Thanks to the myth of there being a perpetual war between science and religion, even broad-minded unbelievers are liable to think the faithful are trying to effect damage control when we emphasize that the Bible is not a science textbook. Yet long, long before the Galileo affair, the widespread acceptance of Darwinian theory, or any other episode that supposedly discredits the Faith, one of the very greatest Doctors himself pointed out that the purpose of revelation is to tell us how to get to heaven rather than how the heavens go.
Saint Augustine, in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, warns that it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, in speaking through the prophets, “to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.” Pondering the day of Creation, Augustine concludes that “at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar”:
We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the [sun’s] setting and no morning but b the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.
Clearly, Augustine’s conversion did not dispel his intellectual curiosity, but instead gave it a new orientation.
It should come as no surprise that such a perceptive thinker’s reflections on creation and time should be cited generations later by non-Christian scientists such as Paul Davies. Or, for that matter, that a modified version of the Augustinian dictum Credo ut intellegam should be adopted by the famous Lutheran Werner Heisenberg (1901-76), who in his defense of classical education drew upon a revised version, Credo, ut agam; ago, ut intellegam:
This saying is relevant not only to the first voyages around the world, it is relevant to the whole of Western science, and also to the whole mission of the West […] Nobody knows what the future will hold and what spiritual forces will govern the world, but our first step is always an act of faith in something and a wish for something. We wish that spiritual life may once again blossom here, that here in Europe thoughts may continue to grow and shape the face of the world.
As some readers are no doubt already aware, Heisenberg was a peer of Einstein and one of the founders of quantum mechanics. So it is demonstrably untrue to say that the great men of modern science stand in uniform opposition to the Church Fathers.
In any event, as edifying as Augustine’s remarks about nature and the intellectual life may be, at least as important to our morally confused age are his observations about ethics and the problem of evil. Under the spell of various ideologies, so many today walk the same Manichean path that the youthful Augustine himself once trod prior to coming into the Church. Later in life, as a Christian, Augustine would realize the enormously significant truth that evil has no essence.
Saints have an appropriate love for each and every person and thing in Creation, with their highest love—adoration—directed toward God. Sin, by contrast, is committed whenever a man “inordinately loves the good which any nature possesses,” and is not to be blamed upon the things in themselves, which are inherently (albeit not supremely) good. In practical terms, as Augustine explained in City of God, sin is the result of disordered love:
For avarice is not a fault inherent in gold, but in the man who inordinately loves gold, to the detriment of justice, which ought to be held in incomparably higher regard than gold. Neither is luxury the fault of lovely and charming objects, but of the heart that inordinately loves sensual pleasures, to the neglect of temperance […] Pride, too, is not the fault of him who delegates power, nor of power itself, but of the soul that is inordinately enamored of its own power, and despises the more just dominion of a higher authority.
To apply this insight to the political pandaemonium that is post-modernity, the problem with the extreme nationalist or feminist or libertarian is not that the person in question may cherish nationality or women’s dignity or liberty, for all of these are indeed good and worthy and have a place in any just society. No, the problem with ideologues is that they adhere to such objects of devotion inordinately, to the utter exclusion of myriad other things which may have a claim upon them—honesty, for example, or the unborn child, or the public good.
The cure for ideology lies not in trying to cynically debunk commitments or ideals which are in themselves noble, but in placing all lesser loves under the rule of charity. Love is never forbidden. Rather, the challenge is to love rightly and in accord with Creation’s God-given harmony. This is, of course, easier said than done, both in the political realm and in our everyday lives. In striving for this high ideal, however, we are always free to call upon the aid of the Bishop of Hippo.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first posted on August 28, 2019.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you Jerry. As an ex-Southern Baptist convert to Catholicism myself, I always think about my parents watching the Billy Graham Evangelism shows and how Beverly Shea would sing about a God bigger than science, religion or anything the human mind can possible conceive: “Oh Lord, my God when I in awesome wonder…”. You know the key is ‘Wonder’ – as Pascal pointed out we keep looking for God and we find clues but he remains hidden, (I actually converted to Catholicism because of the liberating freedom of being able to think and doubt and re-think and question and resolve existentialism of St. Augustine). And in this glorious hide-and-seek for God, what wonderful human intellectual delights were produced and continue to be produced; Great aha moments as diverse as ‘Hamlet’, entropy, chow mein, 1/x as x approaches 0, ‘The Ethics’, The King James version of the Bible, action and equal/opposite reaction, Be-bop, the great pyramids of Giza, ‘Napoleon Dynamite…For me when I am bummed by the weight of the world and the ever growing influence of Satan’s liberalism mob-mentality, but as a Catholic it is a gift from God that in the great works of science and art I can find all roads pointing to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord.
See also:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/08/quantum-physics-mind-george-stanciu.html#comment-540315
You may know that a Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang theory:(per WIKI) Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (/ləˈmɛtrə/ lə-MET-rə; French: [ʒɔʁʒ ləmɛːtʁ] ⓘ; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, and mathematician who made major contributions to cosmology and astrophysics.[1] He was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law[2] with the solution to the Einstein field equations in the general theory of relativity for a homogenous and isotropic universe.[3][4][5] That work led Lemaître to propose what he called the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”, now regarded as the first formulation of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.[6][7]
Also see COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. Cosmic Horizons illuminates the most recent discoveries of modern astrophysics with essays by leading astronomers, including NASA scientists. The book also features profiles of astronomers such as Carl Sagan and Georges Lemaître (father of the Big Bang theory), case studies that cover the controversial evidence for the possibility of life on Mars, and stunning four-color photographs throughout. Written for the general reader, Cosmic Horizons makes the complex, abstract areas of astronomy and astrophysics―from the Big Bang to black holes―accessible and comprehensible to the public. Complementing the museum’s acclaimed
In 2018, the International Astronomical Union renamed the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. https://astronomynow.com/2018/10/29/iau-recommends-renaming-hubbles-law-to-include-lemaitre/
Initially, Einstein was not receptive to earlier and related research, but then apologized publicly in a scientific journal. In his general relativity he had maintained a steady-state universe by inserting a “schoolboy error in algebra” into his elaborate equations (1917). In 1923 Einstein wrote “My objection [to a 1922 letter by Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann] rested on an error in calculation. I consider Mr. Friedmann’s results to be correct and illuminating.” (from the concise and very readable and richly illustrated Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers,” Norton & Co., 1978).
After summarizing the rest of the story pointing of an expanding universe (1930), Jastrow concludes: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
WIKIPEDIA (as at today’s date) gives a good review of the provisionality and relative value of the Hubble formula, which formula is by no means known at this time to be “universally constant” and not transmuted through periodic durations.
I think it brings us back to Augustine’s basic cosmological insight. Modern science may avoid fairy tales gnosticism but it still requires careful handling.
On the other hand, sometimes a theory later is found nonetheless to be “overly imaginative”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Encyclopedia Britannica Online (avoid Wikipedia; it is biased and unscholarly) examines well the present value of Hubble Law:
https://www.britannica.com/search?query=hubble+law
yes, wiki is quick but what you said
thanks
The Hubble positions are in dispute, as can be discovered in cursory searches of the internet; and it is not as if everything has settled even among pro-Hubble scientists either.
My survey of BRITANNICA online, such as is available to me, indicates a less in-depth discussion than given in WIKIPEDIA. Assertions without critique.
The fact that WIKIPEDIA can be changeable does not mean that a given set of information is unreliable or irrelevant. In my humble amateur estimation, the particular WIKIPEDIA link I provided made sure to have addressed sound conter-points to the Hubble positions. Multiple counter-points are shown, explicit and implicit; here is one explicit one:
‘ Since the Hubble “constant” is a constant only in space, not in time, the radius of the Hubble sphere may increase or decrease over various time intervals. ‘
The WIKIPEDIA approach is consistent with rigorous science. Multiple counter-points all require further investigation and elucidation. Why baulk at this.
E. Galy adds, colliding galaxies indicate quite plainly that the movement in the universe is just not predictably uniform everywhere or through time.
D. Rowland argues that the universe is not expanding; however separately he also provides some compelling fact-based analysis refuting the Hubble “conclusions from red-shift”. See the 2 links to OS PUBLISHERS.
D. H. Bailey shows that there is enough information available to throw the Hubble constant into question. See the MATH SCHOLAR link.
At RESEARCHGATE, Salah A. Mabkhout, Thamar University, identifies among other things, red-shift paradox arising from quasars.
AI provides its own queries, as at this morning; which I am posting under the links.
Rowland 2022
https://www.ospublishers.com/Edwin-Hubble%E2%80%99s-FALSE-Law.html#Article
Rowland 2024
https://www.ospublishers.com/Hubble%E2%80%99s-Law-is-Invalid-because-of-Fudged-Data.html#Article
Bailey 2024 – Hubble Tension in crisis
https://mathscholar.org/2024/10/the-hubble-tension-a-growing-crisis-in-cosmology/
Mabkhout 2024
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377182576_A_Flaw_in_Hubble_law
From AI
AI Overview
Flaws and limitations of Hubble’s Law include its inapplicability to nearby galaxies due to local gravitational interactions, the fact that the Hubble constant isn’t a true constant as it can vary over time and by measurement method, and the historical issue of Hubble’s flawed data interpretation and assumptions regarding galaxy dimness and size, which led to inaccurate conclusions. Furthermore, the law doesn’t account for the universe’s accelerating expansion, requiring modern cosmology to incorporate more complex models.
Here are the main flaws and limitations:
a) Local Inapplicability:
Hubble’s Law applies to the vast, large-scale expansion of the universe, not to smaller scales like the Milky Way or even our Local Group of galaxies.
Local gravitational pulls between nearby galaxies disrupt the straightforward relationship between distance and velocity predicted by the law, leading to complex motions.
b) Hubble Constant Variability and Measurement Issues:
The value of the Hubble constant, which quantifies the universe’s expansion rate, has been shown to vary depending on the methods and objects used for measurement.
Different measurements using different techniques (e.g., cosmic microwave background vs. nearby supernovae) yield different results, creating the “Hubble tension” and suggesting the constant may not be constant over time or across different regions of the universe.
c) Historical Data and Methodological Flaws:
In the original formulation, Edwin Hubble’s analysis was based on oversimplified assumptions about galaxy dimness and size, misinterpreting the data to support a conclusion that space was expanding uniformly.
He incorrectly assumed that dimness was purely a function of distance and motion, leading to inaccurate distance estimations.
d) Oversimplification of Cosmic Expansion:
The original law implicitly assumes a constant expansion rate, but modern observations show that the universe’s expansion is actually accelerating.
This acceleration means that the simple relationship of Hubble’s Law does not provide a complete picture of the universe’s dynamic expansion.
e) Limitations in Distance Measurement:
Accurate distance measurements are crucial for Hubble’s Law, but these are challenging to obtain, especially for distant objects.
Factors like interstellar dust and gas can affect how light from distant galaxies is observed, introducing uncertainties into the distance calculations and the accuracy of the law.
Given the continuing scandals in the Church, and the millions spent compensating victims, St. Augustine certainly is a Saint for our century:
“Those sins which are against nature, like those of the men of Sodom, are in all times and places to be detested and punished. Even if all nations committed such sins, they should all alike be held guilty by God’s law” (Confessions 3.8).
Salyer writes: “Clearly Augustine’s conversion did not dispel his intellectual curiosity, but instead gave it a new orientation.”
Right on, it was Augustine’s consistent intellectual curiosity that not only was not dispelled, but that first freed him from Manichaeism. The Manichaeans lost his vote because they very wrong about astronomy:
“I compared them [observations and mathematical calculations on creation, succession of seasons, stars] with the pronouncements of Mani, who in the course of his raving had written very extensively on these matters, but in his works I found no explanation of solstices, equinoxes, or the eclipse of the greater lights, and nothing such as I had learned in the books on natural philosophy. But I was ordered to believe the things he wrote and this belief did not agree with those proofs established by mathematics and by my own eyes, but was far different” (Confessions, Book 5, Ch. 3).
St. Augustine’s counsel to Christian apologists (also in his Literal Reading of Genesis), therefore, is to avoid the same kind of theologizing too much about what is actually natural science. Potential converts deserve better.
I was taught the Araméen mind does not ask “is this true” when approching scripture but rather “what does this mean”.
If this is true (?) adopting such an Araméen mindset to approche an Araméen text seems logical.
Not sure of your point. But, I’m reminded of the “mindset” of Aquinas which seems to anticipate Galileo by a few centuries:
“Reasoning is employed (in another way), not as furnishing sufficient proof of a principle but as showing how the remaining effects are in harmony with an already posited principle; as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not however as if this proof were sufficient, since some other theory might explain them” (Summa Theologica, cited in L.M. Regis, “Epistemology,” 1964, p. 455, italics added).
The point was simply that the literal interpretation of Genesis would not have been at the forefront for the Araméen asking “what does this mean” 3000 years or so ago when Genesis was committed to parchement. “Is this literally true” is a cultural paradigme outside of the bible culture?
From what I’ve read astronomy was a branch of mathematics in Galileo’s era. In the pre-telescope naked eye observations of the heavens only the moon had observable features. It took the telescopic observations to disclose that we were seeing physical objects. The Ptolemaic system with its epicycles and the like was an attempt to make circular motion behave like ellipses. Kepler was only able to resolve the orbit of the planet Mars by discarding circular motion and using an ellipse to calculate its orbit. It took the physics of Newton to be able to handle the motions of the heliocentric model. There is a long series of articles that covers the Galileo controversy in some detail. They are the TOF Spot Great Ptolemaic Smackdown. The link for the table of contents is:
*
https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html
1. The universe today could be doing the very things it did “at the beginning” in the slow processes I have indicated elsewhere. No huge bang. Small bangs consequent on accumulated/slowly accumulating activities that do not begin with any bang.
2. Such slow-build processes could be the norm at the outer reaches of the universe. So that the universe is “expanding” or growing and effecting some “pull” upon the rest of the universe already in being and in motion.
3. It may be possible that the slow-build processes are not confined to the outer reaches. Bangs are more likely and more frequent inside and around the existing galactic areas because there is just more old material around for collisions.
4. Recession of galaxies could merely be the way things appear; and if there is some order to it at all and/or if there is order in some places only for the time being, etc., in the way things move “out” and move “apart”, are still things yet to be ascertained and determined.
There is scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is a development by Lemaître based on the work of Einstein. Einstein’s equations favor universes that either expand or contract. The expansion of the universe has been observed by astronomers. There is the cosmic background radiation, which is the remnant radiation of the Big Bang, and the amount of helium and deuterium in the universe as further evidence. The theory makes predictions that have been experimentally verified. Any theory that replaces the Big Bang Theory will have to account for the existing evidence and provide a superior explanation of this evidence.
Augistine, the saint, was the very first Christian theologian to claim that anti-semitism hate was acceptable. If he is the example needed for the 21st century, then those who claim so need upto re-examine their relationship with G-d
Do you have a reference or citation? Where specifically did he say that?
Augustine (sic) actually entertained two views about Judaism. Neither one as simplistic as you propose (the “hate” thingy). About needed commentaries, try this: https://adfontesjournal.com/commonwealth/augustine-and-antisemitism/