I FOUND THE AQUINAS QUOTE I KEEP REFERENCING

I often refer to Aquinas saying:

Scripture is ALWAYS TRUE
*if interpreted correctly*
& therefore
if it seems to contradict logic, science, math, or itself
then the problem is YOU & YOUR INTERPRETATION

but I forgot source

FOUND IT:

"In discussing questions of this kind¹ two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches.

The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering.

(1/3)²
___
¹ Interpretation of Scripture, generally; in this case, specifically Genesis.

²Of the quote. There may be more

The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false;

(2/3)

lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

-Aquinas, Summa Theologica I Q 68 Art. 1

(3/3)

This whole question, and the ones that precede and follow it, about the correct understanding of Genesis, are absolutely fascinating and should be read by all Christians, especially Catholics - but also Anglicans, Orthodox, and really everyone.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm 

It is clear that Aquinas -a good & faithful servant of God who believes in the INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE - thinks that working out the meaning of the text in concert with the best scientific (in our sense) and philosophical thinking available was the right approach

And he admits to multiple "solutions" being possibly correct, and works through the logical conclusions of each, without bias in favor of what we would call a "literal" reading of the text.

This is what I love about Aquinas. His method of inquiry.

And it's also why i think we should
1. move past some of his conclusions (given new scientific knowledge)
2. immerse ourselves in the best scientific explanations of creation available (relativity & quantum physics

There are things to appreciate about the Non Overlapping Magisteria, like:
1. theological doctrine is not a good source for scientific theory
2. science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or the truth claims made in the Creeds

HOWEVER
We have four primary¹ sources for information about

Scripture
Tradition
The Created World
Personal Revelation

___
In the academic sense of primary source; not that they are all "the best". One of them is remarkably unreliable, and another is full of srs problems.

Of the four, I would assert that the one most reliable for knowledge of God is the Created World. Scripture is a close second.

Knowledge of both are highly mediated: translations and time; the scientific method, available technology, an understanding of math

But modern theology has - for the most part - abandoned the study of the Created World.

I have lots of thoughts about the reason this happened, but mostly I just want theologians to take a breather from their 19th and 20th c. white, male European philosophers and

read a handful of books about how the best scientists of today think the Universe actually works.

Being an extreme amateur in both fields, I do not, by any means, know what kind of fruit this might produce. But I know enough about both that my mind is constantly bursting with ideas and connections.

Maybe it is just selfish - but I want someone, preferably many someones, who are smarter than I - to come at this intersection with an open mind and a faithful heart and put words to the vague intuitions I feel.

If you are a Christian theologian, priest, minister, preacher, writer, or churchy amateur, I will gladly give you a reading list...

and if you can't afford anything because seminary or academic theological training put you in unjust debt...
DM me and I will send you a copy of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. https://amzn.to/3hndHGs 

&, btw, if you don't have time to read - or think it will be too hard to understand

BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH read the audiobook & it is the most pleasing thing I have ever listened to in my life. This one book is worth the price of an Audible subscription. https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Order-of-Time-Audiobook/B07B4JGFJT

There are many other books I recommend reading and listening to. But this one will, I think, fire your imagination and hopefully spur you on to find out more about what your colleagues over in the Physics department are doing.

Every time I bring up any of this, I get pushback about how "SCIENCE" can't inform theology... basically all variations on the doctrine of Nonoverlapping Magisteria.

Or people who simply think the relationship is: theology shouldn't say anything science clearly disproves.

Part of the problem here is how we have been taught to think about SCIENCE

We collapse the methods, the history, the institutions, the individual people, our shitty experience in high school chemistry, outer space, and the theory of evolution into one blob and call it SCIENCE

But what if we changed the question to:

Can the Created Universe reveal anything of interest about the One who created it?

Every pre-modern theologian and philosopher would have answered, YES OBVIOUSLY to this question.

This is why Aquinas studied as much "natural philosophy" (their name for what we now call science) as he could. He wanted to know how the universe worked, because he assumed that this would reveal something worth knowing about God.

Now, it is absolutely the case that no one - especially a non-scientist - can know everything there is to know about the natural world, the created universe. We (humanity) has just learned so damn much.

But....

I am absolutely flummoxed by the general LACK OF CURIOSITY among theologians and religious thinkers about how THE UNIVERSE CREATED BY GOD works, on a fundamental level.

We get vague notions of like "God created it all, isn't it so complex and wonderful?" or (what I really hate) is "God/heavens/whatever is like [pre-modern model of the cosmos], which is why they thought the cosmos looked like that"

Y'all.
The universe is weird. At its most fundamental level, it is baffling. Not just to amateurs like me. It baffles the people who know the most about it. And they have figured out A LOT about the structure of the universe.

So I'm am not saying that scientists should "get a say" in theology. Or that the scientific method needs to be employed by theologians. Or that theologians should make sure they don't say anything that can't be proven by scientists. Or anything like that.

I am saying that The Created Universe is a reliable source of information about the One who created it, and knowing more about it should help us to know more about the One. And so theologians should be interested in what SCIENCE has come to understand about it.

And further, I find it absolutely incredible that more of them don't, and also what they choose to spend their limited time on this earth reading.
Like...
You're really gonna learn something new about God by being the 12,000th person to read Barth.

But then
I suspect

Most people who call themselves theologians are not actually interested in learning anything new about God.