The following paragraph is from the science fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz:
A fourth century bishop and philosopher. He [Saint Augustine] suggested that in the beginning God created all things in their germinal causes, including the physiology of man, and that the germinal causes inseminate, as it were, the formless matter—which then gradually evolved into the more complex shapes, and eventually Man. Has this hypothesis been considered?
A Canticle for Leibowitz is set centuries after a nuclear holocaust. The war was immediately followed by the “Simplification.” Survivors rejected all advanced technology and hunted down everyone who was even literate. At this point in the book, a sort of Renaissance is taking place. The question above is addressed to a scientist who is explaining some of the (re)discoveries taking place. The scientist’s response was
“I’m afraid it has not, but I shall look it up,” he said, in a tone that indicated he would not.
Was the reference to Augustine simply made up for the novel, or is there something in Augustine’s writings that the author is alluding to? If so, does anyone know what in particular he may be referring to? Is such a proto-Darwinian reading of Augustine fair?
I’m afraid I don’t know, but I shall look it up.
It may be a reference to the concept of “free will”, which St Augustin introduced in order to make God irresponsible of the existence of Evil, it would be Mankind’s fault.See “De libero arbitrio”.
For what it’s worth, I do know that he rejected a literal 6 day creation story. Instead he favors an instantaneous creation theory.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_s0kIgD0nCcC&lpg=PP1&dq=Augustine%20literal%20meaning%20of%20genesis&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
I don’t have your citation, but I have a reference to someplace that you might have a citation. :)
It looks like in the 1920’s a Jesuit in California wrote a paper on this topic. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf
His conclusion,
It is not the readers of just any blog that are equally comfortable with the finer points of linear algebra and Saint Augustine’s views on creation. +1.
The reference is to Augustine’s On the Literal Meaning of Genesis [De Genesi ad Litteram]. This is pretty hard to find in English, but there is a reference to it in Copleston’s History of Philosophy, Vol. 2 p .76. Copleston was a standard textbook for a long time, I wouldn’t be surprised if Miller had read it.
There is another reference in Copleston to On the Trinity, Book 3, Chapter 8, Line 13. You can see that at New Advent. Here is a suggestive quote:
A proto-Darwinian reading is fair, if we keep in mind hindsight. Augustine meant something very different than we would by these kind of statements, but you can see a relationship.
Stephen: I’m impressed by how many people quickly responded with erudite answers. I thought someone would respond, but I didn’t this expect many responses or any responses so quickly.
I think Ben nailed it – it is fair from a certain perspective. At the same time that isn’t exactly the Darwinian perspective either (perhaps why John added the “proto-“).
EastwoodDC: I use “proto” in the sense of foreshadowing. I’m not saying that Augustine influenced Darwin — he may or may not have; I have no idea — but in hindsight one can interpret Augustine as expressing a view that might be called “Darwinian” even though this would be an anachronism without the “proto” prefix.
Along these lines, someone might call Plato a proto-Marxist because of the authoritarian ideas Plato lays out in his Republic, even though Plato died over two millennia before Marx was born. (I think it’s a little silly to call Plato a proto-Marxist, but I can’t think of a good proto- example on the spot. Maybe someone could think of a good proto-Freudian or proto-Keynesian, etc.)
I found amusing that you seem to relate Marx with authoritarian ideas. Notwithstanding Stalinism and alikes, Marx was from the begenning a democrat and only later on an adept of violence (revolution) as a mean to achive socialism. Even though, is far from simple to characterize Marx views as authoritarian. If any, is fairer to put Marx on the side of democracy and most thinkers of the time (including many liberals) as anti-democratic.
John: I understand your intent – and agree. I just meant there is a risk of “interpretive overfitting” when making such comparisons.
Overfitting?! Sounds like the kind of party-pooping comment a statistician would make. :)
+JMJ
Salutem magnam in Domino —
I need to look into this more “when I have time,” but there are two aspects which should be overlooked, and I think they might be quite key to the whole issue: 1. St. Augustine was very Platonic and Neo-Platonic in his philosophy. The Platonists tend to see pure forms as being reality and concretizations of them in the material world as imperfect instantiations of the pure form. I think that St. Augustine may have been of the opinion that God initially created all the -forms- in one swoop but then brought about their material embodiments over the series of days. 2. The “ratio seminalis” is the Latin way of rendering “logos spermatikos” of Greek. I would see it as imprescindible to know what the latter term means, and again, I think it is primarily associated with the Platonic / Neo-Platonic schools. Because forms are timeless, pure, and almost eternal except for the fact of being created in a general Platonic view, I do not see any possibility in believing that St. Augustine would accept transformism.
God bless —
Fr. Rickert
To Manoel Galdino:
Perhaps Marx was in his conscious views anti-authoritarian by comparison with many of his contemporaries. However, Marxism necessarily takes a turn for the authoritarian when it runs up against the realities of human nature (at least as I take those realities to be). It will either fail, or it will make the Party to be the Vanguard of the People, at which point the anti-authoritarian game is lost. Marxism founders because of its defective view of human nature and false consciousness.