can inquire. It cannot raise questions aboutthe origin of the soul, nor can it make the assertion that the soul and thebody are the same thing. Further, it imposes the rule of faith over thediscoveries or science. However, it does this because of the underlying sensethat truth, whether biological or religious, is unitary and cannot becontradictory. It has assigned priority, or valorized, the religious dimensionat the expense of the scientific....a figure like a son of man, dressed in a long robe tiesat the waist with a golden girdle. His head and his hair werewhite as white wool or as snow, his eyes like a burning flame ,his feet like burnished bronze when it has been refined in a furnace,and his voice like the sound of the ocean. In his right hand he washolding seven stars, out of his mouth came a sharp sword, double-edged, and hisface was like the sun shining with all its force.
The theory being advanced wasthat the "woolly" nature of the hair referred to its curliness, or kinkiness,and that the "bronze" referred to skin color. The objections to this are: Fundamentalist vs. Accommodationist Attitudes Fundamentalist Accommodationist * Bible is literally true and is * Bible is subject to interpretation and inerrant. must be understood in terms of historical context. * Reason and science must agree with * Reason and science supplement Biblical Bible. truth and do not contradict it when the Bible is properly understood. * Bible is supreme authority and there * There are two sources of knowledge of can be no supplement from science and God. Nature and Revelation. Nature can reason. be known by reason. Revelation can be known only through the action of God in reveal himself. * Frequently Protestant, particularly * Frequently Catholic or liberal the Evangelical variety. Protestant.117 * Acceptance of traditional ascriptions * Openness to the findings of the of Biblical authorship. "Higher Criticism." * Rejection of secular attractions, * Secular attractions are accepted as i.e., the rejection of that which is worthy of pursuit insofar as they do not purely secular in favor of that which is obstruct from the primary purpose of divine. The secular is not necessarily achieving salvation. evil in this view, it is simply a lesser good than the divine. An example is Christ's rejection of the temptation of Athens in Paradise Regained.
Thebasic model that emerges is that the fundamentalist is in search of certainty.This necessitates a rigidity of views in which each element is contingent uponevery other element. If one of these elements is called into question, then thewhole edifice is in danger of collapsing, as we have already said. A collapsed,or rejected faith leaves a vacuum that is filled in one way or another. It maybe filled by rejecting the faith of the fathers completely, and replacing itwith nihilism, or by finding some substitute in which another agency takes theplace of the discredited deity.TheBreakdown of the Biblical Theory
The Bible came under attack as a serious historical and scientific documentwhen discrepancies in its narrative structure were treated as texts that weretransmitted in the ordinary human way. Genesis 1:1-2:4, for example containsone account of the creation of man and woman. There is a separate storybeginning with Genesis 2:5. Rather than accounting for this by postulating ashift in focus, which can happen in single author documents, it was alsonoticed that there was shift in vocabulary. The Hebrew word used to name Godshifted from Elohim to YHVH (currently transcribed as Yahweh). This suggestedthe presence of at least two authors, or two separate traditions.The first five books of the Bible make up a group which known toJews as "The Law" and for many centuries all five of the books were attributedto Moses as the sole or principal author. However, modern study of the textshas revealed a variety of styles, a lack of sequence and such repetitions andvariations in narrative that it is impossible to ascribe the whole group to asingle author; four distinct literary "traditions" can be identified and foundside by side in the Pentateuch. Two of these go back to the time when Israelbecame a nation -- a period dominated by the figure of Moses: the traditions ofearlier times converging on him and the memories of what happened under hisleadership together made up the national epic. One means of distinguishingbetween these two separate strands is their use of different names for God: oneemploys the name Yahweh and is known as the Yahwist [the J strand], theother uses Elohim and is known as the Elohist. The two otheridentifiable written traditions are later: one known as theDeuteronomic, introducing additions and revisions by Levites after the fallof the kingdom of Israel; and one the work of editors after the Exile, known asthe priestly tradition. The Mosaic religion set its enduring seal on thefaith and practice of the nation, and the Mosaic law remained its standard; themodification required by changing conditions over some seven centuries werepresented as interpretations of the mind of Moses and invested themselves withhis authority.[118]
Otherportions of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah, would be subjected to analysis,and it would be found that these books contained signs of multiple authorship.Isaiah, for example, would be found to break down into at least two parts. Thesecond part, deutero-, or second Isaiah would be found to contain the sufferingservant texts and to describe Cyrus of Persia as the Messiah. The editors ofThe Jerusalem Bible find three hands at work in Isaiah. The book can bebroken into three parts that run from 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66.
Illustration of RelationshipsAmong Synoptic Gospels and "Q",[120]
TheEmergence of the Fossil Record
The notion that one can read the history of the earth in its rocks is based onthe idea that there are certain markers in layers of sedimentary rocks thatdistinguish one geological period from another. The existence of the markers inthese strata serves to establish the relative chronology of events. In order toserve as markers the objects, usually fossils, must be unique to each stratum.Thomas Henry Huxley, in one of a series of addresses given to workingmen in1863, gives a useful description of the process of sedimentation.What is the record of the past history of the globe, and what arethe questions which are involved in an inquiry into its completeness orincompleteness? That record is composed of mud; and the question which we haveto investigate this evening resolves itself into a question of the formation ofmud....
How then is mud formed? Always, with sometrifling exception, which I need not consider now -- always, as the result ofthe action of water, wearing down and disintegrating the surface of the earthand rocks with which it comes in contact -- pounding and grinding it down, andcarrying the particles to places where they cease to be disturbed by thismechanical action and where they can subside and rest. For the ocean, urged bywinds, washes, as we know, a long extent of coast, and every wave, loaded as itis with particles of sand and gravel as it breaks upon the shore, doessomething towards the disintegrating process. And thus, slowly by surely, thehardest rocks are gradually ground down to a powdery substance; and the mudthus formed, coarser or fines, as the case may be, is carried by the rush oftides, or currents, till it reaches the comparatively deeper parts of theocean, in which it can sink to the bottom, that is, to parts where there is adepth of about fourteen or fifteen fathoms, a depth at which the water is,usually, nearly motionless, and in which, of course, the finer particles ofthis detritus, or mud as we call it sinks to the bottom.[Opening of this paragraph describing similar effects by rivers isomitted.]...The coarser and heavier fragments are obviously deposited first,that is, as soon as the current begins to lose its force by becomingamalgamated with the stiller depths of the ocean, but the finer and lighterparticles are carried further on, and eventually deposited in a deeper andstiller portion of the ocean.It clearly follows from this that mud gives a chronology, for it is evidentthat supposing this, which I now sketch, to be the sea bottom, and supposingthis to be a coast-line; from the washing action of the sea upon the rock,wearing and grinding it down into a sediment of mud, the mud will be carrieddown, and, at length, deposited in the deeper parts of this sea bottom, whereit will form a layer; and then, while that first layer is hardening, other mudwhich is coming from the same source will, of course, be carried to the sameplace; and, as it is quite impossible for it to get beneath the layer alreadythere, it deposits itself above it, and forms another layer, and in that wayyou gradually have layers of mud constantly forming and hardening one above theother, and conveying a record of time.It is a necessary result of the operation of the law of gravitation that theuppermost layer shall be the youngest and the lowest the oldest, and that thedifferent beds shall be older at any particular point or spot in exactly theration of their depth from the surface. So that if they were upheavedafterwards, and you had a series of these different layers of mud, convertedinto sandstone, or limestone, as the case might be, you might be sure that thebottom layer was deposited first, and that the upper layers were formedafterwards. Here, you see, is the first step in the history -- these layers ofmud give us an idea of time.
In the normal course ofevents the deposit of layers should be as shown in the figure below.
You must all of you be aware -- and I referred to the fact in mylast lecture -- that there are vast numbers of creatures living at the bottomof the sea. These creatures, like all others, sooner or later die, and theirshells and hard parts lie at the bottom; and then the fine mud which is beingconstantly brought down by rivers and the action of the wear and tear of thesea, covers them over and protects them from any further change or alteration;and, of course, as in process of time the mud becomes hardened and solidified,the shells of these animals are preserved and firmly imbedded in the limestoneor sandstone which is being thus formed.
This is the state ofknowledge in the 1860's. Prior to this time, however, fossils were primarily ofinterest to collectors who often found in them evidence of a "plastic virtue"inherent in the earth itself. Robert Hooke's 1668 "Discourse onEarthquakes" regarded them as evidence of action upon the earth and the sea. Fossil Discoveries and Other Events Related to the History of Geology127 American Mastodon Wooly Mammoth Other Fossils Related Events * 1517 -- Discovery of fossilized shells in Verona. Fracastoro finds that they belonged to living animals. * 1552 -- Cardano's De Subtilitate maintains that the presence of the shells in the mountains indicates the former presence of the sea there. * 1574 -- Mercati contends that fossil shells preserved by Pope Sextus V in the Vatican Museum were stones * 1596 -- Cesalpino maintains fossil shells were left by the retiring sea. * 1669 -- Steno's De Solido intra Solidum contento naturaliter records comparison of fossil shells with their modern counterparts. Compares fossilized teeth with those of modern shark. * 1670 -- Scilla reaffirms the Mosaic deluge. * 1676 -- Quirini opposes Scilla on the grounds that water is never disturbed below a certain depth. * 1677 -- Dr. Plot attributes the fossils to plastic forces inherent in the earth. * 1680-1690 -- Publication, in Latin, of Burnet's "Theory of the Earth." * 1680 -- Leibnitz publishes Protogaæ. He maintains earth was originally a molten mass and that it has lost much of its original heat. * 1695 -- Discovery in Siberia * 1705 -- Posthumous publication of Hooke's "A Discourse of Earthquakes." Hooke recognizes that the fossil shells are the remnants of extinct species. Also recognizes that existence of fossilized turtles in Portland means that England was once tropical. * 1707 -- New island arises in the Mediterranean near Santorino. * 1708 -- Scheuchzer's Complaint of the Fishes asserts that the earth was remodelled as a result of the deluge. * 1714 -- Cotton Mather records a find near Albany. * 1721 -- Vallisneri asserts that the ocean once covered all of Italy * 1728 -- Sir Hans Sloane's description of bones found in Siberia. * 1737 -- Description by Breyne of Siberian bones. * 1739 -- Find near the Ohio river. * 1740 -- Lazzoro Moro publishes On the Marine Bodies which are found in the Mountains. Explains "geological phenomena described by Vallisneri" as being due to earthquakes.128 * 1749 -- Cirillo Generilli, an Italian Carmelite, explains, to a body of academicians in Cremona, how the fossils came to be deposited in the mountains. His explanation is "Senza violenza, senza finzioni, senza supposti, senza miracoli."129 * Buffon publishes his views on the history of the earth. Ignores the views of Hooke, Ray, Moro, and returns to those of Leibnitz. * 1751 -- Buffon is forced to recant his views by the authorities of the Sorbonne. * 1761 -- * 1761 -- The Rev. Comparison of John M