Crabby Christians or Nebulous Data?
December 11, 2009
Related topics: Astronomy/Cosmology | Science and the Church |
"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. For more on what BioLogos believes, click here.
Today's entry was written by
Gordon J. Glover.
Gordon J. Glover holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Ocean Engineering and is the author of Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and Creation. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, he now resides in the Washington, D.C. area where he works and runs the popular blog, "Beyond the Firmament".
Scientists who confront Bible-believing Christians with the physical evidence of theologically-challenging views like old-earth geology or common ancestry are usually incredulous when their well-crafted and well-supported arguments fall on deaf ears. How can something so obvious to one person be so easily dismissed by another?
In my own Reformed Presbyterian tradition, I have found that our theological presuppositions typically serve as the lens through which the natural world is observed and understood. When faced with apparent conflict between science and faith, the conservative knee-jerk reaction is to insist without equivocation that special revelation is a more reliable guide to ultimate truth than natural revelation. Without this ultimate reference point, it is feared that our sin natures would prevent us from seeing the world clearly. But if Christian theology is merely our fallible attempt to systematize the biblical data, then certainly we are prone to goofing that up as well. And given the estimated 38,000 Christian denominations spread across the world today, I’d say we’ve goofed it up quite a bit!
Interestingly, we do have the ability to faithfully interpret scientific data when no theology is at stake. For instance, Christians who tend to perpetually argue over the most trivial points of doctrine would probably all agree that chlorophyll is green, ice melts at 0 degrees C, and the universal gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. This leads me to believe that theology can also be a dirty lens that blurs our observations of the natural world. Is it possible that scientific data can help Christians sort out good theology from bad theology?
Consider the great supernovae explosions that occurred in the years 1006, 1054, 1181, 1572 and 1604. Details of these incredible events were dutifully recorded by the world’s great astronomers. But the 1054 and 1181 explosions were not mentioned by any European astronomers. Some have cited bad weather as the probable cause, but the 1054 supernova, which is known today as the Crab Nebula, was visible in broad daylight for 23 days and at night for 653 days. Its sudden and violent appearance was recorded by Chinese, Arab, Japanese and even North American Indian astronomers, but for some reason nobody in Europe seemed to care. The 1181 supernova was visible at night for 185 days and was recorded by both Chinese and Japanese astronomers. But once again, Europeans paid scarce attention to it. Perhaps there was more going on than perpetual cloudiness?
In the years following SN1006, European astronomical science gave way to primitive superstitions and occult astrology. The conflation of Aristotle’s ancient cosmology with Christian tradition seemed to give theological support to the Greek notion that everything beyond the sub-lunar firmament was perfect, eternal, and unchanging. We now recognize this as a clear-cut case of bad exegesis based on incorrect assumptions about creation, but at the time this doctrine was considered non-negotiable. While Chinese astronomers referred to these supernovae explosions as “guest stars” European astronomers would have considered the existence of heavenly guests contrary to theologically acceptable science. As a result, the supernovae were not seen as new scientific data to be analyzed and understood, but as omens and curses to be feared—as was the comet of 1066 which nearly threw medieval Europe into widespread panic.
But why is there no mention of SN1054? Some say the object could have been viewed as an atmospheric phenomenon rather than a heavenly event—similar to how comets were understood; but even passing comets were dutifully recorded. Others have blamed the Ecclesiastical disputes between Rome and Constantinople, which came to a head in July of that same year. Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church only two weeks after SN1054 exploded. Given the political turmoil of the Christian world, it’s quite possible that SN1054 was not seen as a natural phenomenon to be studied, but a supernatural omen marking the schism between East and West. Perhaps it was bad luck to even mention it? Since no written records of the event exist in Christendom, we may never know for sure.
The lesson here is that we Christians must be careful not to ignore obvious facts and data just because they don’t seem compatible with our theology. Often times these inconvenient truths can provide exciting new biblical and theological perspectives, and they can open up areas of scientific investigation that were once considered off limits to believers. For example, after Nicholas Copernicus pointed out the flaws in Aristotle’s earth-centered cosmology, more people were willing to test other aspects of the traditional system. Eventually it became theologically acceptable to study the material changes in the heavens—and just in time for the 1572 and 1604 supernovae! By demonstrating that these transient celestial objects were distant enough to occupy the “immutable” heavenly realm, the Renaissance astronomers began a difficult journey that would eventually liberate Christian theology from the scientific shackles of Greco-Roman astronomy.
It might not have seemed so at the time, but clearly this was a win-win situation for both science and theology—a victory achieved not by new exegetical insights, but through scientific discovery. It is definitely possible for scientific data to be misunderstood, but if Christians can admit that the Scriptures can also be misunderstood, then there is hope for a constructive dialogue between science and faith.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
December 29th 2009
Beaglelady,
Reply to this commentHave you never heard a person exclaim, when looking up into a clear sky on a dark night, “Look! The sky is full of stars tonight.” But, when you analyze that statement scientifically, it is totally false, for technically speaking, the nearest star is light years from the earth, and the changing movements of clouds on our planet cannot bring the stars any nearer. Moreover, were a single star were to draw near to our earth and enter its atmosphere (an impossibility, of course), the earth would be instantly burned to a cinder long before the star ever got that close. How then can earth’s sky be said to be “full” of stars? Wouldn’t that place the stars below fhe stratosphere, where they cannot possibly be? Answer those questions, and you will understand why it is no error for the writer of Genesis to speak of God placing His “light bearers” in the firmament of heaven, in that expanse that God created the separate the waters below from the waters stored in His “upper chambers.” That statement is no more in error than when we ourselves speak of earth’s sky being “full of stars,” as long as you keep in mind the phenomenological character of the description.
December 29th 2009
Martin,
You are making a common error. We use figures of speech all the time, but we know they are figures of speech because of our knowledge of the cosmos. Ancient peoples had no such check and balance. When ancient people talked about the sun rising, they believed it to be physically the case. No other option was open to them.
Reply to this commentDecember 29th 2009
Dr. Enns,
Reply to this commentDon’t you think it’s possible for people to realize their ignorance concerning the precise nature of different features in the cosmos, without having the advantage of more advanced knowledge of the cosmos—and therefore, choose to describe those feature (the precise nature of which they are admittedly ignorant) in terms of how those things appear? As Francis Anderson says in his commentary on Job 37:18, “Since the sky seems firm and solid to a viewer on earth, the poetic comparison with a molten mirror should not be spoilt by introducing quarrels about its scientific accuracy. The Hebrews were fully aware that the structure of the heavens was much more complex than that of an inverted bowl!” In support of what Anderson says about the Hebrews’ awareness of the heaven’s complexity, take the statement of the psalmist in Psalm 104:3—“He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters.” Can we be so sure the psalmist believed that God literally laid down beams in the sky? What then of the verse that follows, which is about God making the clouds His chariot and walking on “the wings of the wind’? How do you distinguish between statements that are literally factual, and statements that are poetic?
December 29th 2009
Beaglelady,
Reply to this commentThere is another possibility regarding how we are to understand the light bearers that God places in the “firmament of the heavens,” and that is that Moses may be referring back to the heavens God created in verse 1, rather than to the heavens He created in verses 6-8 to divide the waters from the waters. That the heavens of verse 1 are distinct from the heavens of verses 6-8 is evident from the fact that verse 2 begins with a “waw consecutive” which indicates sequential action. After God created the heavens and the earth, the earth lay for a time in darknes, “without form and void.” Then, in verses 6-8, God creates a spread out expanse to separate the waters from the waters. Oswald Allis points out that several words in Genesis 1 are used in diverse ways—the words “day” (which can refer either to the period of light or to an entire creative day with a morning and an evening); “earth” (which can refer either to the planet earth or to the dry land in distinction from the seas. Therefore, the “firmament of the heavens” in which God placed His light bearers may be the original heavens created in verse 1, rather the spread out expanse that separates the waters below from the waters above.
December 30th 2009
martin:
“Gordon,
Modern scholars assume, and rightly so, that the Hebrews would have shared the same cosmology as their immediate neighbors.” Can you justify this statement? What proof do you have that the Hebrews shared the elaborate cosmological views of other cultures?”
Well hebrew’s closest civilizations were:
-Mesopotamia
-Sumer
-Babylon
-Canaan
-Egypt
-Greece
Mesopotamia, sumer, babylon share the idea that men were created from clay, especially first three share concepts of flood, water, sky domes, etc. Actually one of the genesis version resembles more mesopotamian’s myth and the other version resembles more other sumerian or babylonian myths.
Now certainly you don’t expect literal word by word likeness between all the ancient creation myths. Even genesis has only several hundred words so is difficult that it be exactly the same across all myths. But for example in mesoamerica aztecs or mayans, don’t remember, believed that men were made out of corn. Now that’s something different. But hebrews as mesopotamians as sumerians as in babylon all they created man from clay. Not very original.
Reply to this commentDecember 30th 2009
(cont)
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/brent_meeker/cosmology.htm
here’s a list of several cosmologys, I agree it’s not a page from the biggest authority but it’s late and don’t have the energy to search deeper. But I’m 100% percent sure that the answer for your question:
Hebrews would have shared the same cosmology as their immediate neighbors.” Can you justify this statement?
will be: Yes it can be justified.
Providing that you use common sense on defining what is “the same”. (I’m so sure that you’ll argue that if it’s not equal word by word can’t be the same).
Of course if you were able to make a really long argument saying that the “lights"mentioned in genesis ARE NOT the moon and the sun (that’s when i started to wonder how sun and moon were created), and really got stuck in the meaning and sense of 1 word “firmament”. And even you were sure without doubt what Moses, Job, and God exactly wanted to say, I don’t expect that the resemblances and common places in all creation myths at the region will be clear to you.
Reply to this commentDecember 30th 2009
cont
By the way martin, you demanded proof that origin that cosmology and cosmogony knowledge were shared (Can you justify this statement? What proof do you have that the Hebrews shared the elaborate cosmological views of other cultures?”).
Well Bible is not the only ancient document from the past. Your proof resides in the several ancient documents that are being founded and translated.
So you can say those documents are false. Or as i say before most probably you’ll say ” Hey mesopotamian’s god and hebrew’s gods (in one version), god (in other version) did some things the same way. But did way more things differently, so it doesn’t mean anything and we can’t take anything valuable from it”
Reply to this commentDecember 30th 2009
Hector,
Reply to this commentI’m not denying some type of connection between the Bible and other ANE writings; I’m simply saying that we must be careful not to assume that the Hebrews held to concepts that were held by a neighboring culture, simply because the two cultures use terms or descriptions that are formally similar. Similarity of language does not prove identity of concept. For example, the fact that Genesis 1 speaks of God making a “raqia”—a thin, spread out layer of “something“—to divide the waters from the waters, doesn’t mean the Hebrew prophets held to the raqia being literally a “hard dome” simply because a neighboring culture specified that it was. If both cultures are working from an earlier tradition common to both, it would stand to reason that the Hebrews, God’s chosen nation, would preserve the original, simple concept in its pure form, whereas the surrounding pagan cultures—interested as they were in astrology—would develop from the original, divinely revealed concept the more elaborate concept of the raqia being literally a hard dome. The formal similarity of language and description does not prove identity of concept.
December 30th 2009
Hector,
Reply to this commentAs evidence of what I’m talking about, consider the similarities between the teaching of Genesis 2 regarding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and that of the Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths Genesis 2 speaks of a single river originating in Eden which splits into four rivers, among them the Tigris and Euphrates—a simple, unembellished statement. According to the Babylonians and Sumerians, however, the Tigris and Euphrates were produced as the result of a conflict among the gods. When one god was defeated and split in half, the Euphrates flowed from one eye and the Tigris from the other. Which account gives evidence of embellishment and elaboration? Clearly, the Genesis narrative preserves in its original form an earlier tradition, whereas the Babylonian and Sumerian narratives represent a mythical elaboration and corruption of that same tradition. As one writer puts it, “In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, rather than the reverse.”