Today in class we discussed at length St. Augustine's interesting and eccepting view of other practices and ideas. I thought it would be interesting to speculate on what his take would be of an idea that came about long after his time, specifically evolution.
A very controversial issue for social, religious, and even political debate, evolution has been both accepted and rejected by different Christian groups. I would like to investigate, using his own words and opinions expressed in "On Christian Teaching", St. Augustine's take on theist evolutionism. Theistic evolutionism is, at its core, the belief that evolution is God's tool for creating the world. This viewpoint has been rejected by many Christian denominations who favor Creationism or Intelligent Design, but has also been accepted by such figures and bodies as Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church.
First, I think Augustine's opinion on science leaves room for theistic evolutionism. On page 47 he describes two kinds of learning, human instituted and divinely instituted. I would argue that theistic evolutionism could be viewed as divinely instituted because it is an attempt to understand and appreciate God's creation. Furthermore, thestic evolution doesn't wander into the dangerous territory that Augustine warns about on page 54, that is, it doesn't become an obstacle to more important things, because the focus is on creation, and God's method for bringing the immense biodiversity of our world about. Finally, the approach to studying evolution (including theistic evolution) would be considered science by Augustine, especially considering his differentiation between science and superstitition on page 56 where he contrasts orally ingesting some types of plants to wearing them around your neck. The systematic approach used in evolutionary biology is consistent with the logic-based reason that Augustine defends here.
I think theistic evolution would bypass (at least to Augustine) the main hurdle that it has faced from the modern Christian groups, biblical reference to creation. My reasoning for this assertion is as follows. First, on pages 75 and 76, Augustine says that anything not pertaining to good morals or true faith can be taken as figurative. He goes on to describe that this "true faith" can be accounted for as long as one's conscience sees progress being made towards understanding the love of God. I would argue that theistic evolution could and does legitimately pursue this goal, by increasing our understanding of the incredible care and masterful power God would need to have to create such an incredibly complex living world. Second, but related, this idea is further supported within the context of Augustine's statements on page 79, where he describes acts being evaluated within their cultural context. I would argue that he would acept the act of believing and supporting theistic evolution ESPECIALLY considering the overwhelming body of evidence and broad support for evolution. Finally, because belief in theistic evolution would not comprimise the the major foundations and goals of a Christian life, it would be a valid biblical interpretation considering Augustine's acceptance of such interpretations on page 87.
For these reasons I believe that St. Augustine would accept this interpretation that has been considered so heretic by many modern Christian groups.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There are a couple of reasons why some believers in the Bible do not feel comfortable with interpreting things not pertaining to good morals or true faith as figurative. One is that it is very subjective to decide where to draw the line. One can decide based on his personal preferences that a certain set of scriptures is not about good morals or true faith, then interpret it figuratively. But a more serious problem is that the Bible claims to be the word of God, and many passages that some would like to interpret figuratively (because they think they do not apply to good morals or true faith) are not written in figurative language. They are written using literal language. This would suggest that God's word is not true and cannot be trusted if you think these passages cannot be believed literally. And if God hasn't ensured the accuracy of these passages, how can you be sure the other parts are accurate even in matters of morals and faith?
As far as evolution is concerned, there really is no contradiction between a literal reading of Genesis and the fossil and genetic record, even the teaching of science that fossils are millions of years old. Genesis 1:1 says God created the earth, and verse 2 says the earth was desolate, covered with water and in darkness. There is evidence elsewhere in the Bible that the condition in verse 2 was not the condition of the earth as created in verse 1, so it appears that some disastrous event caused the condition of verse 2. All this happened before the six days that Bible chronology says happened about six thousand years ago. The period of time between verse 1 and verse 2 could have been hundreds of millions of years, and there could have been life on this earth during that time. This could have resulted in the fossil record.
additionally, the hebrew term "echad yom" found in genesis is often translated to first day, popularizing the 7 days idea. However, this term (as well as the terms for the other 6 days) is much more frequently used throughout the old testament in reference to an unspecified period of time. This suggests that "echad yom" in genesis is more likely refering to the first age, than it is to a literal 24 hour period
Post a Comment