Compare and Contrast your own worldview with a Christian worldview.
AUTHOR NOTE:
Compare and Contrast your own worldview with a Christian worldview.
Is the nature of the world eternal, or does it have a beginning? Is it good or evil or something else? Is it orderly, or chaotic, intelligent, or absurd?
During the 17th century, Europeans accepted biblical tales about the “the creation of the earth,” which admitted that the Earth would have an end since it had an origin. According to research about the tales, the Earth must have been created around some 6000 years ago. After a century, the evolution idea came with a sense of change, and this extended planet earth’s age. The arguments brought forth a conflict, long cited about the beginning of the Earth, and the Europeans passed intellectual questioning about the Earth’s face. The discussion was not only based on the flourishing of scientific reasoning but also the terrestrial surface observations. It also brought forth logical results about the environment, which was “profoundly saturated with religious beliefs,” and appraised humanistic criticism in the “historical philological nature” approach. Generally, theological systems oppose the logic of both evolution and change (Capel 1984). This happens the same way as they confronted the logicality of the Earth’s origin and the being of “an eternal world.” The ideas which were brought forth in the 17th century, after the interpretation of the biblical tales about the origin of the Earth and the discussions about the nature of the world, contributed to a wide diffusion of motions and new ideas regarding natural sciences and theology. Hence, they can be compared presently. In the analysis of some writers such as the Spanish writers, back in the 17th and 18th centuries, the creation theme opens the path to accepting the logic of “change on the terrestrial surface.”
Natural science and theological world view
Although religious beliefs about the origin of the Earth tend to create a significant influence, both science and faith were separated, bringing forth conflict between the two, which was later approved with scientists’ logical reasoning through integration and analysis of data (Santos, 2011). Max Weber’s argument about the economic activity influence by the Protestants laid the basics about the possible creation influence by the Protestants bringing forth a scientific explanation of the beginning of the world. According to Christians, the Earth was brought on by a supreme being and would be destroyed in the time of judgment. In their explanation, time seems progressive and lineal from Earth’s creation until the redemption of humanity through Christ. However, in the real sense, the nature of the world seems not to change. With time, questions were brought forth after realizing some history about the Earth other than the scriptural tales (Capel 1984). This was revealed through the tracing of fossils (dead organisms remains buried underneath rocks a long time ago). However, the historical and religious approaches do not have a fundamental disagreement. In this case, scientific efforts were directed into rationally interpreting the scriptures, integrating all the conclusions obtained, starting with observing the nature of the world/universe (AE 1977). However, not all scientists found the logics of the rationalization, since it seemed dangerous to adhere to the biblical tales interpretation since it could bring down the fact that science is independent of faiths scope.
The world’s creation and “the problem of change on earth.”
According to the “Spaniards of the renaissance,” the creation of the world was an arrangement by God, for the product of a dwelling place and a conservative for humanity, giving a presentation in theological and anthropocentric visions about the relation between the existence of man and the Earth (Santos, 2011). Although the 18th-century traditional thesis about the creation of the world in an orderly manner, for seven days, is widespread, there is no man to give any evidence as a witness of Earth’s creation. In this case, with an acceptance of the biblical tales, one can “rise above it to diverse speculations.” The originality denial under the fact that God’s work was not in vain and had no necessity for a change in plan brought forth the acceptance and agreement that the Earth was only created once and had every requirement for humanity’s survival (Ringwood, 2012). The great flood interpretation could have placed some logic in some writers about the “change on the terrestrial surface” of the Earth.
In the 17th century, Gonzales’s interpretation with a defense to the biblical tales gave a configuration of the universe before the great flood and also after it. Through a quote in the bible, specifically Esdras, which said that “the seas which existed before the beginning of the Creation would recede on the third day to one-seventh part of the Universe, leaving uncovered the other six parts,” contradicted Aristotle’s thesis, which laid on the fact that “the known area covered by water is ten times that of open land.” Although America’s discovery weakened Aristotle’s view, the Earth’s proportion and extension are far from the Esdras quotation. In this case, only two solutions can bury the confusion, and these are the facts that either more lands which had emerged from the water had existed before or the configuration has experienced a sort of change.
The worlds decadence
According to what we have seen, after the awareness of the erosive processes and its importance and the terrestrial surface changes, the questioning of the Earth’s decadence is at hand. These problems controversies have led to “multiple links and derivations.” For instance, the possibility of the existence of giant men in the ancient period. This was supported by the bible tales and legendries of various people and the excavation of giant bones during the 18th century. Later, a conclusion under the theme of change was derived, and it “coincided with decadence.” However, some findings were brought forth by some people such as the “authors of renaissance,” bring about the fact that ” the lesser vital force of contemporary men was due to the fact that the heavens and the elements do not have effect on the earth with that same power and strength that they had before to nurture things at perfection.” In the 17th century, a capuchin, opposed the theory of decadence with basically philosophical arguments, with a defense of the human stature and “the duration of life.” He stood on a guard that life’s duration has always remained the same and considered the idea of the Earth’s deterioration a little by little as time goes by false (Ringwood, 2012). He proposed that even though the world will come to an end, the approach won’t be little by little neither will it come to an end through curtailment, but it would be natured only to end up in flames.
Similarly, he opposed the extinction of plants as animals from the antiquity period and gave a balanced nature theory proposal. Generally, the scriptures’ testimonies, combined with giant existence theory, have gained more than respect since they remain the only path to state the decadence of the world (Wojcik,1997). The similarity was also observed in the times of fuentelapena, who opposed both the logic of eternity and the logic of decadence. He also stood for opposition to the fact that the changes observed were deteriorating the world. They could lead to a loss that could ignite the world’s end’s logicality since that would prove the imperfection of God’s creation. Fuentelapena seemed optimistic, and his thoughts were contrary to the other philosopher’s beliefs. He brought forth the fact that, “nature becomes more vigorous each day and the world, more finely adorned.” According to him, there existed a stable equilibrium and stable Earth (Wojcik,1997). In his sense, he clarified that there was no creation of new species, and neither was there a disappearance of species since all living things emerge from seeds. In this case, “it must consequently be said that today any new species cannot result in the vegetable kingdom; so that the seed from which whatever other plant is formed, necessarily came from another plant of the same species.”
Despite all the repudiations, generally, we can conclude that all the Spanish authors’ opinions went contrary to the logic of “decadence of the earth.” Thereby, no one knows the truth about the originality of the world nor its eternity. Hence I consider the being of the world as chaotic.
References
AE, R. (1977). Composition of the core and implications for the origin of the Earth. Geochemical Journal, 11(3), 111-135.
Capel, H. (1984). Religious Beliefs, Philosophy and Scientific Theory in the Origin of Spanish Geomorphology, 17th-18th Centuries. Organon, 20, 219-229.
Ringwood, A. E. (2012). Origin of the Earth and Moon. Springer Science & Business Media. Santos, F. D. (2011). Humans on Earth: from sources to possible futures. Springer Science & Business Media.
Wojcik, D. N. (1997). The end of the world as we know it: Faith, fatalism, and apocalypse in America. NYU Press.