Orthodox and geocentrism, flat-earthism, etc.

[jgress]

You are welcome to be open-minded about astronomical theories that absolutely no one with any expertise in the subject considers valid. But I think you are using a fallacious appeal to authority. I'm not aware of any theological school in Orthodoxy that considers the Fathers or Scripture infallible in matters of science. Let me quote Fr Michael Pomazansky:

The difference between theology and the natural sciences, which are founded upon observation or experiment, is made clear by the fact that dogmatic theology is founded upon living and holy faith. Here the starting point is faith, and there, experience. However, the manners and methods of study are one and the same in both spheres; the study of facts, and deductions drawn from them. Only, with natural science the deductions are derived from facts collected through the observation of nature, the study of the life of peoples, and human creativity; while in theology the deductions come from the study of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The natural sciences are empirical and technical, while our study is theological.

This clarifies the difference also between theology and philosophy. Philosophy is erected upon purely rational foundations and upon the deductions of the experimental sciences, to the- extent that the latter are capable of being used for the higher questions of life; while theology is founded upon Divine Revelation. They must not be confused; theology is not philosophy even when it plunges our thinking into profound or elevated subjects of Christian faith which are difficult to understand.

Theology does not deny either the experimental sciences or philosophy. St. Gregory the Theologian considered it the merit of St. Basil the Great that he mastered dialectic to perfection, with the help of which he overthrew the philosophical constructs of the enemies of Christianity. In general, St. Gregory did not sympathize with those who expressed a lack of respect for outward learning. However, in his renowned homilies on the Holy Trinity, after setting forth the profoundly contemplative teaching of Triunity, he thus remarks of himself "Thus, as briefly as possible I have set forth for you our love of wisdom, which is dogmatical and not dialectical, in the manner of the fishermen and not of Aristotle, spiritually and not cleverly woven, according to the rules of the Church and not of the marketplace" (Homily 22).

Think about this another way: has anyone ever become a saint by being a brilliant scientist or philosopher? No, because worldly knowledge is irrelevant to salvation in itself. It follows that we shouldn't have to insist on the scientific accuracy of Scripture or the Fathers, because that accuracy is irrelevant to salvation.

If there is an apparent conflict between faith and science, in other words, the conflict is entirely in your head. It does not invalidate the science, and it does not invalidate the faith. Being unable to reconcile the two does not qualify you to reject the science on matters of fact or reasoning, nor to declare the faith false. It only shows that you don't have the depth of intellect or spiritual insight to see how both can be true at once. I admit I am one of those: I don't understand how, for instance, we can both accept the chronologies of Genesis and the age of the earth as established beyond reasonable doubt by geological science. But I don't insist on the basis of my lack of understanding on either the falsehood of geology or of Scripture.

And no, I haven't yet read the pages. At the moment, I think it's a waste of my time, if the authors are so obtuse as to imagine that astronomical experts consider Geocentrism a "valid" theory. Sorry if I seem brusque about this subject, but I think it can confuse and scandalize educated inquirers into Orthodoxy to insist they accept Fundamentalist attitudes.

[Matthew]

I see. Well, then I will not say any more about the subject. I am not learned in the areas of science or faith, but I have done the best I can throughout my whole life since the age of 15 (30 years of active search, study, consulting etc.) to find the truth about all things that directly or indirectly (physical science can have some effect because evolution does destroy many young students' faith). I understand that this does not make me a qualified expert on anything, even though I did go to McGill University and graduated with a degree in Religious Studies (which is one of the top 20 universities in the world rankings). I know I may be wrong about things you and disagree on here, but I am content to keep silent and let the judgement of God prevail upon us all as to what is, in fact, true, both about the Faith and the physical sciences. Finally, I am genuinely sorry if I scandalised anyone by anything I wrote previously here on Geocentrism or against Darwinian Evolution or the Millions of years age of life on earth that the modern sciences are selling as a fact--things I am totally opposed to as destructive to faith and truth--be it physical or spiritual truth. I was only speaking out of piqued interest and the appreciation of ideas and calm, dispassionate debate; not a fanatical and mindless zeal that angrily defends its own prideful opinions. I fear that perhaps my previous posts may have caused some readers to think that about what I was saying. Thank you for your correction.

Symeon

[Matthew]

Sorry, editing quote was not allowed when I noticed the sentence was incomplete in thought. I meant to say:

"I am not learned in the areas of science or faith, but I have done the best I can throughout my whole life since the age of 15 (30 years of active search, study, consulting etc.) to find the truth about all things that directly or indirectly affect our Faith (physical science can have some effect because evolution does destroy many young students' faith)."

Also, I want to add that I do not see ANY contradiction between the views of the physical universe presented in the Scripture and the Physical Sciences. I do believe the the physical sciences, which are not based on divine Revelation are open to error--and therefore are open also to change and correction--do support the divinely revealed truths about the physical universe that are presented in Scripture, which includes the fact that the Earth pre-existed the Sun, and that death DID NOT enter the world millions of years ago with the dinosaurs etc. long before Adam and Eve, but that Nothing suffered death until Adam because Sin only entered the world with the events told us in the Garden of Eden. If we would have death entering the world millions, even billions of years ago, then this completely severs the direct relationship of the reality of sin of Adam (Man) to the reality of death. And that in turn overthrows all that Christ and St Paul teach about salvation (soteriology). So I believe that Science has to have the guiding hand of divine revelation to arrive at the proper interpretation of observable phenomena and data. I am simply saying that most of the people of this world are not believers and interpret what they see through the lens of a presupposed impersonal and accidental universe. This is what sends their majority opinion over the cliffs of error. Remember St Maximos said, even if the WHOLE WORLD commune with heretics I will NOT commune with them. So it is irrelevant if the majority of the world's scientists interpret the data in a way that contradicts the divinely revealed truths of Scripture about certain details of the cosmos. I could say more about some of the things written in your last post but I will hold my peace on all these matters from now on. I only added this last post because I noticed that I had not completed the sentence in my last post and wanted to clarify what I intended to say. But again, I am sorry for anything I said that scandalised or tried the patience of any of my brothers or sisters. That was not my intention as I always try to be sensitive to the feelings of others and to be honest with myself about my own limitations.

Forgive,
Symeon

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Can someone define 'fundamentalism'? What does it literally mean?

[Matthew]

Fundamentalism has different meanings or applications, but generally it denotes a political or ideological position that favours a set of basic ideas with a strong attachment. It can be used merely as a descriptor in an academic or clinical sense, or it can be used as a pejorative, in which case it means fanatical and ignorant zeal for some mislead notions based on false assumptions. There is political fundamentalism among political ideologues, as well as in academia one can find linguistic fundamentalists, for example in the area of language studies. There is also the most familiar and oft noted variety of religious fundamentalism--Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, and, of course, Protestant fundamentalism. In most cases, one finds the term "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" applied against opponents as a means of discrediting them or their positions. In the first case it is used ad hominem, in the second, it is used legitimately if, indeed, it is proven that the opponent's position does, in truth, definitively conform to a fundamentalist ideology.

[Cyprian]

I would not feel compelled to revive this thread from a few years ago if I hadn't come across so much disinformation, that save for the valiant solitary efforts of Symeon, essentially went unchallenged. It's too bad Symeon's point of view was squelched, since the viewpoints he expressed are most reasonable, being the Orthodox point of view.

To begin with, the notion presented in this thread that the Holy Fathers of the Church believed in a flat earth is patently false. They universally believed the earth to be spherical, which can be easily demonstrated with a plethora of quotations from the Great Fathers, both East and West. There also exists an iconographic tradition dating back many centuries, even all the way back to at least the time of St. Constantine the Great, whereby either Christ, or the emperor, or the archangel, is holding the globe of the earth in his hand.

Globus cruciger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger

Furthermore, the cosmological paradigm by which the Holy Fathers understood the universe was geocentric. The teaching of Holy Church is that the earth is the center of the universe, and that it is stationary. The sun revolves around the earth, and the earth remains firm, meaning it does not spin on its axis.

The real scandal to Orthodox enquirers has not come from the well-reasoned views of Symeon, but rather from that wolf Kyrill of Moscow, who was quoted in a 2008 interview in Der Spiegel:

Interview With Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Kyrill
'The Bible Calls it a Sin'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... druck.html

SPIEGEL: How do you feel about Orthodox priests who want to remove Darwin's theory of evolution from the curriculum, because it contradicts the story of creation in the Bible?
Kyrill: The study of the physical world should not be the subject of religion, and for this reason the church should not misappropriate any scientific theories. The Catholic Church made this mistake when it preached geocentrism. When scientists later discovered that it was not the earth but the sun that was at the center of our system, they were considered heretics. Copernicus was also a priest, and the Catholic Church of the day also saw itself as a community of science. The Orthodox Church never did this.

[Cyprian]

St. Ambrose of Milan
Letter II [A.D.379.] Ambrose to Constantius

And there are the rivers of the flood, which make glad the peaceful and tranquil soul. He that receives, as did John the Evangelist, as did Peter and Paul, the fullness of this stream, lifts up his voice; and like as the Apostles loudly heralded forth to the farthest limits of the globe the Evangelic message, so he also begins to preach the Lord Jesus. Receive to drink therefore of Christ, that your sound may also go forth.

St. Gregory of Nyssa
On the Soul and Resurrection

As, when the sun shines above the earth, the shadow is spread over its lower part, because its spherical shape makes it impossible for it to be clasped all round at one and the same time by the rays, and necessarily, on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness; so, by this analogy, we have reason to be certain that, whatever in our hemisphere is observed to befall the atoms, the same will befall them in that other.

St. John Chrysostom
Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans
Homily XVIII: Rom. X. 14, 15.

For what more foolish than the Greeks? or what of less account? See how by every means God had given from of old indications and clear signs of these times, in order to remove their blindness. For it was not any little corner in which the thing was done, but in land, and in sea, and in every quarter of the globe. And they saw those in the enjoyment of countless blessings now, who had formerly been objects of their contempt.

St. Jerome
Letter LX: To Heliodorus

1. Moreover before the resurrection of Christ God was "known in Judah" only and "His name was great in Israel" alone. And they who knew Him were despite their knowledge dragged down to hell. Where in those days were the inhabitants of the globe from India to Britain, from the frozen zone of the North to the burning heat of the Atlantic ocean? Where were the countless peoples of the world? Where the great multitudes?

St. Augustine of Hippo
The City of God - Book XII, Chapter 12

Consequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers, the same question could still be put, Why was he not made before? For the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from creating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold number of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of this term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe.

St. Gregory the Great
Book V - Epistle XVIII: Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople

Of a truth it was proclaimed of old through the Apostle John, Little children, it is the last hour, according as the Truth foretold. And now pestilence and sword rage through the world, nations rise against nations, the globe of the earth is shaken, the gaping earth with its inhabitants is dissolved.

St. Isidore of Seville
Etymologies Book V

1. There are three parts of a day: morning, midday, and evening. 14. In the morning the light is advanced and full, no longer twilight. It is called morning (mane) from the adjective ‘good,’ because the ancients used manus as a word for ‘good’ — for what is better than light? Others think that morning is named from the ‘departed spirits’ (Manes), whose abode is between the moon and the earth. Others think the name is from ‘air,’ because it is manus, that is, rarified and transparent. 15. Midday (meridies) is so called as if the word were medidies, that is, the ‘middle of the day’ (medius dies), or because then the day is purer, for merum means “pure.” Indeed of the whole day nothing is brighter than midday, when the sun shines from the middle of the sky and lights the whole globe with equal clarity.

St. Bede the Venerable
The Reckoning of Time

This word is defined in two ways, that is, according to common parlance, and according to its proper [meaning]. On the whole, ordinary folk call the Sun’s presence above the Earth “day”. But properly speaking, a day comprises 24 hours, that is, a circuit of the Sun lighting up the entire globe. [The Sun] always and everywhere carries the daylight around with itself, and it is believed to be borne aloft at night under the Earth by no less a space of air than it is by day above the Earth. This claim rests on the authority of much Christian as well as secular literature, but we need present the testimony of only one Father, Augustine. In the second book of questions on the Gospels, explaining the sum of the seventy-two disciples according to its figural meaning, he says, Just as the whole globe is traversed and lit up in 24 hours, so the mystery of the illumination of the globe through the Gospel of the Trinity is intimated by the 72 disciples.