Talks on St Maximus the Confessor (and some thoughts on science)

Ora et Labora

By Fr Andrew Louth.  These talks have something to do with “The Fathers and Modern Science.”  The first one is simply dealing with challenges Orthodoxy will face this century.  The second one is on St Maximus.

For the most part these are outstanding.  A few qualms, though.   In the second talk Fr Louth seems to throw a bone to Darwinism, saying that St Maximus’ thought is open to evolution.  Why is this kind of stuff necessary?  For what it’s worth, I acknowledge the criticisms of Young Earth Creationism.  I admit–and frankly have never been impressed–that the Intelligent Design movement is nothing more than a bunch of Culture Warriors trying to prop up a dead and dying culture (or maybe return to the Golden Age of Americanism).  Reading Joseph Farrell has opened my mind on these things.

However, none of this proves Darwinism.  Darwinism (at least in today’s manifestation) is not science.  It is a religion, and a rather primitive idol at that.  Modern Darwinism posits a creation story, a cosmology, a soteriology, and in some forms, an eschatology.  Never mind that some Darwinists advocate imprisoning Christians for brain-washing their children.  Be careful of the implications of your statements.

Now, back to the talks.  Another qualm is that even granting that St Maximus possibly held to an outdated cosmology–and I am not so sure he did–is there not something to it?  I am going to have to go back to the talks on this point.  It is towards the end of the message.  It seems that St Maximus is advocating something similar to CS Lewis in The Discarded Image and The Space Trilogy.   Long story short I think one can still hold to St Maximus’ cosmology without affirming geo-centrism.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Talks on St Maximus the Confessor (and some thoughts on science)”

  1. I just offered some thoughts on distinguishing “Darwinism” and “evolution” on my blog. Let me know what you think.

  2. It’s not that I object to “evolution” or “old earth,” per se. I’ve just never been convinced that when intellectual Christians, faced with academic scorn over seeming implications of their faith, they adopt a variant of other position but are always claiming, “Well, the Bible can accomodate that, too.”

    riiiiiiggghhtttt

    Reading Dr Joseph Farrell has convinced me that the Old Earth (or Old Universe, to be more precise) is a better theological model. Of course, no one can accuse him of being liberal nor is he saying that Adam and Eve were monkeys.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: