Augustine on Scientific Knowledge

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens...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...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 and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Augustine in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis

in John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 31.

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 6)

Have I taken the time to understand the other side of this issue?

You are not ready to debate any issue until you have honestly studied the arguments to be made on the other side of the issue. For instance, if you firmly believe that women should indeed be preaching ministers in local congregations, have you studied and learned the arguments that are made by those who disagree? If you passionately feel that pacifists have missed the point of the gospel and are distorting New Testament ethics, have you taken the time to listen to the arguments to be made in favor of pacifism? Learning the other side of any issue will help in several ways: 1) You will make more intelligent arguments because you have learned to spot the flaws in your own argumentation. Some arguments only sound good from one side. The best arguments resonate with both sides. 2) You will avoid various common fallacies – especially the straw man – because you have allowed people on the other side of the issue to speak for themselves. 3) You will learn the various nuances in the issue. A non-researched point of view will tend to see everything in very stark, black or white terms.  4) You will be a more compassionate debater.

Let me also make a few specific suggestions in this area:

a.       Am I seeing this issue from the same perspective as the person on the other side?

Transactional Analysis is used by some in the field of psychology to describe the interactions between people in different ego-states. Transactional analysis is based upon the idea that there are three different ego states within the mind of every person.  Those ego states are called, parent, adult, and child.  Smooth communication continues between two people as long as they have complimentary transactions.  A complimentary transaction is any transaction where the communication is parallel, i.e. agreement on the ego states that are doing the communicating.  Any time there is a crossed transaction, then communication stops and problems begin.  This is because there is no agreement on the ego states of the sender and receiver.

What this means for biblical interpretation is that some people will interact with an issue in a relational way. Some will interact in a practical way. While others will come at the issue in a principled way. This causes considerable difficulty in our discussions on various issues. This chart illustrates the idea with the issue of divorce, but in the future we will see this play a large role in how we talk about the issue of homosexuality. Younger people are making decisions on the issue on the basis of relationship. Older people who grew up in a very different culture are making decisions based on scriptural principle. Pastors, on the other hand, have to think more practically. What are we going to do about homosexuality in our community and our church? What I am advocating is that before we enter into a debate on any issue, we should take some time to reflect on how the other person is seeing this issue. They may in fact agree with us in principle, but they aren’t necessarily concerned about principle as much as they are concerned about relationships. That will change the way that I go about talking about the issue.

 

Theological	Ecclesiastical	Personal
Parent	Adult	Child
Values/Principles/Idealistic	Responsibilities/Laws/Practical	Relational/Realistic
Divorce:  God intended for one man and one woman to be married for life (Gen. 2:24; Mark 10:6-9).  The Christian must always seek to uphold and live by God’s standard and not man’s or the world’s.  Regardless of personal feelings or experience, the Word of God must prevail and decide on all ethical issues, and especially that of marriage and divorce (Deut. 12:32; Ps. 19:7-11; 119:9-11; Is. 55:8-9; Jer. 23:25-29)	Divorce: The Church must uphold God’s standards in all areas, especially in the area of marriage and divorce.  It needs to teach it and practice it.  The church needs to protect and build strong marriages and families (Eph. 5:22-6:4; Col. 3:18-21)	Divorce: Repent of any sin pertaining to a divorce and to receive the forgiveness of God.  The divorced need compassion, love, understanding and acceptance from the church.

 

b.      Is the person on the other side of this issue from inside the camp or outside the camp?

Paul didn’t talk to people within his community in the same ways that he talked to people from outside (compare his speeches at Lystra and Athens to his speeches to Pisidian Antioch and the Ephesian elders in Acts). Jesus didn’t talk to people within his community in the same ways that he talked to people who were on the margins or who were outside the community (compare what he said to the religious leaders to what he said to the tax collectors and sinners). There are certain arguments that I would make with another Christian that I would never make with a non-Christian person. This is especially true about the way I use scripture. For instance, I shouldn’t expect a non-Christian person to care about or submit to what scripture says (unless they are trying to distort scripture for their argument). On the other hand, I probably should expect a person who calls himself a Christian to in some way submit to the message of scripture. A debate with a Christian is much more likely to deal with exegesis. A debate with a non-Christian is much more likely to deal with issues of worldview.

c.       Have I studied the non-biblical side of this issue?

Should a Christian support or oppose embryonic stem cell research? It is a good question worthy of discussion. However, if a Christian is to discuss or debate this issue, it is important that we have at least a foundational knowledge of the science behind the issue. If we are debating homosexuality, we should be familiar with the various non-biblical arguments (from genetics, psychology, etc.) that are made supporting homosexuality. This doesn’t mean that we have to be an expert before weighing in on any issue. This seems to commit another fallacy which I call the expert fallacy – you must never talk about an issue until you have mastered it and all the supporting research. If this were the case we would never be able to talk about any issue. What I am arguing for however is that we do take the time to listen to and explore the non-biblical sides of these issues. It is not enough just to know the Bible.

Where bad science and hermeneutics intersect

If we believe that the same God who created asn evolving universe is revealed in an evolving Bible, we can derive some fascinating insights from contemporary studies of genetics. Today's chickens, it turns out, still have the genetic information in their DNA that was used to produce long tails, scales, and teeth in their ancestors the dinosaurs. During embryonic development, some of those primitive dinosaur characteristics still manifest themselves in chicken. (Human embryos similarly have stages where they sport gills and tails, so it is said that our ontogeny recapitulates our phylogeny.) We might say that the Bible similarly retains the record of its own evolution, and in our individual spiritual development we may personally recapitulate earlier stages.

Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 273.

It is tough to even know where to start with this quote. Do you start with the hopelessly outdated (Contemporary? Really?) and abandoned arguments for evolutation based on embryology? (I always knew that dinosaurs had something to do with my spiritual formation. I just could never figure out precisely what. Thanks!) Do you start with the retreaded developmental hypotheses of source criticism? I have not read the entire book in question, so I don't want to be unfair or uncharitable to McLaren, but I was under the impression that he was a prominant voice for the emerging movement. So why is he acting so modern by restating all of their old arguments?

Morality of Literary Understanding

...With regard to the moralityof literary understanding, Augustine advocates what is for him the prime hermeneutical virtue, namely, charity. This is a far cry fromt eh typical modern appraoch that puts a premium on distrust and suspicion, a strategy best exemplified perhaps by an essay by W.K. Clifford entitled "The Ethics of Belief." Clifford argues that it is immoral to believe something unless you first have sufficient evidence or proof: "To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." In contrast, Augustine's treatise On the Usefulness of Belief states that "nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe nothing that we could not scientifically establish." With regard to reading, it "is most honorable to believe that an author was a good man, whose writings were inteded to benefit the human race and posterity." The first hermeneutic reflex, therefore, should be charity towards the author. If we come to a text believing that there is nothing in it, we are likely to go away as empty as we come. Augustine encourages readers to approach texts, paricularly the classics and especially the Scriptures, in the expectation that they contain something valuable and true...

...There is something in the text that is not of the reader's own making. The believing reader must not violate but venerate this "other." For readers come not only to knoweldge but also to self-knowledge when they allow the text to have its say. The interpretive virtues that I will commend throughout this work also figure among the cardinal virtues of Christian theology: faith, hope, love, and humility. These are the same virtues that make society possible. Life together is largely interpretation; good hermeneutics makes good neighbors. The Golden Rule, for hermeneutics and ethics alike, is to treat significant others--texts, persons, God--with love and respect.

Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 32

Rationalistic/Positivistic Summary

Meaning: Human reason
Authority: Science/Reason
Question: Does this make sense?

Rationalistic Hermeneutics

The strongly rationalist ethos of the enlightenment was often reflected in what might be styled as a spiritual embargo on any kind of emotional involvement with Scripture, or any use of the human faculty of imagination…The Enlightenment forced evangelicalism into adopting approaches to spirituality which have resulted in rather cool, detached and rational approaches to Scripture…As Martin Luther constantly insisted, Christianity is concerned with totus homo, the “entire human person,” not just the human mind.

McGrath in David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 16.

Inductive Hermeneutics

Methodological Common Sense…is connected with the American exaltation of Francis Bacon. It is the assertion that truths about consciousness, the world, or religion must be built by a strict induction from irreducible facts of experience…This aspect of the Common Sense Tradition, which contributed its share to the general scientism of nineteenth-century American intellectual life, played an unusually large role in evangelical thought. Early in the nineteenth century, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Disciples, and Episcopalians, in journals ranging from Bibliotheca Sacra to The New Englander, asserted generally, as Presbyterian James W. Alexander put it specifically, “that the theologian should proceed in his investigation precisely as the chemist or botanist proceeds…[This] is the method which bears the name of Bacon.

Mark Noll in David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 13-14.