Due to a need to get some writing done, I am going to keep my answer short.
If there is something I didn't answer in your note that you think I really
should, then let me know.
At 10:19 AM 11/10/98 -0800, Mike Hardie wrote:
>glenn wrote:
>>While some think it acceptable to
>>conclude that such a passage is merely allegorical but I don't. If it
>>looks wrong, we should find a solution or call it what it really
>>is---falsehood. Only by risking having one's religion being be false, can
>>one really find out if it is true.
>
>A good point. But supposing just for a moment that it is possible and
>plausible for God to sometimes communicate via allegory, judging something
>*literally* wrong could potentially miss the point. Treating a passage as
>literal, after all, is no more empirically testable than treating it as
>allegory.
there are two issues that always get wrapped up together in these
discussion. 1. Can God communciate via allegory and
2. did God communicate by allegory in early Genesis.
First, no one denies that God can communcate via allegory. The real issue
is whether he did it in early genesis.
>>But what it boils down to is 'those parts of the Bible for which I can't
>>find a satisfactory scenario within the framework of modern science, I
>>should view as allegorical. Depending upon how much work one is willing to
>>commit to such a project one arrives at different answers to which passages
>>are allegorical.
>
>This is true. But remember, I'm presupposing here the sort of Christian
>who takes both the Bible and (probably to a lesser extent) science as
>entirely true and authoritative. For this sort of Christian, if the Bible
>presents an unsatisfactory account when viewed literally, the *only* option
>would seem to be to view it figuratively.
This ignores the option that the Bible is false. If one approaches
apologetics as if there is no chance that the Bible can be wrong, then one
has fideism which is nothing mroe than belief in belief.
>You are correct that I have no particular religious belief, and, frankly,
>it is only the rare Christian who will ever take my arguments seriously on
>this account.
To me, this is a terrible thing for Christians to do. Your arguments are
good. People don't have to agree in order to discuss things in a rational
fasion. Unfortunately, I agree with you about this tendency in Christians.
Many of those who tend to be dogmatically religious also
>assume that anyone who is *not* religious must have some ultimately
>anti-religious agenda -- if this is what you mean to say, then I agree
>entirely. Of course, when it comes to that sort of person, absolutely
>NOTHING I could say would ever be interpreted charitably. (I remember one
>time, in an IRC discussion, I said something like "I think Jesus' words in
>Matthew 5:38-48 present an extremely good moral teaching that religious and
>nonreligious people alike should respect." The other (very fundamentalist)
>person responded by saying, "oh, so I suppose you think that nobody should
>believe religion at all, because all Godly morality can be replaced by
>humanism, huh?" Yeesh..)
All I can do is sigh, when I hear things like this. C
>
>Agreed. But if God can and does use this style, even just occasionally,
>then the possibility of allegorical communication cannot be ruled out *a
>priori* as either untruth or thinly-veiled subjectivism.
Not ruled out a priori, but the problem with allegorical communication is
that it is non-unique, or less unique than propositional interpretation.
consider the letters:
nojustice.
Does this mean 'no justice' or 'no, just ice'?
Without the punctuation, communication can be fuzzy. And with allegories,
the possibilities are almost infinite. I have collected 10+ different
allegorical interpretations of the Eden story. All of them can't be true
because they are contradictory.
>>I loved that episode of Star trek. But they weren't communicating by
>>allegory. They were communicating history via short statements.
>
>But that's not all they were doing. Remember when the alien was trying to
>talk to Picard at their little campfire? He wasn't trying to describe a
>historical situation. He was using a historical/mythical situation to
>describe *their* -- Picard and his -- situation. This is allegory.
I thought it was by analogy rather than allegory.
> For example, the literal Fall
>(eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) might be a figurative
>account of human beings falling away from innocence by seeking too much
>knowledge (note an analogy here to the Tower of Babel story). Eden would
>symbolize that state of innocence. In essence, parts of Genesis could be
>stories meant to illustrate a real historical fact: that humans fell away
>from pure worship of the divine into the worship of themselves, or some
>such thing.
it is the 'or some such thing, that shows how non-unique such allegorical
communication is. It is the worst way to communicate.
>My point
>is that I don't think this kind of scientific approach is too applicable to
>matters of interpreting Scripture.
>
Did King David exist? His existence is in principle determinable by means
of the scientific approach. In the same way the flood is determinable by
means of a scientific approach. If it wasn't, you would have no way to say
that the flood account has been shown to be false by modern science, and
thus must be allegorical. It was the APPLICATION of science that you use to
base your conclusion on. Science most assuredly applies to events and
descriptions in the Scripture.
>
>I follow you. And again, anytime I'm involuntarily giving offense to the
>natives, please do let me know. :)
I got to tell this story from my time in China. An American patted a
waitress on the butt (apparently he hadn't been slapped for this in
America). Anyway the waitress took his order into the kitchen, brought out
his dinner and acted normally. When the guy finished his dinner and paid
his check, two men followed him out of the restaurant and escorted him to
his car, where his bags from his hotel room were now located. They put him
in the car, drove him to the airport and sent him home! He hadn't
realized the depth of the insult he had delivered.
>>Geology today defines for us the actual history of our planet, not a
>>figurative history. Geology doesn't give us figurative truths, it gives us
>>historical truths.
>
>Absolutely, because Geology is explicitly concerned only with factual
>history, not deep philosophical or spiritual truths. But really, even
>Geology *could* use figurative language to express itself.
Just as Geology can use figurative language, so can Scripture use factual
language to describe God's relationship to the world.
>
>>What I see is that you offer for Christianity to never
>>say anything real about the history of our planet.
>
>No, because I am not saying that the Bible *never* talks about literal
>history. The stories of Jesus could be real history, even if Genesis is an
>allegorical account. All I was offering was that *some* accounts in
>Scripture -- those which couldn't be literal history -- could still be
>interpreted allegorically.
If the creation is not an account of an actual creation, then Christianity
says nothing about the real history of our planet. Early genesis is the
only place creation is described in any detail.
>>I think I would disagree. Causation can be empirically verified by a high
>>degree of correlation between two events always temporally related in the
>>same fashion--one before the other.
>
>But how can it be empirically verified? We infer causation from constant
>correlation only because we have the (untestable) metaphysical belief in
>causation. That is, the connection between causation (which is not
>observable) and constant correlationg (which is observable) is not itself
>empirically testable.
Correct, causation can not be proven, but it can be inferred and it is
inferred from empirical data, not from spiritual data and not from metaphor.
>Yes, we infer causation partially through an empirical process -- i.e., we
>empirically observe correlation, and from this infer causation. But the
>principle of inferring causation from constant correlation is not itself an
>empirically verifiable thing.
I could agree here. But one could apply the same concept to God in
detecting design, as one does in detecting correlations and inferring
causation.
>>And one could possibly argue that God himself is not totally
>>beyond empirical verifiability. The origin of the universe requires a
>>cause. If there was nothing, there is nothing to cause the universe.
>
>But that is not empirical verification, it is an exercise in logic. Modal
>logic would appear to be distinct from empirical observation by a wide
margin.
Logic of course is not irrelevant to the determination of causation in
science.
>I agree that this may be done, but this is not an exercise in strict
>empiricism. It is rather an exercise in logical argument on the subjects
>of necessity and possibility. The only arguably empirical element in the
>First Cause Argument (or its modern variant, the Kalam Cosmological
>Argument) is "something exists". The "and therefore there must be a First
>Cause" part is where philosophy takes over.
I didn't mean to imply 'strict empiricism'. I don't think such a thing
exists. I thought Hume destroyed that idea as regards causation.
>(BTW -- there are problems with the First Cause Argument. That would be
>best left aside for now, since this list is hardly the place for that kind
>of debate. But if you want to discuss that in private email, let me know.)
I do think this is a fine list for such a discussion, but maybe in a few
months. I have to get some writing done, and unfortunately will probably
have to move soon so I need to get the house ready for sale.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm