History Of Faith And Science (part 1)

Heavenly Father, thank you for this morning. Thank you for the the chance to rest and recreate this weekend thank you for the holiday weekend that we get to enjoy friends and family and and All the blessings that you give us here in this world Lord.

Thank you for our physical bodies thank you for all of our senses you've given us the the blessings of your world that you've created and ordered According to your will and your purpose and Lord. You do tell us that time has a beginning and time has an end and we do know that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to return one day to take us all home and to Finally bring an end to history and Bring eternal life to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and we thank you Lord for this time.

And we ask you to bless it in his name. Amen. So we're going to do today we're going to go through a history of science and faith. What we're going to do over the next three weeks is we're going to discuss eight Major faith in science.

We'll call them controversies for now or at times when the church has sort of went at a face value level that the data from science and the data from scripture have seemed to conflict and the the real question is You know when when the the scriptures and the world seem to give contradictory messages, how does the church work through those things?

So what I'd like to do first actually, let me back out of this and let me give you a let me do an overview of What I would like to present over the next three weeks. So here's an outline and I apologize.

I was going to give you handouts and I just wasn't organized enough. So I apologize. So next week we'll have handouts for everybody. But here's basically where we're going to go over the next next few weeks this week.

We're going to discuss the first issue of science and faith. We're going to discuss is the cosmos. Is the cosmos eternal. Or did it have a beginning. Is it finite? We're going to discuss how the church dealt with that and some of the philosophical issues surrounding that.

The second issue we're going to discuss is a structure of the earth. Is the earth a sphere or is it a flat? Okay, if you go on the internet, you wouldn't be too sure today I think. Does anybody know what the antipodes are.

Don't look okay boy. Anybody heard the word antipodes. Raise your hand if you have or antipodes, you might have heard it pronounced that way. Okay, learn what we'll learn what that's about and learn why it was somewhat controversial.

Then next week we're going to devote the entire lesson to the solar system. The question of our solar system and the nature of the universe is. The earth is set in the center or is the Sun the center?

Why was that controversial? Why was that an issue and of the scriptures seem to teach something different? Then the final week we're going to discuss all the fun stuff that pretty much is discussed today.

Biological Change, Fixity of Species, and Human Origins

First of all biological change part one. Sorry. I'm zipping ahead of myself. Biological change part one what's called a fixity of species the idea that species once created by God never changed. That was an idea that was was predominant until really modern times.

And versus the change of the biological realm over time that by the way is no longer controversial. But those the following three are the cosmic age. Is it an old earth or a young earth. We're not going to necessarily settle these questions.

By the way, it's not my goal my goal is to have a healthy discussion and what the issues really Center around and finally biological change. Darwinism versus intelligent design. Believe it or not. We're going to gloss over that in the same lesson and then the nature of man.

Is there universal common descent slash evolution or is there a historical special creation? So we're going to talk about those over the next three weeks and hopefully we'll have a healthy healthy discussion about those things.

So let's back out of this. Let me back out of this and then we'll we'll get into the Death by PowerPoint. So let's do this. All right. So can you guys see the screen? Do we need to do the front lights or not?

Is that okay? All right. And so the first thing I want to discuss this lesson is really background and it's pre Copernican questions now. Does anybody know when Copernicus wrote his famous work on the revolutions of the heavens roughly century-wise.

It's to orient ourselves. Close 1300s. It's actually 1500s so the 16th century so It took a long time for these things to kind of come up and get resolved. But there was a model prior that Copernicus is really kind of that watershed or that dividing line.

Scientifically where it's really I think viewed historically as the advent of modern science. Where people started to do an empirical study of the universe and say, okay. We can now our technology is improving.

We have better our math some of the ancient learning came to light that we can evaluate scientifically and Really Copernicus that's around 15 think think 1550 somewhere in that age 16th century. So First of all the question of how can we how do you know anything?

It's a philosophical. We're going to go in the shallow end of the philosophical pool over the next few weeks. Epistemology. It's it comes from the Greek pistis it's the study of human knowledge or how we know what we know and how certainly we can know it and All of these questions when we make statements about the physical world.

We're making claims of knowledge or we're making epistemological claims. Another question our religious and scientific is religious and scientific knowledge hopelessly separated. Or is there a war between faith and science?

Are they at war or in conflict? That's known as a conflict thesis and it was it was developed during the 1800s pretty much. Discounted by all historians of science today, but I think it's still popular out there.

Another question. How can we know about the physical world? Is it is it the Bible only is it Bible and science together? Is it science only. Those are kind of philosophical questions about how we can know what we know.

And finally, what is it? What is the difference between speculation opinion educated guesses common knowledge conviction and certainty? And I think sometimes the church has had conviction and certainty on certain issues or common knowledge.

But then it's had to revisit those things based on data from nature and data from science. So we'll go over some of the cases where that happened. And I think it'll be helpful to us as far as the theory of knowledge or epistemology goes.

There's a concept out there. That's pretty well established as knowledge. Belief is what somebody holds in their heart to be true. Knowledge I'm going to define as justified true belief and what that means the difference between belief and knowledge.

So people can believe that the stars tell the future that is a belief. Doesn't count as knowledge because it's not justified. It's also not true. Give an example, it would be superstition. Okay. Here I'm going to define belief as a subjective element or it's internal to the person.

Subjective element of knowledge and it can be based on many things. Things can be believed that are false or have little or no justification for example speculation or conspiracies. Who killed JFK. Does anybody have an opinion on that?

I'm not gonna ask you to share it. Okay, I have an opinion. What is my opinion based on? Oliver Stone. Maybe is that a valid way to decide that question? I'm not going to go there, but I am going to say that People can believe things just because they they guess or they their gut reaction is I'm going to believe it on this basis.

Secondly belief may be justified if a person has warrant for that belief. So you believe it. It's something you hold to be true and you can show a rational reason for that belief. This is why I believe what I believe our Christian faith.

We believe what we believe because The Apostles said we were eyewitnesses to his majesty to his miracles to his resurrection. Christianity at the core is Justified true belief because we hold it to be true we can justify it based on eyewitness testimony that we have recorded in the scriptures and It is true.

We know it to be true and Jesus validated that by rising from the dead and that's also a historically provable Event. Okay. There's a recent book by Jay Warner Wallace. Does anybody know it? Just came out he's he's sort of a retired LA detective.

But he wrote a book about the resurrection about how that can kind of be through the rules of kind of historical science. You can establish it beyond a reasonable doubt that kind of idea. So what we have is a historical faith so we have to think rightly about history and about past events in the context of Christian faith and so a Belief is objectively true if it represents reality independent of other subjective or objective factors.

People can believe that Allah is a true God. That's a belief. They justify it. But is it true? We believe it's not and we put we base that belief on on The scriptures and what we know to be true about the Christian faith so we can make judgments about things.

So just to get orient you about epistemology as a concept. Quickly two types of science observational historical some things we can do experiments on some things we can repeat also known as experimental science.

So the first one involves inductive reasoning so your reasoning From what we know to what either is no is real generally or true to what will be true or what will happen in the future. It involves a study of repeatable phenomena observable in the present and Inferences are drawn as to regular operations and laws in the natural realm.

This is observational science. Conclusions are fairly certain depending on how much data there is. So the more data you have the more justified you can believe in Observational type science the operation of the cosmos the expanding universe things like that examples of observational science.

Historical science on the other hand involves abductive reasoning what we call inference to the best explanation. It generally involves a study of non repeatable singular events in the past and it infers or draws forward infers about past causes.

For things phenomena and effects we observe in the present okay, and We'll give examples of that as we really the historical science that is going to really involve the third week. There's a little bit of historical science today, but it's mainly going to be Observational or experimental type science we're going to discuss but there is one issue the beginning of the universe.

Is that historical or observational science? Historical science why I mean if you look at those two definitions did it happen more than once? Can we do it again? Can't redo it, right? So we have that's that's historical science historical science question, right?

Doesn't mean we can't know it. It just means that It's not it. Your conclusions are going to be different and the process you go through is going to be different. You can't repeat it and then finally the conclusions are tentative and open to revision when the new data arise and just let me get say this about the Third week when we discuss issues of biological origins the age of the earth.

That's very important to keep in mind. We have to remain humble because as Ken Ham famously says well, I wasn't there you weren't there, but God was. So, how do we come about our knowledge? It's a good point.

And when I first heard that if you've ever heard the Ken Ham bill nye debate 2014 Everybody's seen part of it. Anyway When you watch the whole thing, it's very interesting. He made this distinction and a first reaction was like no, that's not right.

But then the more I thought about I'm like no that is right. He's right. Whether you agree with we can't know anything before, you know a certain time or not. That's a different question. His conclusion is debatable, but his point about the difference that I think is very real and very true.

So we have to make certain adjustments when we're dealing with issues of historicity or historical science. Okay, when science and faith seem to conflict how do we resolve the conflicts we should ask certain questions.

First of all, what does the Bible say on the matter? Does the Bible even address this physical phenomenon the physical world? Secondly, what does the science indicate? Is there any data? Do we have anything to work off of work with?

Thirdly, how did the church navigate similar conflicts in the past did the church run up against this or something similar to this and how? Do they work through things hermeneutically or interpretively with the scriptures and the science?

Fourth can we maintain biblical errancy inerrancy and good science? That is going to be our goal. How do you do both? Can you do both me? Some people say no you can either be biblical and errantist and Forget about science or you do good science and the Bible.

Well, that's not really useful in telling us about the world beyond faith salvation things like that, right? All right. So here's here's my model for Formation of theories in the physical world. Yes question.

Yeah, sure. Yeah, I am. Yeah, that's shorthand for Christian faith or faith in the scriptures or what the scripture seems to teach on any given matter. That's a good point. Yep. Good point Brian. Yep.

So here's here's how I think this is a pretty solid way for looking at how theories form. So we're talking about science it involves formation of theories and models when you want a solar system. We all have in our mind right now model of the solar system.

It's very different than the model that Augustine had for example or Ptolemy or Aristotle. How where the planets were how the stars worked how all that did what the earth did. Is it stationary? Did it move?

So One way to do it I have a 1a and 1b. 1a is you start with a philosophical commitment. And we'll talk about this with regard to the eternality or finiteness of the universe of the universe have a beginning.

Aristotle thought no because he thought Nothing comes from nothing. In the words of Maria von Trapp or in Latin He said ex nihilo nihilo fit or out of nothing nothing comes nothing comes from nothing.

So he thought if there's something now There's no time that couldn't have been nothing it always had to be something so Aristotle taught the eternality of matter and of the universe. Well, that's how you start with a philosophical commitment without any data.

You're just philosophizing and you come up with a theory of the eternality of matter in the universe. Or you can start out with a biblical passage Genesis 1 1 and no physical data in the universe. I can't look back.

It's singular as Brian said can't go back in history and repeat history the initial theory is the finiteness of The cosmos and the universe had a beginning. So step two you have that initial theory. Corey stretching you're asking.

Okay. Step two is you have either one of those ways you form an initial theory or initial model. Then step two is you start coming up with empirical data and historically we'll see this is true. These questions continued for a period of time because there was no data so both could be true until the data comes in and Finally when the the proofs become overwhelming as Augustine put it convincing Proofs.

Overwhelming and I have his language here later, but finally the theory becomes more accepted. It's more of a common knowledge type of thing. So that's kind of the the progress if you will of theory or model formation.

The Cosmos Had a Beginning

So issue number one, let's start with the first issue cosmic time is The cosmos eternal or did it have a beginning in time? Did time have a beginning itself? Good question. As I said Aristotle and others before Christ theorized an eternal cosmos the Bible indicates a finite cosmos and beginning to the entire creation.

Genesis 1 1 in fact the Hebrew word for Genesis is literally in the beginning. Right in Hebrew. So it's not called Genesis. It's called in the beginning the whole phrase. That's the title of the book.

I love that. So but a lack of data at the time makes both theories possible. Okay. Do you like Aristotle? Do you like Moses? I know what you're gonna go with it. So let's pick sides but the two views.

There's a disparity and and the two realms are now brought into conflict whether we like it or not. Okay, you have two competing theories about the world about reality really so in cosmic time in this question.

There was a philosophical pre commitment to the eternality of matter and time which drove the theory outside of the biblical witness but the Bible clearly indicates the cosmos had a beginning and that it is distinct from and contingent upon a creator creator God so as opposed to the ideas of Pantheism or pan and the ism the universe is not God.

God is not embedded in the universe. God is separate and. And the universe is dependent and contingent upon him. And the issue persisted believe it or not until the 20th century. Without resolution by the way, we go out through all these other debates including Darwinism.

They thought they had an eternal Cosmic time frame to work with isn't that interesting? Darwin thought he had an unlimited amount of time. Well, it's fast forward a little bit today, what is what are two of the ways that people theorize how Dealing with life and how it started and chance and it's because you don't have an eternal time frame now.

Even the oldest old earthers believe 13 .8 billion and only about 3 billion for life. Well. Genetically, that's not enough time to produce anything of use, right. So it's there's still a problem whether you're young or old earth doesn't matter.

So, how do they solve that issue? What do they come for? Well, they come up with the multiverse. So they're infinite you there's not infinite time we see time hasn't ended up we'll talk about how that that kind of get resolved later in a second here.

But if you don't have infinite time you need infinite rolls of the dice infinite spins of the cosmic. What you would call it? What do we call those slot machines right spin them enough? It's gonna hit we're gonna have life.

We're gonna have this world. It's great. You don't need a creator or there's also this idea that aliens seeded the planet at some point. I mean, that's the biological right because you you have multiple problems.

How did things start? How did life start? How'd the first cell start had a DNA star had information get in there, you know information spontaneously creating it doesn't match up but Without God you need you need ways of making that happen.

So So how did the issue play out the idea of an eternal universe persisted until the 20th century when Edwin Hubble? Measured a red shift in distant stars. It's the analogy. I've heard is I'm not an astronomer.

I'll be up front, you know I'm more of a biology and geology guy, but let's you know, so astronomy. I'm elementary level education if some of you physicists or you don't want to teach me anything, please.

So but there is the idea of a red shift. The idea is when you hear a train going by you have that Doppler shift. You know the train the pitch goes up and then it goes down again as it passes you. Well, the idea is is with light and stars, it's the same thing as they're moving away from you.

The color of the stars turn more reddish if you will, it's a red shift it's called and so from that the idea is that well the universe must be expanding or moving away and This indicated that they were moving away from the center in all directions.

Which suggested an expanding cosmos this strongly indicates the universe had a beginning or a point of singularity. This was mockingly by the way called a Big Bang. All right. Well the guy who came up with that is not Einstein the guy on the left.

The young Albert handsome looking guy probably a German photograph. That's Albert Einstein. He's important because he had a problem with this. He did his calculations and he said This the time stops. We have a beginning.

That's Fred Hoyle Astronomer he advocated what's called the steady-state theory, which we'll talk about in a second. But he didn't like the idea of the Bing Bang not only because of the theistic implications but also.

Because he thought he thought he had a better model. So that's Einstein and Hoyle. So it ultimately got resolved in the 20th century because of this red shift idea. That pointed back to a point of beginning.

Again, you just draw a time backwards you just run the clock backwards run the tape back and there had to be a start and. The idea was initially resisted do it as I said do theistic implications. Fred Hoyle Who I showed you supporter of the steady-state theory meaning that everything like Aristotle has always been here never changes just there.

Coined the term Big Bang to mock the theories in a debate with somebody. He's like, well, I'm gonna Big Bang. You know that kind of idea and the name stuck it stuck. I remember here you guys remember Paul Harvey back in the day the rest of the story guy.

I remember I was listening one day I was working between college or something and he was on there and he said the whole issue could be resolved if we just added a few words to Genesis. In the beginning there was a Big Bang and God created the heavens and the earth.

I'll never forget that I was a non-christian at the time. I'm like, wow, that's kind of cool, you know. So so that's just a simplistic example, but he thought that would solve everything. But it started as a way to mock the theory you kidding big bonus thing just blow up and it did everything happen.

So Einstein as I mean, so I showed you earlier He famously fudged the calculation called his cosmological constant to maintain the eternal universe idea. And he later said it was his only regret in science.

He didn't like the idea and Your question John, oh He uh, he didn't like the idea the theistic implications. So he literally said that's the only thing I ever regretted doing in science is I knew. It implied a creator was needed.

I didn't like that. He later and confessed he'd made a mistake. So at that point the empirical evidence was decisive. The theory became widely accepted in the Bible. Ultimately the idea of the model so to speak from the biblical concept of a beginning was affirmed and There's there's this idea of today a lot of space scientists will refer to as the horrendous space kablooey.

Is the idea and that comes from a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon? From 1992 and and if you I'm kind of watch the Big Bang Theory a little bit, but Apparently this is an idea Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin's talking to Hobbes.

And he says I've been reading about the universe the beginning of the universe. They call it the Big Bang and Calvin says to Hobbes, isn't it weird from site that scientists can imagine all the matter of the universe exploding out of a dot smaller than the head of a pin that they can't come up with a more evocative name than the Big Bang and That's the whole problem with science we've got a bunch of empiricists trying to resolve things of unimaginable wonder and Hobbes says what would you call the creation of the universe and and Calvin says the horrendous space kablooey, of course and Hobbes says that is better and almost anything would be right?

So it's a pretty pretty lame name, but I think horrendous space kablooey is much better. So that's kind of that issue kind of nobody really argues that unless they want to come up. You know. You don't kind of find a workaround like the multiverse or something like that to get away from the idea the point of singularity.

It's really not under much debate at this point. So that's kind of how that issue resolved in the end. So issue number two. Let's get into this the earth's shape. So the church had to deal with is the earth a flat with a dome.

Or is the earth a sphere? Has anybody here seen the Netflix film behind the curve? So maybe watch that it's about flat earthers. Have you seen that Mark Sargent? Oh, you gotta watch it. It's like a half hour of fun.

Or maybe longer but anyway They go into why the earth is really flat and they're really really sincere. They're really sincere. They believe there's some kind of government conspiracy the whole thing, right?

So, you know, I don't spoil the ending for you, but there's a little little twist at the end that that you know. Makes one think okay. But so an ancient Near Eastern cosmology, I'm gonna preface this by saying this one of the main ways people get around some of biblical and implications today is they appeal to ancient Near Eastern Things like Eastern Near Eastern Houston.

Sorry, we see it slowly Ancient Near Eastern culture to explain why the Bible describes things the way they do well. That's kind of fair, but it's kind of a way to discount it as well. So I'm going to preface my comments by saying I'm going to show you a slide in a second that shows from a theistic Evolutionary website to show a model of the ancient Near Eastern view of the earth with Bible verses attached.

So just be aware. I am presenting this for critique a little bit but if anybody of you want to look up these verses you can kind of see how somebody could take them a certain way and Create a model out of them not saying the church did or the ancient Hebrews did.

I'm just saying that this is out there. So. But in general the idea was like when you look up at the sky. It does look like there's kind of I mean, it's blue. What's behind it? What is that? And why does it change color?

Is there water? I mean, it kind of looks I'm looking out the back window right now kind of looks blue to me. And you look at it and it really doesn't change. It kind of looks like it's steady. Our ceiling here doesn't change much right if we had many earthquakes are settling lately Steve.

I don't think so. So I'm looking at this this ceiling hasn't changed since it was built since what Charlie 1990 or something, right? So you look at it and you go it's kind of like a roof. Even today Tim, what do they call it the top of the clouds?

What's that's called? Yeah. Thank you ceiling. Is it really a ceiling is it literally a ceiling? No, it's just the top. It's the top level so the top level of our world is the atmosphere it it was described by a Hebrew world called rakia.

Well, it was the word they used to use for like a Stamped or a metal kind of dome or something. Did they really think it was a metal dome? Probably not. It changed colors doesn't look like metal. So were they really trying to describe the physical reality of something or just how it looked really probably how it looked.

So this was a common description of how things appeared to an observer standing on the surface of the earth. The Bible seems to describe in a manner consistent with this conceptual framework of the earth.

If we look around as far as the eye can see it looks pretty flat. Might be a curve, but it pretty looks pretty flat. I mean, is that unusual? They've actually surveyed fifth graders who've been trained From first grade and how the universe really is then they take him into a room and ask him What the universe like they describe it pretty much like this.

It's flat. There's a dome. The Sun goes up the Sun goes down. Are we surprised that people 25 5 ,000 years ago described it that way. Of course not. It's how cultures today describe it that don't have you know, scientific education like us so Here's the here's the the Diagram I was telling you about this actually comes from a group called bio log us.

They're gonna come up again and again and these guys Present this. I get this from Dennis Lamar. Oh, he's a theistic evolutionist. It's conceptual model of a three-tiered cosmos based on biblical passages.

If you look closely, I know it's hard to read. If any of you want any of these things just email me. I'll be glad to send you any of them so you can look these up, but You look at the heaven with the waters above you see the nice little crests of the waves and the water above, right?

It's kind of a silly diagram but conceptually. This helped people make sense of where stuff was and kind of how it functioned, but for example you look at Let's see. The Sun moves across the sky every day.

You look at Psalm 19 for example, where it describes the Sun like a chariot riding across right? And I'll tell you what kind of how it looks we still say Sun sets our eyes today. Is that a big deal? Of course not.

Some people try to make hay out of it. I disagree with that. See the earth is immovable if you look at Psalm 93 Chronicles 16. 1st Chronicles 1630 says the earth shall not be moved. Well, people can look at that and say well, obviously the earth is stationary.

You can see how we can get to that controversy of Copernicus, right? If the church says the earth doesn't move and the Sun moves across the sky no matter how much you study the Hebrew the Sun still says moved means moved and Doesn't move means doesn't move.

So the church kind of went down that road and insisted. This is the this is the model we should go with. So just to give you an example, this is not this is kind of the basic starting level of where these controversies start.

So the earth shapes so. Descriptions even today described the earth in common terms that match how things really look to us. We're standing on the earth how things look in 500 BC thereabouts the Greek natural philosophers.

And that's by the way what scientists were called in the olden days back before scientists. Which is a which is a word in Latin that means knowledge, right? Scientia scientia means knowledge, but scientists wasn't really used until the modern science came about.

Natural philosophers was the term that was used but they observed the earth and theorized it was spherical at that point mostly the Greeks. Well, how did they find that out? For example, if you look at shadow links.

They were out in Alexandria Egypt and they were a few hundred miles north and they had objects of similar height. Same time of year same time of day and they just measured the lengths of shadows and it's amazing.

This is this is BC when people actually calculated the earth's circumference almost exactly the 24 ,000 miles. Pretty amazing. That's that's pretty impressive. But again, it seemed to conflict. Sorry, let me let me continue.

So shadows on the moon when there's a lunar eclipse. You can see if you've ever watched the lunar eclipse. Well, that's the curve of the earth. Okay, it's probably spherical but so the church at first tentatively accepted the conclusions of the natural philosophers and concluded that the biblical descriptions were speaking of appearances only and We're not intending described the ultimate reality of things.

The issue was finally settled settled in a sixth century debate by and large. Let me just say this the first couple centuries of the church. The church kind of said yeah, the earth is probably a sphere.

It's no big deal. But really it was a sixth century debate that I want to just briefly highlight here two Christian scholars debated the shape of the earth in the 500s one was Cosmos Indico Plutus and His name literally means India traveler.

So he traveled in the Indian Ocean a lot. So he felt like he had some personal knowledge of these things. We'll call him Cosmo and John Philoponus will call him JP because pronouncing these names is just ridiculous.

So Cosmos objected to the pagan concept of sphericity. Which supported the idea of an eternal universe remember? We talked about Aristotle who said the universe is eternal and the church said well a sphere.

Is has no beginning and no end it just goes on forever so they kind of link those two ideas together and so wait a minute if we Accept a any spherical earth that supports the pagan concept of an eternal universe.

So it was somewhat controversial because of that right kind of makes sense. I mean they had these theological concerns that are legitimate. But we would look back and say well they tied two things together.

It's really didn't need to be tied together it was kind of but we have the benefit of you know, looking back and learning from that so Cosmos cited biblical passages like the ones we looked at earlier described the earth as a vaulted flat surface.

Against JP and he wrote a book called Christian topography and in that book You put together a map that's the map of the world top view. The inner rectangle that's the Mediterranean kind of that curvy upside-down animal looking thing is the Mediterranean.

The rest of that interior is the known earth at the time and around that you can see the blue and the white. Those those are kind of that surrounds the land. That's like the global ocean and then that outer outer Thing is kind of like the boundary lands of the earth the four corners of the earth as it were again.

It's kind of an over literalistic rendering, but his point was to defend scripture and so doing he created a model that he thought better. Did that and I think I think my numbers are wrong there the world according to cosmos.

I have 4 ,000 by 2 ,000. I looked it up. I think it's more like 12 ,000. So the earth in his model was flat and it was about 12 ,000 wide and about 4 ,000 high. And that was the whole earth again because they hadn't ventured beyond that.

So, how do you know? Right, that's just this theoretical Natural philosophers coming up with these observations, but how do we know? So What happened was cosmos concern about theological compromise was right, even though his model of the cosmos was not JP won the day in the 6th century by appealing to sound science and theology to build a better model.

Which set the stage for Copernicus? And the others the church accepted the idea of a spherical earth, even though it was unsupported by a face value reading of the biblical text modern flat earth series theories rather invoke arguments similar to Cosmo and Reject the empirical evidence from science.

So we have to be careful and this is where you end up. We would look at that and say well, they're probably wrong. Well on what basis would do we say that they're wrong? Their model is not real. It's not true because we're we're kind of thinking of Other things we're taking into account when we make our judgments about them, correct?

Yes, Corey. That's a flat earth by the way, little Yoda off the side just for extra. Yeah well, Augustine. Augustine in the 300 400s. He kind of he sounded sounded like he was riding the riding the fence a little bit.

So I don't think there's any official Thing because again, I don't think the church thought it was theologically problematic. Depending on who you read. Yeah, that that was one way of looking at it. Yes.