When a Believer in the Myth of Scientism…

…tells you “Science Destroys Creation Myths” consider  the possibility that the reply to this is, “Rubbish!”

  • Dr. Eric

    How does the common consensus that Job is much older than Genesis change the “science versus religion fight”? It would seem to me that perhaps it is The Book of Job that needs to be studied more closely. What does it mean when God subdues leviathan and behemoth?

    • Bob_the_other

      I don’t know that there is a common consensus that Job is older than Genesis particularly (and I cannot access the article, so I apologize if this has been answered there). Job came together over several generations, as did Genesis. There are early and late elements in both. I have a personal suspicion that Job is contemporary with or just before certain parts of Isaiah, since the latter quotes the former, and answers similar questions differently. The final form of Job might well be older than that of Genesis, but it is difficult to know. God’s subduing Leviathan and Behemoth is much like God’s creation of the world where previously there had been “waste and nothingness,” the subduing of chaos and the bringing of order. It is also a response to (and appropriation of) Babylonian and other surrounding mythology. What it is not is any kind of scientific claim in the modern sense. It has been argued that monotheism encouraged the idea of an ordered universe (most famously by M.B. Foster in three articles in Mind from 1934-1936), and therefore of science. I think the evidence does not bear him out. What can be demonstrated is that Christian theology and ecclesiology formed the background to some of the changes in natural philosophy, such as the clear distinction between nature and supernature, which emerged between the 11th and 13th centuries as part of the Church’s campaign against trials by ordeal.

      The science vs. religion fight is an attempt to take contemporary categories and apply them to history. There is no science vs. religion fight because both “science” (19th-20th c) and “religion” (16th -18thc) are modern constructs. Peter Harrison’s Gifford Lectures do a very good job of demonstrating this. As far as the Church vs. natural philosophy goes, again, the Church basically formed the background to the study of natural philosophy. The record is both of the context constraining certain people, and contributing to other people flourishing. In this sense, a natural philosophy vs. Church contrast is a bit like what a University/Academia vs. Science contrast would look like today.

  • JoFro

    Mark, is the National Catholic Register website down? Or has it been hacked? Because I can’t access it anymore and all the search engines are showing an error message.

    • Bob_the_other

      I haven’t been able to access it for a while either, but evidently others are.

  • Thomas Poovathinkal SSP

    I too find it practically impossible to access ncr websiter.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X