By Ken Mann
The question is asked in different ways. Are religion and science compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer depends on what one has properly defined as the meaning of science and faith. Critics of Christianity claim, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and use Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We are told that Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the rest of his life, because of the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “…a clash of ideas—between scientific claims fervently held by a small group of reformers, on the one hand, and the opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition, on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church opposed it.[2] . To explain how Christianity and science are compatible today, the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for better or worse, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo issue was not about science, but rather, about the authority of the Catholic Church in how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and beleaguered institution, yet the conflict was not about truth per se, but about control.
This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. As for myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, namely that during his trial, Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As for complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque simplification to claim that this incident represents the fight between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a lot about the conflicts in our day between theological and scientific authorities.
To understand these 17th century events, it is worth taking a step back and understanding the state of cosmology.[3] At that time, the Church and much of Europe had, from about the 13th century onwards, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. Aristotle’s works had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and eventually integrated into the teaching of the Church.
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was motionless. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around the earth in celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, unchanging perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] . Aristotle’s vision of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology, finding agreement with the passages that indicate that the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1 Chronicles 16:30).[5] ) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the 2nd century, Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the cosmos that would explain the observed motions of the planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprint of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.
In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic Church. It provoked little more than a whimper. In fact, it was Galileo’s writing and agitation, 73 years later, that resulted in Copernicus’ work being placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] . From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not provoke the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the motions of the various celestial bodies.
Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomer in the 16th century argued, at least forcefully or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument for heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. Predictions made by Copernicus’s model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo began using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. Using an eight-power instrument, he began making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launched him into the public spotlight as a proponent of heliocentrism. As Galileo attempted to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible had to be discussed in light of observations that supported heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the biblical text pushes these boundaries, addressing matters that are within the reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would do well to examine the demonstrative arguments of natural scientists and philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas on exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616, the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8] .
Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical, and was not to be retained or defended.”[9] Galileo was not charged with any crime, but the decision of the Inquisition put an end to his campaign in the name of heliocentrism.
By 1623, with the rise of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo, and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism , as long as he treated it as a mere hypothesis. By the time Galileo completed the ” Dialogue” on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond simply debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “…nothing less than a powerful argument in the name of the undoubted truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the “truth” of his conclusions.”[10] , Despite having gone through the proper channels within the Church before publishing Dialogue , the reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his general treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “…a stupid Aristotelian who laughed at dialogue”[11] , expressed the same arguments that Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting in which the pontiff “…exploded with great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The Pope believed that Galileo had misled him, since he clearly did not consider heliocentrism as a hypothesis.
Furthermore, in the character of Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.
Alienating the Pope with such obvious insubordination was perhaps the least of Galileo’s problems. Since the Dialogue clearly advocated the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to Scripture.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’s book from being printed, but also stated that “…all other books teaching the same tendency are prohibited, since the present Decree prohibits, condemns, and suspends all of them respectively.”[12] , The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the archives of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which stated that the General Commissioner of the Holy Office had given Galileo a specific injunction to “renounce entirely” his acceptance of heliocentrism and no longer “hold, teach or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] , Due to the weight of all this evidence, Galileo was put on trial in Rome in April 1633.
Having set the stage in terms of historical context, let us begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, the things once assumed to be true, now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in “Dialogue” and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority . [15].
In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those on trial never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept, including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from Urban VIII, the sentencing document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The Pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two elements of the prayer document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to a “rigorous examination” (also known as torture)[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition in Rome for an indefinite period of time.
If the sentence and abjuration had been the only known documents, the imprisonment and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained in the historical record.
However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador in Rome were made public in the late 18th century and the publication of the Inquisition records of Galileo’s trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records prove quite conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that physical torture ever occurred. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility, but it never actually occurred. Furthermore, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As for Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30, there were only three days left in June where Galileo could have been imprisoned. The remainder of his time in Rome was spent either at the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or in the 6-room apartment of the fiscal. After spending 5 months at the archbishop’s house in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.
Moving away from blatant myths, we now turn to the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be divided into two categories. First, there are four factors, generally misunderstood from a modern perspective, that prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with the Church.
The first problem that prevented the widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science, rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo made at the time supported the heliocentric view, but were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the heliocentric hypothesis was true, but there was insufficient evidence to overturn more than 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.
Secondly, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not Herculean enough, Galileo’s purpose was made seemingly impossible by his arrogant and impulsive behavior. He was normally far more effective at making enemies than friends. Many experts assume that, in Galileo’s trial, his fate was in some sense assured by the various enemies he had made in the years before 1633. David Lindberg concludes: “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that, had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo could have conducted a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21] .
A third impediment that Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available through human capacities for sense and reason? Is it found only in Scripture? Is it a combination of the two? The prevailing view of Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, not available to the natural sciences. The nature of the heavenly realm was divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were simply models used to predict the locations of the planets; they were mathematical instruments and were not intended to be descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument for heliocentrism went far beyond the debate over which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he challenged conventional wisdom, not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available in the Bible.
Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority clashed quite violently with the post-Reformation Catholic Church’s stance on the interpretation of Scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of Scripture said in part:
The Council decrees that, in questions of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Holy Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to the sense to which Holy Mother Church, to which it belongs, judges its sense and meaning, sustains it and maintains it, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. [22].
The reasoning inspired by Galileo’s two books was not without the support of the Church, however, and the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going to defend its authority in matters related to cosmology.
In addition to the obstacles that impeded the acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair was treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this claim, consider the following: each of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and were able to present rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Furthermore, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreeing with Galileo, others not.
From the scientific perspective, among astronomy experts, heliocentrism was not a widespread opinion. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo case as a conflict within science and religion.[23] .
In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over Church authority, not a scientific debate. Given the Church’s stance on who can interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament advocating heliocentrism, a clash was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one-sentence summary: “The trial was for flagrant disobedience and insubordination: the issues raised in the 1616 decree were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reaffirmed.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when compared to the centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be dismissed simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus, and science suffered as a result.
Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging past events through the lens of present-day knowledge and sensibilities. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the available evidence and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery that we should avoid is condemning the Church for the way it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:
“The beginning of the 17th century was a time of increasing absolutism in Europe, both in religious and political terms. Freedom to express dangerous ideas was not so easy, as they would not be defended in the same way in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on the general principles of freedom of expression was not defended by anyone at the time, and police and judicial restrictions were therefore unavoidable realities.”[25] .
Another important lesson is to avoid rigid and simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories as “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are substitutes for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at stake. It was not simply a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be regarded as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The error we perceive in looking back is to extend that control over matters of cosmology.
In our modern age, it is widely believed that we have developed a stage where true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe that we are no longer at the mercy of any human bureaucracy or institution for knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was put on trial not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the only authority (the Church) to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the primary (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for humanity. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have simply switched roles over the past 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are caught in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Neo-Darwinism is dogmatically adhered to as the sole explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film “Expelled” and numerous intelligent design blogs, those who advocate dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus are punished, not by torture or imprisonment, but by the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.
Literature
Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Grades
[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.
[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105.Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.
[3] Cosmology is the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.
[4] It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that, in ancient Greek cosmology, the Earth was the sink of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.
[5] Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Sylleptic (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.
[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.
[7] Ibid., 46.
[8] Ibid., 47.
[9] Ibid., 49.
[10] Ibid., 51.
[11] Ibid., 52.
[12] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 4.
[13] Blackwell (Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, page 6) claims that the specific memo was fraudulent in some way. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but that it was altered to write Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.
[14] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 5.
[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.
[16] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 7.
[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.
[18] Ibid., Kindle Locations 768–775.
[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.
[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun moving around the earth, however all the planets orbited the sun.
[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.
[22] Ibid., 45.
[23] Ibid., 58.
[24] Ibid., 54.
[25] Ibid., 59.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AK2b30
Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Who were the Neanderthals?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Frank interviews Dr. Fazale Rana the vice president of research and apologetics at Reason to Believe, a brilliant biochemist on the question “Who were the Neanderthals?.” They also talk about common descent, homology, DNA and the “God of the gaps objection. Don’t miss this fascinating program loaded with insightful scientific details.
Is Genesis History?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
A couple of years ago the documentary “Is Genesis History?” was released. This documentary aims to defend the truth of the Christian worldview by defending the historicity of the early chapters of the Bible from a scientific perspective. The documentary attempts to accomplish this by demonstrating evidence in support of intelligent design and a young (~6000 years old) creation. As those who follow this blog know, I do not hold to the view that the universe is 6000 years old, as Del Tackett and the other contributors to “Is Genesis History?” do, yet I affirm the historicity and scientific accuracy of the Genesis accounts of origins.
Because many people (including those in this documentary) believe that the historicity of these early chapters and a young earth interpretation of them cannot be separated, a friend has asked me to offer some comments in the way of clarifying this common misunderstanding and some other concerns in the movie. There is much unnecessary confusion and heat in the Church concerning the debate over origins, so I am hoping to provide a charitable critique in the context of Christian unity and love.
Areas Of Agreement
Since this post will focus primarily on some points of disagreement, I do want to start with what I agree with that was presented in the documentary. First, obviously, we agree that the Christian worldview accurately describes reality (is true). That alone means that our agreements outnumber our disagreements dramatically; we are brothers and sisters in Christ, part of one Body, neither greater nor lesser in the Kingdom or more or less useful in the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 12).
Second, there are actually numerous areas specifically related to origins that we do agree upon. A couple of years ago I wrote a post that lists out 40 of these points of agreement on origins: What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins? It is important to keep these points of agreement in mind so that as unbelievers view our behavior towards one another in the midst of disagreement, they will see love and reconciliation in Christ modeled. As Dr. Hugh Ross states in his latest book “Always Be Ready: A Call to Adventurous Faith“:
Third, we agree on the inerrancy of Scripture. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17); thus it is true in all that it affirms. We also agree upon the authority of Scripture. All disagreements are not regarding what Scripture is or its authority in our lives but rather on what it means in the particular areas of disagreement (disagreement on meaning in one area does not necessitate disagreement on meaning in another).
Fourth, there were many things explicitly said throughout the documentary that I also find strong agreement with. These agreements range from agreements about the failure of high criticism to the denial of common ancestry. As I was taking notes while watching, I kept a running list of these agreements, and here it is (with links to my reviews of books that dive deeper into a defense of the particular item):
Finally, as a computer technologist, I was excited to hear that Del Tackett’s formal training was as a computer scientist. I really was hoping that he was going to bring our field into the documentary in support of God as the Intelligent Creator (there are many areas where computer science can be appealed to argue for a beginner, a designer, free agency, and the validity of cumulative cases, just to name a few). Unfortunately, he did not, but I do hope that he does in a future documentary. Check out “The Programming of Life” for an example of one of these arguments.
Now, as I mentioned in the introduction, there are several areas regarding origins which I believe “Is Genesis History” got wrong. I am going to attempt to keep my explanations short in this post because there are quite a few, so the case that I present for each inaccuracy is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is still meant to be sound. I will include links to articles and/or books throughout for further investigation. I have categorized the disagreements into three different categories for easy location later if you want to refer to this post in the future. Let’s begin with the philosophical issues.
Philosophical Issues
False Dichotomy
At the very beginning of the documentary, it is proposed that only two options exist regarding origins: either naturalism or a young-earth creationist view. Because of the fact that they intend to investigate an important historical event, it is important that they do not preclude any options before their investigation even begins. If an investigation reveals that neither option is viable, then what is the Christian to do? Because of this drastic philosophical mistake from the beginning of the film, if a Christian is ever convinced that the universe is ancient, then it is implied (if not explicit) that the creators of the film believe that the logically consistent person must reject Christ as well. However, other views do exist, so when a Christian sees the compelling evidence from God’s creation that it testifies to an ancient universe, there is no need to jettison Christ or even the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.
Old earth creationism as proposed by Reasons to Believe holds firmly to the historicity of the Gospels and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis and does not fall by the fatal critiques against either naturalism or young earth creationism. Contrary to what is implied at the beginning of “Is Genesis History,” rejection of young-earth creationism does not logically necessitate rejection of the historicity of the life, death, and bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (see “Origin Science: A Proposal For The Creation/Evolution Controversy“), and a rejection of young-earth creationism is not a compromise of truth but a compromise of falsehood, which is precisely our goal- reject falsehood and follow the evidence from God’s creation exactly where it leads. If you are interested in the evidence for a historical reading of Genesis and the gospels, check out these awesome books:
Logical Fallacy- Hasty Generalization
In the documentary, Tackett and the contributors make the logical mistake of arguing that since quick processes created a few things (some geologic formations) that they created all things (all geologic formations). This is problematic for two reasons. First, it is a logical fallacy, so it invalidates their conclusion that the Flood of Noah is responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon (and all other geological features). Second, in this argument, they assume that old earth creation models allow for only slow processes, when in fact they allow both slow and quick processes. If the young earth creationist finds solid evidence for a quick process, that evidence is perfectly compatible with an ancient earth. The task before the young earth creationist is to provide solid evidence that the other formations also came about by a geographically global flood. In fact, when the evidence of these long processes is examined in the context of each other, we see powerful evidence of a grand orchestrated project culminating in a home for humanity (see “Improbable Planet; How Earth Became Humanity’s Home“).
Logical Fallacy- Conflation
Perhaps the first issue described above is the result of the fallacy of conflation. Naturalism and an ancient universe are not the same. Naturalism is a philosophical position that denies the existence of anything outside this universe. An ancient universe simply is a measurement of the amount of time that has passed since the creation event. Through the use of this conflation, the argument is made that since naturalism is false so must any view that holds that the universe is ancient. Because the argument employs the use of a fallacy, its conclusion is invalid. Naturalism can be false while the universe is ancient, and the same evidence that has forced scientists to concede a finite (but ancient) universe is the same evidence that argues powerfully for God as Creator and Designer. See these three books:
Philosophy of Science- Investigating the Past
It is quite common for young-earth creationists to claim that the past cannot be known with any level of certainty like the present can be. According to “Is Genesis History” present processes cannot be used to figure out what happened in the past. If they affirm Jeremiah 33:25-26, then they affirm that the laws of physics are as unchanging as God is. This is important because the past can be known by observing the present and using this “principle of uniformity” (not uniformitarianism- they are different), we can deductively conclude what has happened in the past. By working our way backward in time, using God’s actions (current observations) and God’s words (Jeremiah 33:25-26), we discover that the universe did not reach its point of creation 6000 or even 10,000 years ago. Rather it goes all the way back to roughly 13.8 billion years ago. God’s creation testifies powerfully of its creation out of nothing (affirming the historicity of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of Genesis along the way). See these articles and book for more on this philosophy of science:
Philosophy of Science- Changed Laws of Physics
In the above section, I mentioned that the incorrect philosophy of science may be corrected by simply affirming Jeremiah 33:25-26 (unchanging laws of physics). However, several times throughout the film, changing laws of physics were affirmed (specifically at the Fall of Adam and Eve). This is problematic for numerous theological and philosophical reasons, the least of which is the unknowability of the past (thus they cannot even critique alternative views based on evidence from the creation) and possibly the worst of which is denying God’s unchanging nature that He explicitly compared to the laws of physics (and in turn, denying the doctrine of biblical inerrancy). For more on the details of this issue see the book “Peril in Paradise.”
Since that last issue addresses both a philosophical and a theological issue, it provides a good segue into the second category of issues.
Theological Issues
Nature Cannot Interpret Scripture
This issue can also be seen as both philosophical and theological. When it is restated, the theological implications become more apparent: “God’s actions cannot be used to interpret God’s words.” This is the result of denying Jeremiah 33:25-26 (affirming changed laws of physics). For changed laws of physics means that the creation does not reflect God’s actions. However, since God has told us that the current observations of the universe do reflect His original creation (Jeremiah 33:25-26, Psalm 19, and Romans 1), we cannot deny that God’s actions can be used to interpret His words. Affirming that God’s actions (the creation) can be used to interpret God’s words (Scripture) is not a matter of “man’s fallible ideas versus God’s infallible Word,” rather it is a matter of affirming that God’s infallible actions are necessarily consistent with God infallible Word. And when God’s actions unequivocally reveal an ancient universe, we need to change our interpretation of what God’s Word in Genesis means to reflect His actions and not our fallible ideas. See the following three articles that go deeper into the relationship between God’s Word and God’s actions:
Christians Who Disagree With Young-Earth Creationism Are Denying Genesis Is Historical
By using God’s creation to help us interpret His words (thus concluding an ancient universe), we are not denying the historicity of the Genesis account; we are affirming its historic and scientific accuracy and our own fallibility in interpreting the words and actions of an infallible God. In fact, when Genesis 1 is interpreted from the proper perspective (the surface of the planet, according to Genesis 1:2), we discover perfect alignment between the events described in Genesis 1 and what scientists have discovered about the history of our planet and life. This is far from denying historical accuracy; this is providing solid scientific evidence of the historical accuracy of the account. For more on this, see these books:
A Global Flood and the Judgment of Sin
In “Is Genesis History” the contributors asserted that the only way that God’s judgment (the whole purpose of Noah’s Flood) is that it be global in extent. The purpose was to judge humanity for its evil, so its geographical extent need only be to everywhere that humans had inhabited. The debate about the geographical extent of the flood comes down to the extent to which humans had migrated around the globe. If they had not migrated far from the place of Adam’s and Eve’s creation, then God could still accomplish His purpose 100% by merely flooding that geographical area. Given the strong evidence for the lack of migration of early humans (see Who Was Adam) and the fact that no geological evidence exists for a worldwide flood (see the Hasty Generalization above), the interpretation of the Flood as a universal event (affected all humanity but not the whole globe) affirms both the historicity of the Flood account (God’s words) and the accuracy of the record of nature (God’s actions). See “Navigating Genesis” for more on this.
Scientific Issues
Evolution Can Take Place in Billions of Years
The first scientific issue that I want to describe with is the idea that naturalistic evolution can produce the origin (and diversity) of life we see today in just billion years. As more and more research is conducted into the cosmic, galactic, planetary, geological, and chemical conditions required just for life to originate, 13.8 billion years is actually numerous orders of magnitude too young! This is one of the reasons why the big bang (establishes that the universe began merely 14 billion years ago) was so vociferously opposed. Since the evidence is so strong for the universe’s beginning (ex nihilo) in the finite past (see “Creator and the Cosmos“), naturalists have attempted to exponentially increase their chronological resources by positing a multiverse (which includes a near-infinite number of universes) to accommodate the necessity for amounts of time orders of magnitude more than 13.8 billion years.
Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) constantly accuse scientists and other Christians, who hold to an ancient universe, of needing 13.8 billion years to accommodate evolutionary processes. The reality is that that is simply not the reason. The evolutionary process is simply not that efficient by many orders of magnitude. It is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination! The only reason naturalists have accepted that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old is because the evidence from God’s creation (Romans 1) is so strong that they can no longer deny it logically or scientifically (again, see “Creator and the Cosmos“). If anyone tells you that the old earth creationist needs or is trying to force 13.8 billion years into the Bible to accommodate evolution, please understand that they really do not understand just how inefficient the evolutionary process is. See “A Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy” for more on this chronological impossibility for evolution.
Affirmation of Macro-Evolution
One of the major problems with the global flood hypothesis is Noah fitting all the different animals on the ark. The diversity we see today could not be represented if there was a one to one representation. Global flood proponents, including in “Is Genesis History” have posited that all animals descended from a collection of ancestral “kinds” that were on the ark. They believe this process was either fully naturalistic or could have been theistic (preloaded into the genes at original creation). Several problems exist.
First, “kind” can be roughly comparative to either “genus” or “family.” While creationists (old earth and young earth) believe that micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) does happen and speciation (evolution from one species to another) is possible, they believe that evolution beyond this level crosses into macro-evolution (evolution from genus to genus or family to family) and either does not happen or is impossible. Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) are quite critical of both naturalistic and theistic macro-evolutionary models for numerous reasons. These same reasons serve to falsify their own affirmation of macro-evolution.
Second, even naturalists and theistic evolutionists understand that the macro-evolutionary process would be slow and not as quick as the global flood proponent would need to explain today’s observed diversity. The global flood proponent would have to posit not just a mechanism that they already claim to have falsified but one that works at orders of magnitude more quickly. If a process is not possible, speeding it up does not make it more possible. It would also be akin to punctuated equilibrium- one of the evolutionary answers to sudden appearances of animals in the Cambrian and Avalon explosions. The proposed solution to the diversity problem will not work by any standard. See “Navigating Genesis” and “Peril in Paradise” for more on this issue with the necessity of global flood proponents to affirm macro-evolution.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Affirm A Young Earth
In “Is Genesis History” one of the proposed evidences to defeat an ancient universe and earth (and cause doubt about other dating methods) is the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue. This is a really cool discovery that has been in the news for a few years now and has spurred on much more scientific inquiry. The idea behind this evidence is that, by current understandings of soft tissue degradation, the dinosaur soft tissue should have decayed a long time ago, if they had been dead for 60+ million years. The discovery of dinosaur soft tissue adds a huge question mark behind two beliefs: the date of the dinosaurs’ death and the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes. In “Is Genesis History,” they posit that the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes is complete and that scientists should rather doubt the ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs (and affirm a young earth).
The problem is that this is only one piece of evidence that seems inconsistent with current dating (among many pieces of evidence that falsify a young creation), so scientists have opened up more research into decay processes for soft tissue. These have been quite fruitful in producing discoveries of multiple conditions that would result in longer decay times. As biochemist Fazale Rana describes in his book “Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth,” these newly discovered conditions defeat the claim that soft tissue is incompatible with an ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs. So, this evidence, contrary to what those in “Is Genesis History” claim, it does not provide evidence against an ancient universe or earth. But again, as described above, this does not mean that Genesis is not history; it just means that the young earth interpretation is not accurate.
Conclusion
So, is Genesis history? Yes! But the history recorded in Genesis does not teach that the universe is only 6000 years old. While the answer to the title question of the documentary is in the affirmative, one does not have to accept the scientific, biblical, theological, and philosophical inaccuracies in the “Is Genesis History” documentary to believe that Genesis is history. In fact, when investigated, we find that the historical record in Genesis is perfectly compatible with modern scientific discoveries of God’s creation. What secular scientists are discovering about God’s actions is revealing more details of the general events that Moses recorded thousands of years ago. Moses had no way to know such things (especially since he was in the middle of an ancient near eastern culture that held to the eternal past of the universe and its lack of design and purpose [see “The Bible Among The Myths“]). This provides powerful evidence that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe, and consequently, such evidence points directly to the truth of biblical claims about our sinfulness and need for a Savior. The reality of the antiquity of the universe (and big bang cosmology, properly understood) does not undermine Christianity; it provides solid evidence, from God’s own actions (creation) for the truth of the Bible, that no Christian should fear or be reluctant to affirm.
If you are ready to explore God’s creation and see how, as Romans 1:20 proclaims, God’s attributes are so evident in His work that skeptical scientists cannot escape public acknowledgment of them, definitely pick up any of the many books linked to in this post or check out these excellent ministries:
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DTwnfz
The Christian’s Response to Cultural Change
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy V. T. Clark
Daniel was a young man when his world changed.
The world Daniel knew and grew up in changed to a world contrary to his culture and his faith. Christians today find themselves not immune to the shifting cultural changes of society. With this brings personal and communal challenges of what is the Christian response and role in culture. It becomes vital figuring out how to respond to culture with a stance in Apologetics, through actions reflecting Christ and standing firm in the faith.
One response could be disengagement. However, as Chuck Colson wrote in “How Now Shall We Live?” Christians should not shy away from culture, but be prepared to minister, serve, and share the Gospel. Disengagement from the culture is not a best response nor should it be a choice. Instead, as Christians, what needs to be done is finding ways to engage and live within society as Daniel did, but without compromising Biblical values. This is a fine line to walk, but the reality is Christians must live and interact within the society and culture.
Although Daniel could have tried to escape with repercussions, he becomes an example of courage and steadfastness in a culture different from his own. When offered food considered defiling (Daniel 1:8-16), rather than compromise, Daniel relied on his faith in God. God’s response for Daniel’s faithfulness was favor not only in God’s eye but through later circumstances the king’s so Daniel was given opportunities to display in words and actions, credit to God.
For Christians, Daniel’s responses to his world is an example of the Christian response to modern day culture. While Daniel did not have a say in where he lived, he did have a choice in how he would respond to society and culture. Likewise, so do Christians and one form at a believer’s use is in the form of apologetics. Mary Jo Sharp writes in, “Living in Truth” apologetics is, “making a case for belief in the Christian God, which includes answering objections to belief in God.” This echoes 1 Peter 3:15 of being prepared like Daniel to give reason and why to belief in God. For those unfamiliar with apologetics, there are Bible studies geared toward teaching believers not only how to share their belief, but even how to defend their belief. Daniel use every opportunity to credit God and use those moments to be a testament in his faith in God.
Paul, in the book of Acts, interacted with diverse groups of people in a form of apologetics where though the message of the Gospel stayed the same, he considered how he interacted with society and the culture. There are many ways to handle the encounters without changing the message. Tim Muehlhoff argues the greatest skills for Christian is not in debating but recognizing and affirming God’s truth through conversations with people and how Christians engage others in their daily lives. The challenge is engaging in culture while not being part of culture (John 17:13-19). Obviously, Daniel was facing more extreme situations where he had little if any say in his life. However, like Daniel, he showed the struggles for us as Christians, being under pressure to conform to society and culture without compromising values and belief.
Those who follow Christ are called to shed light on the Gospel to the world. (John 17:15). There is the reality though not to be too influenced by the world. (James 1:27; 1 Corinthians 7:31; Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15). One solution is suggested by Dr. Jim Eckman for believers to evaluate how they speak the language of Christianity in a relativistic world. This also brings the need to do heart checks and determine if one’s faith and even actions line up with Christ. A favorite quote from Francis Schaeffer is:
“We are not excused from speaking, just because the culture and society no longer rest as much as they once did in on Christian thinking. Moreover, Christians do not need to be in the majority to influence society.”
Daniel was one man, but he held fast to God, and by obedience, he followed God. The same can be said for modern Christian engaging others in an increasingly secular world. Reality, this can make casual conversations and daily interactions sometimes a complex manner. The concept of what is truth is becoming more convoluted and with it changing definitions of even what is tolerance. Christians are supposed to be counter-culture. John Lennox saw post-modernism having within itself a self-contradiction of “no absolute truth” while the Christian finds themselves sharing truth seen through the eyes of God.
When looking at how Daniel handle his response to a changing society and culture, what is found is a core commitment to God. While the Christian finds themselves immerse in day to day engagement with people in real life or even on social media there is a point of conflict when the two worlds meet. Apologetics calls for sharing the truth of God’s world which is a contrast to a pluralistic world where sometimes the prevailing idea is “live and let live.” For the Christian, this is not biblical and laced with grey areas of morality not founded on biblical truth.
Apologetics is about finding common ground to be able to engage in conversations where the message of the Gospel can be interlaced in conversation. It is easy to react to a post-modern society without grace or think culture is useless, but Theodore Turneau countered like Paul, use culture in a way to connect with non-believers without compromising the message. Disengagement from society and even culture will not help discussions. Disengaging can be detrimental or even argued contrary to the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:19-20). Every day brings with it new challenges to those who follow and believe in Christ. The challenge then lies in the Christian understanding more what is their role in society and culture and how to engage in the community in a way which reflects Christ.
Notes
Charles W. Colson.”How now shall we live?” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 5, no. 1, 2002, p. 287+.
Dr. Jim Eckman. “Culture and the Christian: Separate, Identify or Transform? – Issues In Perspective.” Issues In Perspective. 31 Dec. 2011. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/12/11-12-31-1/.
James A. Patterson. “Cultural Pessimism In Modern Evangelical Thought: Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, And Charles Colson,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 4 (December 2006): 813.
Mary Jo Sharp. Living in Truth: Confident Conversation in a Conflicted Culture by Mary Jo Sharp (September 26, 2015). Lifeway Christia
V. T. Clark is a graduate student via Houston Baptist University Online graduate program. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Christian Ministry with a minor in Biblical Studies from Liberty University. She’s currently part of HBU Chapter of Ratio Christi at Houston Baptist University, as well as a writer for By Grace, In Faith. V. T. Clark is a member of CAA: Christian Apologetics Alliance and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Married to a Combat Marine Veteran, she is dedicated to apologetics, theology, and biblical studies.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ABma49
Do You Know What’s True And Can You Handle It?
1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alex McElroy
People will always settle for a feel-good lie until the truth is fully presented. What is true about your nature, your identity, and your purpose? What criteria do you use to assess what’s true? We live in a day and an age when the truth has migrated from the boundaries of objectivity into the fluid realm of preference. If it is possible for two individuals to live by separate truths, even if one of those truths is not actually true, we are content with the ramifications as long as no one’s truth harms the other person.
However, is it possible to live in a world where we no longer know what to trust or even how to determine the standard to assess what we should trust? How can we rear our children in such a world where what we teach today may not be palatable tomorrow and therefore deemed as ‘not true’? Do you truly know who you are? Is that something that can be known? Is it possible that there is only One who has the potential to know all of us equally and perfectly? I believe so, but many will say that the existence of such a One is not true at all.
TRUTH IS A PERSON
Many people make audacious statements. We are left to decipher them and determine which are valid and which are mere boasts. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6a). In John 18:37, Jesus is talking to Pontius Pilate and says, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” First, we must notice that Jesus didn’t claim to know the truth. He claimed to be the truth. Only in the Christian worldview is truth not simply a concept, but a person. This cannot be overstated. The claim is significant but can it be trusted?
By rising from the grave after being fully executed, Jesus demonstrated in undeniable fashion that He was telling the truth about everything He said, including His claim to “be” the truth. Some deny the resurrection, but how do they account for the inexplicable conversion of Saul to Paul or of Jesus’ half-brothers Jude and James who mocked His claims to be the Messiah (John 7:3-6) but later became faithful followers of Him? The tomb is still empty, and over 500 saw a resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:6). Is it possible that some are still willing to settle for a ‘feel good’ lie because they aren’t prepared to deal with the ramifications of the clear and present truth? Do you know the truest person to ever live?
TRUTH IS IN YOUR PURPOSE
The poet above asks God, “Is it true, O Christ in Heaven, that the fullness yet to come is so glorious and so perfect that to know would strike us dumb?” The apostle Paul writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:16-17). Yes, the fullness yet to come will be glorious, and we may very well be awestricken, but until then we have a purpose to fulfill.
“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands” (Psalm 138:8). The truth is that you and I have a purpose for being here. How we got here is irrelevant as are many of the unanswerable questions that we ask in this life. But we must remember that our forever has already begun, and our purpose is for such a time as this. The role you and I play in advancing His holy plan can only be played well if we adhere to what is true and live our lives accordingly.
He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him alright. – Blaise Pascal
Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RnSZsm
The Most Destructive Idea
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
PODCAST
Rigid adherence to scientism—as opposed to a healthy respect for science—is all too prevalent in our world today. Rather than leading to a deeper understanding of our universe, this worldview actually undermines real science and marginalizes morality and religion.
In this interview, celebrated philosopher J. P. Moreland exposes the self-defeating nature of scientism and equips us to recognize scientism’s harmful presence in different aspects of culture, emboldening our witness to biblical Christianity and arming us with strategies for the integration of faith and science—the only feasible path to genuine knowledge. Yes, this is a podcast you cannot miss!
Get the book: http://a.co/d/8VSY4SO
Lógica 07: Prueba Condicional, Prueba Indirecta y Reductio ad Absurdum
EspañolEn este apartado quisiera hablar sobre tres tipos de pruebas para demostrar la validez de un argumento.
PRUEBA CONDICIONAL
La prueba condicional (CP) sirve para demostrar que, si damos por cierto algo, entonces ciertas conclusiones se siguen. CP solo puede ser utilizada en argumentos cuyas conclusiones sean proposiciones condicionales. Veamos el siguiente argumento:
Ahora apliquemos la regla por prueba condicional. Para eso debemos colocar nuestra conclusión en el mismo reglón de la premisa anterior, colocando una diagonal para indicar que se va a realizar la demostración por prueba condicional a partir del siguiente reglón, por lo que debemos indicarlo colocando CP entre paréntesis. Veamos:
Como puedes ver, lo que ocurre con la prueba condicional, es tratar al antecedente de ∴ P → U como una premisa asumida, en este caso P. Es como decir: “Supongamos que P es verdadera, ¿entonces qué? Veamos un último ejemplo:
Supongamos ahora que queremos demostrar la verdad de S a partir de P. Con nuestras veinte reglas de inferencia hasta al momento aprendidas no es posible hacer eso, por lo que tenemos que usar la regla por prueba condicional.
De esta manera podemos demostrar proposiciones condicionales usando la prueba condicional.
PRUEBA POR REDUCCIÓN AL ABSURDO (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM)
La prueba condicional por reductio ad absurdum (RAA) nos dice que, si alguna premisa se supone verdadera e implica una contradicción, entonces la premisa es un absurdo, por lo que debe ser rechazada.
La forma de proceder para este argumento es muy sencilla. Primero se parte de una(s) premisa(s) en las que ambas partes están de acuerdo. Luego añades una premisa condicional la cual el oponente también está de acuerdo, pero que tú crees que es falsa. Luego das por supuesta dicha premisa y utilizando las reglas de inferencia ya conocidas llegarás a una conclusión que es contradictoria. Veamos un ejemplo:
Como puedes ver, a partir de la presuposición de (4) llegamos a una contradicción (7), por lo que concluimos que su contrario es verdadero.
DEMOSTRACIÓN INDIRECTA
El método de demostración o prueba indirecta (IP) para un argumento dado es similar al reductio ad absurdum, la diferencia radica en que este se construye agregando como premisa adicional la negación de la conclusión en cuestión y deduciendo entonces una contradicción. En otras palabras, por medio de la prueba indirecta, lo que se busca es confirmar la validez de nuestro argumento al demostrar que, si negamos la conclusión y llegamos a una contradicción, entonces quiere decir que su contrario, nuestra conclusión original, es verdadera. Veamos un ejemplo:
Como puedes ver, dado que (8) implica una contradicción, entonces la negación de nuestra conclusión debe ser falsa, por lo que nuestra conclusión original es verdadera.
Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Disfruta estudiando filosofía y lingüística. Actualmente trabaja como Director de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
Galileo y la Iglesia Católica
EspañolBy Ken Mann
The question is asked in different ways. Are religion and science compatible? Are science and faith in conflict? The answer depends on what one has properly defined as the meaning of science and faith. Critics of Christianity claim, based on history, that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion and use Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition as an “example” of the conflict. We are told that Galileo was tortured, forced to recant his belief in a heliocentric universe, and imprisoned for the rest of his life, because of the heresy of advocating heliocentrism. This paper will address how aspects of this narrative are false and others are misleading. Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been described as “…a clash of ideas—between scientific claims fervently held by a small group of reformers, on the one hand, and the opposing theological doctrines supported by centuries of church tradition, on the other.”[1] Galileo is described as a martyr of science because the Catholic Church opposed it.[2] . To explain how Christianity and science are compatible today, the Christian apologist must be able to explain how, for better or worse, they have interacted in the past. Over the course of this paper, we will see that the Galileo issue was not about science, but rather, about the authority of the Catholic Church in how to interpret the Bible. The nascent disciplines of astronomy and cosmology suffered at the hands of an entrenched and beleaguered institution, yet the conflict was not about truth per se, but about control.
This paper addresses the myths, complexities, and lessons we can learn from Galileo’s trial. As for myths, there are two aspects accepted by history that are in fact false, namely that during his trial, Galileo was tortured and that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As for complexity, there were many different factors at play that ultimately culminated in Galileo’s trial. It is simply a grotesque simplification to claim that this incident represents the fight between science and theological doctrines. Finally, we can learn a lot about the conflicts in our day between theological and scientific authorities.
To understand these 17th century events, it is worth taking a step back and understanding the state of cosmology.[3] At that time, the Church and much of Europe had, from about the 13th century onwards, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. Aristotle’s works had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and eventually integrated into the teaching of the Church.
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was motionless. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars revolved around the earth in celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, unchanging perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay.[4] . Aristotle’s vision of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology, finding agreement with the passages that indicate that the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1 Chronicles 16:30).[5] ) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the 2nd century, Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the cosmos that would explain the observed motions of the planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprint of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.
In 1543, Copernicus’ magnum opus, De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was published with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic Church. It provoked little more than a whimper. In fact, it was Galileo’s writing and agitation, 73 years later, that resulted in Copernicus’ work being placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, where it remained until 1835.[6] . From its original publication until Galileo, heliocentrism did not provoke the ire of Church officials for the simple reason that it was a theory. Copernicus offered an alternative mathematical model for the motions of the various celestial bodies.
Neither Copernicus nor any other astronomer in the 16th century argued, at least forcefully or publicly, that Aristotelian cosmology was false. In fact, before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, the only argument for heliocentrism was theoretical elegance or simplicity. Predictions made by Copernicus’s model were no more accurate than those based on Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
Moving now to the early 17th century, Galileo began using the newly invented telescope to make astronomical observations. Using an eight-power instrument, he began making observations of the moon, the sun, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter. His publications Starry Messenger (1610) and Letters on Sunspots (1613) launched him into the public spotlight as a proponent of heliocentrism. As Galileo attempted to argue (in conversation and in letters) for the truth of heliocentrism, he was confronted with what he thought was an exegetical problem. Simply put, he believed that the scientific content of the Bible had to be discussed in light of observations that supported heliocentrism. According to Galileo, the Bible communicated truths about salvation that are beyond human reason. However, he also argued (as summarized by David Lindberg) that, “When the biblical text pushes these boundaries, addressing matters that are within the reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would do well to examine the demonstrative arguments of natural scientists and philosophers.”[7] Galileo’s ideas on exegesis in defense of heliocentrism were eventually brought to the attention of the Inquisition. In 1616, the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).[8] .
Galileo was summoned by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino and informed that heliocentrism “had been declared false and heretical, and was not to be retained or defended.”[9] Galileo was not charged with any crime, but the decision of the Inquisition put an end to his campaign in the name of heliocentrism.
By 1623, with the rise of Maffeo Barberini to the papacy as Urban VIII, the fate of heliocentrism seemed to have changed. Barberini was a close friend and admirer of Galileo, and his work in astronomy. Over the course of six meetings with the new pontiff, Galileo came to believe that he was free to write a book on heliocentrism , as long as he treated it as a mere hypothesis. By the time Galileo completed the ” Dialogue” on the Two Chief World Systems in 1629, he had in fact gone beyond simply debating competing hypotheses. Instead, what he had written was “…nothing less than a powerful argument in the name of the undoubted truth of heliocentrism; no reader could have understood it otherwise. Nor did one have to read between the lines to perceive this as Galileo’s purpose, for in the Dialogue itself he repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated the “truth” of his conclusions.”[10] , Despite having gone through the proper channels within the Church before publishing Dialogue , the reception within the Vatican was disastrous for Galileo. In addition to his general treatment of heliocentrism, Simplicio, “…a stupid Aristotelian who laughed at dialogue”[11] , expressed the same arguments that Galileo had heard during his audiences with Urban. A letter to Florence from the Florentine ambassador describes a meeting in which the pontiff “…exploded with great anger…” at the mere mention of Galileo. The Pope believed that Galileo had misled him, since he clearly did not consider heliocentrism as a hypothesis.
Furthermore, in the character of Simplicio, he made the pontiff an object of ridicule.
Alienating the Pope with such obvious insubordination was perhaps the least of Galileo’s problems. Since the Dialogue clearly advocated the truth of heliocentrism, it violated the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index that condemned heliocentrism as “…false and completely contrary to Scripture.” The same decree not only prohibited Copernicus’s book from being printed, but also stated that “…all other books teaching the same tendency are prohibited, since the present Decree prohibits, condemns, and suspends all of them respectively.”[12] , The Inquisition appointed a Special Commission to investigate further. In the archives of the Holy Office a memorandum was discovered[13] which stated that the General Commissioner of the Holy Office had given Galileo a specific injunction to “renounce entirely” his acceptance of heliocentrism and no longer “hold, teach or defend it in any way, either verbally or in writing.”[14] , Due to the weight of all this evidence, Galileo was put on trial in Rome in April 1633.
Having set the stage in terms of historical context, let us begin to look at the myths, complexities, and lessons of Galileo’s trial. The myths, the things once assumed to be true, now known to be false, are tied to the outcome of the trial, specifically that he was tortured and imprisoned. Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for his advocacy of heliocentrism in “Dialogue” and for denying that the Bible is a scientific authority . [15].
In any trial, the activities of the Holy Office were kept under strict secrecy. The Cardinals and those on trial never discussed the proceedings in public. Very accurate and reliable records were kept, including transcripts of interrogations and even details of how the accused responded to torture.[16] However, in the case of Galileo’s trial, under explicit orders from Urban VIII, the sentencing document and the abjuration recited by Galileo were widely distributed and printed in books and newspapers. The Pope wanted Galileo to serve as an object lesson for all Catholics and to demonstrate his bona fides as a staunch defender of the faith.[17] Two elements of the prayer document are significant. First, it says that Galileo was subjected to a “rigorous examination” (also known as torture)[18] Second, that Galileo was to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Holy Office. This was understood to mean imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition in Rome for an indefinite period of time.
If the sentence and abjuration had been the only known documents, the imprisonment and torture administered by the Catholic Church would have remained in the historical record.
However, letters written by Galileo and the Tuscan ambassador in Rome were made public in the late 18th century and the publication of the Inquisition records of Galileo’s trial in the late 19th century corrected both of these myths. The Holy Office records prove quite conclusively that Galileo did not experience any physical torture. From the records themselves, there is no indication that physical torture ever occurred. It seems clear that it was threatened as a possibility, but it never actually occurred. Furthermore, Galileo’s advanced age (69) would have precluded the possibility of torture.[19] As for Galileo’s imprisonment, from his arrival in Rome on February 13, 1633, until he left Rome on June 30, there were only three days left in June where Galileo could have been imprisoned. The remainder of his time in Rome was spent either at the Tuscan embassy (the ambassador’s residence) or in the 6-room apartment of the fiscal. After spending 5 months at the archbishop’s house in Siena, Galileo returned to his own villa in December 1633. He lived there until his death in 1642.
Moving away from blatant myths, we now turn to the complexities of Galileo’s conflict with the Church. These can be divided into two categories. First, there are four factors, generally misunderstood from a modern perspective, that prevented the acceptance of heliocentrism. Second, there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Galileo’s confrontation with the Church.
The first problem that prevented the widespread acceptance of heliocentrism was that the evidence available at the time was not sufficient. The modern view of heliocentrism is in light of what we know from science, rather than what was known or could be proven during Galileo’s time. The arguments Galileo made at the time supported the heliocentric view, but were also compatible with the model put forward by Tycho Brahe.[20] Galileo was convinced that the heliocentric hypothesis was true, but there was insufficient evidence to overturn more than 300 years of adherence to Aristotelian cosmology.
Secondly, if the task of overturning Aristotle’s long-established cosmology was not Herculean enough, Galileo’s purpose was made seemingly impossible by his arrogant and impulsive behavior. He was normally far more effective at making enemies than friends. Many experts assume that, in Galileo’s trial, his fate was in some sense assured by the various enemies he had made in the years before 1633. David Lindberg concludes: “Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that, had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo could have conducted a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation.”[21] .
A third impediment that Galileo faced was the issue of epistemological authority. Where does knowledge of the cosmos come from? Is it available through human capacities for sense and reason? Is it found only in Scripture? Is it a combination of the two? The prevailing view of Catholic and Protestant theologians was that knowledge of the heavens was, in principle, not available to the natural sciences. The nature of the heavenly realm was divine knowledge that was inaccessible to the human intellect. Thus, the work of Copernicus and Ptolemy were simply models used to predict the locations of the planets; they were mathematical instruments and were not intended to be descriptions of reality. Galileo’s argument for heliocentrism went far beyond the debate over which model was more accurate. He believed that the heliocentric model of the universe was a description of reality. Thus, he challenged conventional wisdom, not only about the inaccessibility of the heavens; he also claimed that scientific observation could attain knowledge not available in the Bible.
Fourth, the argument for another epistemic authority clashed quite violently with the post-Reformation Catholic Church’s stance on the interpretation of Scripture. One of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) on the interpretation of Scripture said in part:
The Council decrees that, in questions of faith and morals… no one, relying on his own judgment and distorting the Holy Scriptures according to his own conceptions, shall dare to interpret them contrary to the sense to which Holy Mother Church, to which it belongs, judges its sense and meaning, sustains it and maintains it, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. [22].
The reasoning inspired by Galileo’s two books was not without the support of the Church, however, and the Decree issued in 1616 that heliocentrism was “contrary to Scripture” was a clear and convincing indication that the Church was going to defend its authority in matters related to cosmology.
In addition to the obstacles that impeded the acceptance of heliocentrism, the Galileo affair was treated simplistically as a conflict between scientific rationalism and religious doctrine. In response to this claim, consider the following: each of the participants in this debate were Christians who accepted the authority of the Bible, were theologically informed, and were able to present rational arguments for their respective views on cosmology. Furthermore, within the Church itself, there were various opinions on hermeneutics, some agreeing with Galileo, others not.
From the scientific perspective, among astronomy experts, heliocentrism was not a widespread opinion. In short, rather than a confrontation between science and religion, it might be more accurate to describe the Galileo case as a conflict within science and religion.[23] .
In light of all this, what really happened? Simply put, it was a confrontation over Church authority, not a scientific debate. Given the Church’s stance on who can interpret scripture and Galileo’s temperament advocating heliocentrism, a clash was inevitable. David Lindberg offers the following one-sentence summary: “The trial was for flagrant disobedience and insubordination: the issues raised in the 1616 decree were not reexamined; its conclusions were merely reaffirmed.”[24] The merits of Galileo’s arguments were insignificant when compared to the centuries of consensus. The authority of Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology was not going to be dismissed simply because the heliocentric view was plausible. The Church chose to stake its authority on that consensus, and science suffered as a result.
Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging past events through the lens of present-day knowledge and sensibilities. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the available evidence and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery that we should avoid is condemning the Church for the way it exercised its authority. Lindberg makes the following observation about that period:
“The beginning of the 17th century was a time of increasing absolutism in Europe, both in religious and political terms. Freedom to express dangerous ideas was not so easy, as they would not be defended in the same way in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on the general principles of freedom of expression was not defended by anyone at the time, and police and judicial restrictions were therefore unavoidable realities.”[25] .
Another important lesson is to avoid rigid and simplistic contrasts regarding such broad categories as “science” and “religion.” Such conflicts are rarely as simple as the contrast between truth and error; rather they are substitutes for more subtle discussions. In this case, the issue of epistemological authority was at stake. It was not simply a question of how things are known (mere epistemology) but what would be regarded as a source of knowledge (authority). The Church sought to defend its interpretation of the Bible as true and correct in all “matters of faith and morals.” The error we perceive in looking back is to extend that control over matters of cosmology.
In our modern age, it is widely believed that we have developed a stage where true or false dictates what is considered knowledge. We believe that we are no longer at the mercy of any human bureaucracy or institution for knowledge. In the 17th century, the Bible was the dominant source of knowledge about reality. What we have seen in this paper is that Galileo was put on trial not for rejecting the Bible but for challenging the only authority (the Church) to interpret the Bible. Today, the Church (Protestant and Catholic) has been eclipsed by science as the primary (or perhaps only) source of knowledge for humanity. In reality, however, the Church and institutional science have simply switched roles over the past 350 years. Today, the fields of science that attempt to explain the origins and development of life are caught in a dogmatic devotion to an idea imagined over 150 years ago. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Neo-Darwinism is dogmatically adhered to as the sole explanation for the development of life. As discussed in the film “Expelled” and numerous intelligent design blogs, those who advocate dangerous ideas that contradict the reigning consensus are punished, not by torture or imprisonment, but by the destruction of academic careers. Perhaps that is the strongest lesson we can learn from history; it always repeats itself.
Literature
Blackwell, Richard J. Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
Ferngren, Gary B., ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When Science and Christianity Meet. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Numbers, Ronald L. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Grades
[1] David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., When Science and Christianity Meet, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 33.
[2] Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 105.Galileo and the Catholic Church Ken Mann.
[3] Cosmology is the study of the nature or composition of the universe, the attempt to understand how the universe works.
[4] It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the “Copernican Principle” that supposedly demoted humanity from the center of the universe. In short, it would be accurate to say that, in ancient Greek cosmology, the Earth was the sink of the universe. This is amply, and metaphysically, expressed in Dante’s Inferno.
[5] Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Sylleptic (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 115.
[6] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 47.
[7] Ibid., 46.
[8] Ibid., 47.
[9] Ibid., 49.
[10] Ibid., 51.
[11] Ibid., 52.
[12] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 4.
[13] Blackwell (Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, page 6) claims that the specific memo was fraudulent in some way. That it was derived from a letter Galileo received from Cardinal Bellarmini, but that it was altered to write Dialogue a clear example of insubordination.
[14] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 5.
[15] Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Kindle Location 757–760.
[16] Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at the Galileo Trial, 7.
[17] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion, Kindle Location 766.
[18] Ibid., Kindle Locations 768–775.
[19] Ibid., Kindle Location 795–843.
[20] In Brahe’s model of the solar system, the earth was still at rest with the sun moving around the earth, however all the planets orbited the sun.
[21] Lindberg and Numbers, When Science and Christianity Meet, 57.
[22] Ibid., 45.
[23] Ibid., 58.
[24] Ibid., 54.
[25] Ibid., 59.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AK2b30
Translated by Malachi Toro Vielma
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Reading The Bible Among Other Things
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Evan Minton
So you’ve just gone to the bookstore and got a stack of books you really want to dive into. However, you are also a dedicated Christian who wants to nourish yourself on God’s holy, inspired, inerrant word. But, there are only so many hours in the day and the free time you do have is, for the most part, spent reading. When you want to study The Bible, but you also have other books you want to read, it can be difficult to manage your reading time. You don’t want to neglect the word of God, but you also don’t want to let your other books sit on the shelf collecting dust until you can somehow get around them. What to do? Here are some tips.
Option 1: Read One Book Of The Bible In Between Your Other Books
The Bible is not simply one whole book. It’s an entire collection of 66 books and letters put together and written over time periods spanning thousands of years. Therefore, you could have your reading plan planned like this: read one book of The Bible (e.g., Numbers). When you’re finished, pick up that novel or non-fiction theology book you’ve been chomping at the bits to get to. When you’ve finished with your novel or whatever it is you want to read, go back to The Bible and read The Bible’s next book (e.g., Deuteronomy). Once you’ve finished with that book, go to another non-divinely-inspired book.
This way, you can get through The Bible and those books you stuffed your bookshelf with at an even pace.
Option 2: Put The Bible On Hold For A Little While Until You Complete Your Stack.
Depending on how fast you can get through a book, how many books you need to get through, you may want to try this option. If all you’ve got is 2 or 3 400 page books, and like me, you can burn through books of that length over 2 days (reading 4 hours at a time), then in taking this option, you won’t be putting scripture on hold for an immense amount of time.
Option 3: The Bible During The Week, Other Books On The Weekend
Another option you can choose is to read The Bible every weekday and reserve your weekends for reading novels, apologetics books, theology books, science books, etc. I suspect this may be the most appealing for many of this blog’s readers. For Monday through Friday, read The Bible at your usual pace. Once Saturday comes along, you can put The Bible away to read a non-inspired work like A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell by Evan Minton ((shameless plug)). Once Monday comes along, put the book God didn’t write back on the shelf and continue with The Bible.
Option 4: Read The Bible And A Non-Bible Every Day.
Let’s say you have 4 hours of free time every evening. You can read The Bible for those first two, and a non-biblical book for the second two. Or if you only have 2 hours, read The Bible for one hour and the non-Bible for the second hour. This way, you kill two birds with one stone.
One con with this option is that it’s difficult to digest and meditate on the content of both books at once. This is why I’m a “One book at a time” kind of guy. If you’ve just read The Bible, you’re going to want to take a while to reflect on what you’ve read. As I always say “Reading The Bible without meditating on it is like eating food without digesting it.” Martin Lloyd Jones used the illustration of a man walking by a fire but not stopping to warm himself by it. Of course, you also want to reflect on what you read in non-biblical books too.
As for myself, I prefer this option the least. But if it appeals to you, go for it!
Option 5: Wait Until You’ve Finished Reading The Bible
You could just say to yourself: “These books I got at Barnes and Noble I will definitely get around to, but not until I’ve finished reading The Bible.” In other words, you could just simply go through the entire Bible and once you’ve read the last chapter of the New Testament, go through your non-inspired books. Once you’ve finished with all the non-inspired books you’ve read, go back to The Bible.
This is the option I take most of the time. For me personally, I choose to open The Bible and read it from Genesis to Revelation. It takes me several months to do this, but then when I’m done, I close the Bible and go on to other books. This means I read The Bible once a year like most people, but I get it done in about 4 months time (usually from the beginning of January to the end of April). However, I’m not liking this option at the moment, for the reason you’ll see below.
Conclusion
I wrote this blog post as a result of a strong inner conflict. Having just come back from the 2018 ETS conference, I have a big stack of books I’m really eager to dive into. However, while these are theology books, books about The Bible are no substitute for The Bible, any more than cookbooks are a substitute for eating. I’m not sure which of these options will be best suited for me, but number 5 isn’t going to work for the time being. I haven’t gone through The Bible from cover to cover in a while, and I am starving for God’s Word. I am thinking of choosing options 1 or 3.
I think Charles Spurgeon was correct when he said; “Visit many good books but live in The Bible.” Hopefully, this short blog post gave you feasible strategies to carry that out.
Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qYHc8h
Should You Force Your Kids To Go To Church?
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
A reader of this blog posed this question on the Facebook page because her boys –ages 10, 12 and 15– are uninterested in church. It’s a very important question that I wanted to address with this post.
At the risk of trivializing the question itself, I’m going to offer a brief rationale for my own answer and then provide an alternative question which I think is more at the heart of the issue.
A home is like a microcosm of society. There are laws (requirements for living there) and freedoms (options you have while living there). Each society/family sets its own laws based on what it feels is most important for its members. The laws a society/family chooses to reflect its core values. As Christian parents, a core value to impart to kids should be that God comes first in our lives. Part of acknowledging that is going to church each week. By classifying church attendance as a law and not a freedom, we are making a statement that God’s priority is a core value in our home. Parents generally don’t care whether a child wants an education or not in determining that going to school is a household “law”; likewise, parents shouldn’t care whether a child is interested in faith or not in determining that going to church is a “law.” Christian parents should not feel church is any different than any other parental choice when declaring, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
That said, required church attendance has to be a rule made for the reason stated here (a statement about family priorities) and not because the parents assume it means children will become believers from it, that they will come to salvation from it or that they will even be spiritually changed by it. Church is not a spiritual “cure-all.” If your children don’t want to go to church, there is a much more important question to ask:
WHY don’t your children want to go to church?
The answer to this question is your gateway to impacting the spiritual life of your kids much more than how you go about physically getting them to church.
Perhaps an immediate answer comes to mind. “They just want to do other things,” or, “They think it’s boring.” These answers, however, are really symptomatic of a child’s underlying beliefs about God and his/her relationship to God. Those beliefs must be identified.
I would break underlying beliefs into two categories: 1) They don’t believe in God or 2) They believe in God but don’t think church is important.
1. They don’t believe in God.
Perhaps your child is saying “I want to stay home and play video games” but what he/she really means is “I don’t really believe all this God stuff,” and doesn’t want to tell you (maybe he/she hasn’t even identified that consciously yet). What they need most is to have conversations with you about God. They need to know it’s OK to doubt, and that you are willing to talk to them about those doubts. It might be intimidating to be the one who has to present the case for God’s existence, but if you aren’t going to be that person in your child’s life, who will?
(Need help teaching your kids why there is good reason to believe God exists and Christianity is true? Check out my new book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith.)
2. They believe in God but don’t think church is important.
It’s not enough to say that church is unimportant – again, we have to understand the underlying premise to address the spiritual issue. Consider these three possibilities:
a. I believe in God, but I don’t believe He’s really involved in my life (therefore church doesn’t matter).
Theologically, this is referred to as “Deism” – the belief that there is a God, and He probably set this world in motion but isn’t really involved with the world or our personal lives today. From a spiritual standpoint, this isn’t much different than not believing in God in the first place. Even if your child is saying, “Yes, I believe in God, I just don’t want to go to church… “don’t take it at face value. What does your child believe about God? You might be surprised what you find out; it might not be much different than not believing in God at all (see the first category above).
b. I believe in God and believe he cares about my life, but I don’t believe he cares if we go to church.
The reasons Christians should go to church would be the topic for a whole book, but if I could point to a single reason, it would be that Jesus set the example for us. Luke 4:16 says (about Jesus), “…on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom” (emphasis added). If Jesus thought weekly church was important, so should we. Are we in a position to decide that church is not necessary for us when it was necessary for Jesus?
Without going into significant detail on this giant sub-topic, it must be addressed here that church is first and foremost for God (yes, the Bible is clear God wants us to worship). Most people who have the attitude that “God doesn’t care about church” are seeing the value of church in terms of what it gives to them. While church is absolutely necessary for us as well in terms of spiritual growth and fellowship with other believers (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, James 5:16, Acts 2:42, Romans 12:5), church must be seen as being for God’s glory. Timothy Keller, in his book, “The Reason for God,” eloquently addresses this:
“But wait,” you say. “On nearly every page of the Bible God calls us to glorify, praise, and serve him. How can you say he doesn’t seek his own glory?” Yes, he does ask us to obey him unconditionally, to glorify, praise, and center our lives around him. But now, I hope, you finally see why he does that. He wants our joy! He has infinite happiness not through self-centeredness, but through self-giving, other-centered love. And the only way we, who have been created in his image, can have this same joy, is if we center our entire lives around him instead of ourselves.
c. I believe in God, believe he cares about my life, and believe he wants me to go to church, but I don’t want to go to this church because (any number of reasons).
There may be a very real reason why your children want to avoid your specific church. Maybe they don’t fit in with the other kids; maybe there is a disconnect between them and the pastor or youth leader; maybe there are too few other kids their age, and they feel isolated; the reasons are infinite. If it’s a legitimate, overarching issue, it would be reasonable to seek another church out of respect for the faith development of your kids.
The bottom line is this: The underlying reason for kids not wanting to go to church shouldn’t change your “law” that they have to go, but that reason should be searched for in order to best determine how to guide them spiritually at home.
What do you think? Should you force kids to go to church? Is there an age at which they should have a “say” in the matter?
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QeYqfG
Book Review: Scientism and Secularism by J. P. Moreland
Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Timothy Fox (Orthodox Fox)
J. P. Moreland is one of the most prominent Christian thinkers of our time, and I’ve been greatly impacted by his works, such as Love Your God With All Your Mind and Kingdom Triangle. In his latest popular-level work, Scientism and Secularism (Crossway, 2018), Moreland addresses one of the most dangerous ideologies facing our culture and church. But the true danger of scientism is not that is necessarily being argued for, it is simply assumed to be true. So Moreland’s task in this book is not just to refute scientism but to first expose it and how it has influenced society and Christianity.
But first, what is scientism? It “is the view that the hard sciences – like chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy – provide the only genuine knowledge of reality” (26). Obviously, this would place theology outside the bounds of knowledge and leave religion to the realm of mere belief, feelings, and opinions. Thus, Moreland has quite the hill to climb.
Content
In the first three chapters, Moreland defines scientism and explains its influence on the church and the university. The following three explain the failings of scientism: how it is self-defeating, how it is the enemy of science, and how weak scientism – the belief that science is the best way to know truth – is no better than strong – the belief that science is the only way to know truth.
In chapter 7, Moreland discusses three areas that we all know internally or intuitively and that science cannot account for logic and math, our personal conscious states, and moral knowledge. In the case of logic and math, science cannot operate without them. I view chapter 8 as a bonus chapter that delves deeper into consciousness and neuroscience. Those interested in science will love it, and those who aren’t can skip it. But laypersons who wish to learn more about these topics will definitely need a few thorough reads through the chapter.
Chapter 9 explains the importance of philosophy in science, how it forms the foundation and framework by which proper science can be performed. This is another of the more challenging chapters, containing a lot of philosophical content and terminology. But since scientism is a philosophical assumption about the nature of truth, it is an extremely important chapter and should not be skipped. Moreland continues explaining the importance of philosophy in science in chapter 10, in which he provides examples for the authority and autonomy of philosophy.
The next three chapters deal with how we explain reality. Chapter 11 shows the difference between scientific and personal explanations and introduces the concept of methodological naturalism, the idea that “one must seek only natural causes/explanations for scientific data” (121). Then in the next two chapters, Moreland outlines the shortcomings of methodological naturalism. Chapter 12 is another critical chapter in that it discusses five things that theism can explain but science cannot: the origin of the universe; the origin of the laws of nature; the fine-tuning of the universe; the origin of consciousness; and the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic laws. While this chapter is only a few pages long, every Christian should explore these topics more as they not only undercut scientism but are also powerful arguments for the existence of God. Chapter 13 discusses two competing Christian views to the origin of life, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution, which are also important topics that require further study.
The final two chapters discuss integrating science and Christianity, explaining why it is important and offering five ways to do it.
Assessment
This is a critical book for the Christian as scientism is possibly the number one enemy facing the church today. As the belief that science is the only way to know truth becomes more widespread, the claims of Christianity simply cannot be taken seriously by society.
Depending on your prior knowledge, this may be a challenging read – not because of Moreland’s writing style but by the nature of the content. Moreland himself urges the reader to read it again in the book’s epilogue, and it may require multiple thorough reads to fully grasp. Thankfully, the book is only around 200 pages in length, and it includes plenty of footnotes and a selected bibliography for further study, as well as a glossary since technical vocabulary cannot be avoided.
Pretty much everything Moreland writes is a must-read, and Scientism and Secularism is no different. Every Christian is going to encounter scientism of some form, and so we all must be on our guard to defend against it. J. P. Moreland has provided us another valuable resource in our ongoing struggle with a secular culture.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DTflz1