A Fine Tuned Universe? 3 (RJS)

A theory of Scripture is wrong when it does not match Scripture itself -- as we can know it. But this means our theory of Scripture will shift as we learn what matches Scriptures. What one generation thinks genuinely "matches" another generation may show does not match. Hence, I like so much the opening quote from Augustine -- sometimes we find ourselves defending what we want instead of what Scripture says.

Science informs us; that knowledge leads us at times to question the inaccurate understandings of science that were imposed on Scripture in a previous generation.

We need also to submit our "new matches" to the wisdom of the catholic faith and to others who think about these things. The sin of Protestantism is radical individualism, and the cure is to remain in communion with the Great Tradition and other thinkers.

Augustine stated:
"But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the catholic faith..."

So what is the message of Scripture, the catholic faith?

He gave a summary (not necessarily extensive view, which certainly centers on Christ):
"...how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven..."

So is evolution contrary to that summary view? It would appear not.

However, if is interesting that Augustine's view helps provides freedom to deal with such issues, but it is also his (interpreted) view of original sin that causes more confusion.

RJS-

I agree. I was just pointing out that the same person who is open to interpretations of Genesis, is also the person who gives a theological view that causes some difficulties to open interpretations of Genesis.

In regards to that original sin issue, I wonder if Augustine would put that (his view) in the core of the catholic faith.

I don't necessarily think it is an essential part of the catholic faith, and open to interpretation and further study. So yes, it can "be revisted".

By the way, you previous posts on that topic are useful.

I suspect we need to do a better job of thinking about 'chance'. If I remember correctly (I don't have my books with me) Aristotle defines a chance event as one where there appears to be purpose when in fact there isn't. I think a bad thought and then stub my toe. I conclude I'm being punished for my bad thought. A friend says, "No, you stubbed your toe by chance". Isn't this a valid response? I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me this is at the heart of the conversation. The evolutionist is arguing that what appears to be a purposeful process isn't. If our understanding of chance was something like Aristotle's, there's no need to see in this a denial of God's providence.

Would you apply this reasoning to the resurrection? The physical evidence indicates that people don't rise from the dead.

People don't rise from the dead. If you tell me that people resurrect after a fixed time, I can show you that you are wrong. No religion teaches that they do so. They teach instead that there is reincarnation of a soul or a specifically miraculous resurrection during the end times. Both doctrines avoid being in conflict with observed reality.

RJS (#8),

That's the sort of caution I'm calling for; I think we agree. I would want to argue something similar, however, for a word like 'arbitrary'. These are complex ideas, as you show, and we shouldn't flatten them out for theological reasons.

On a related note, I'm sometimes corrected when I say that such and such occurred by chance. I'm told that nothing occurs by chance. I usually respond by asking if we should correct Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan where Jesus states "Now by chance...". The point, of course, is not to compare my speech with that of Jesus but to show that 'chance' has a perfectly good use and we shouldn't be too quick to prohibit that use.

Great post! I'm not sure I like McGrath's gloss in the CT article: "The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random." My problem here is that "random" means "unpredictable." If a set of observations is stochastic, we say it's "random." That isn't -- or at least it shouldn't be -- a metaphysical judgment. It's simply a description of what we are able to observe. For example, the fluctuations of the stock market are statistically stochastic or "random," but obviously there is agency and intentionality underlying the stock market. I'd rather that we simply note that "random" means "unpredictable" or stochastic, and call out scientists and pundits who mistakenly associate this with metaphysical randomness.

On the main question -- when is a scientific theory contrary to the catholic faith? That's the bazillion dollar question, isn't it? Honestly, though, I'm not sure I like the suggestion that a scientific theory could contradict the catholic faith.

Let's say the catholic faith affirms that God is the creator of the universe, that He is not a deceiver, that all truth comes from God, and that, properly understood, all truth that comes from God is complementary and consistent. Let's also say that scientific theories are attempts to accurately describe the universe God created. It follows that no true scientific theory can possibly contradict the catholic faith. Thus, we're left with the trivial statement that false scientific theories are not true.

If a scientific theory is true and it appears to contradict the catholic faith, then, either our understanding of the catholic faith, or our scientific theory, or both, must be wrong. The important thing here is that there is a two-way street: scientific and theological theories correct each other as we move steadily closer to a more complete and accurate description of the whole of reality.

All that said, there does seem to be a point at which the "catholic faith" is no longer recognizable as "the faith" if certain propositions are discarded. Without some notion of the Triune creator-God, the incarnate Christ, the cross, and the Resurrection, whatever "faith" exists would seem not to be the "catholic" Christian faith handed down by the Apostles and historically believed by the Church. When we get close to that line, this is where I think a person committed to the Christian faith must say "here I stand." Perhaps this is just a way of playing Pascal's Wager, or perhaps it is epistemically warranted (I think it is warranted).

JosephU,

The page you referenced was quite selective in picking out Catholic doctrine, being quite careful to ignore anything the Church has said recently.

The last three items, though you imply they came from the Church are not referenced and are not accepted doctrine of the Church. All three of these statements scientifically incorrect statements of the currently available evidence. They sound like they were written by science-ignorant Young Earth Creationists.

"A summary of some magisterial Catholic statements...[link to the Kolbe Center]"

The Kolbe Center is heretical, not magisterial or official in any way.