Replies

Let's not forget the "Fathers" were wrong about many things. Luther thought Corpernicus and Galileo were wrong about helicentrism. Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science? That doesn't make sense. Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view. It's like the Darwin Fundies who make a list of people who support Darwinism then use that as proof for Darwinsim.

The church fathers needed no scientific insight when looking at the Creation narrative because it is so obviously not science. Genesis chapter 1 consistently throws scientific impossibilities at the reader not the least of which is that the very possibility of observation doesn't occur until after creation has taken place.

The fathers wisdom has stood the test of time. The best of their teaching is part of the body of work that informs the magisterium of the Catholic Church. That's not cherry picking who I prefer. Their views are authoritative because the Church says they are.

Let's not forget the "Fathers" were wrong about many things. Luther thought Corpernicus and Galileo were wrong about helicentrism.

Most people wouldn't consider those two characters to be fathers. When I mean fathers, I mean bishops, priests, or monks writing between approximately A.D. 50 and 600.

Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science?

They don't have special insight into science, but they do have special insight into theology and Biblical exegesis because they lived closer to apostolic times. And yes, some Fathers did have special insight into the Biblical languages. Many of the early Fathers, like Origin, lived in societies wherein the Biblical languages were still in everyday usage. Others had access to ancient texts in these languages that have since been lost.

Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view.

Well, that's not how patristic research is typically done. What you should do is study the Fathers as a group and make note of issues upon which there is broad agreement. When you see that, it is significant.