Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Evolution-Accepting Christian Professor: Bible Doesn’t Have to Conflict with Scientific Realities [View all]struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)7. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I
Ancient Christian Writers, vol 41
Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, SJ
New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
... Chapter 19. On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.
Let us suppose that, in explaining the words, And God said Let there be light and light was made, one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or super-celestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, 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, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion ...
This book was written in the early fifth century.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Evolution-Accepting Christian Professor: Bible Doesn’t Have to Conflict with Scientific Realities [View all]
rug
Jan 2015
OP
I find it problematic because it continues to insert a guiding hand into a process
cbayer
Jan 2015
#16
I'm asking you to cite your evidence that the evolutionary process cannot be chaotic.
Jim__
Jun 2015
#102
Geez, AtheistCrusader, I so wish you would participate in the discourse here beyond simple dismissal
pinto
Jan 2015
#8
I'm not sure there is a finite amount of what can be known, but that's a different subject.
cbayer
Jan 2015
#26
Por nada - the discussion is one that I really enjoy listening to so it was no burden.
eomer
Jan 2015
#92
BTW, that's apparently not the interview where he said this. It was to Bill Moyers.
cbayer
Jan 2015
#45
I think when you took his quote out of context, you presented it as his thoughts.
cbayer
Jan 2015
#37
There isn't any reason why the two can not continue to exists, if you don't believe then it is your
Thinkingabout
Jan 2015
#29
Ok folks, now for something completely different - Randomness and Mathematical Proof (Sci Amer)
pinto
Jan 2015
#58
Did you read any of the discussions in this thread? Or just choose a drive by post?
pinto
Jan 2015
#60
By his own admission: The belief in question is whatever the believer wants it to be.
DetlefK
Jan 2015
#62
I think that science teachers in these schools were liberal thinkers who realized that it did not
jwirr
Jan 2015
#66
Layer of ridiculous voodoo horseshit along with a dose of science-acceptance.
Warren Stupidity
Jun 2015
#96
The God of the gaps. It slices, it dices, it postpones the age of reason yet again!
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2015
#100
How did he as a scientist come to the conclusion that God belongs into this theory?
DetlefK
Jun 2015
#101
I grew up accepting both, and as such, never took the Bible literally...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2015
#110