I agree that we've probably done enough on this for now. I am
much less confident than you of the possibility of purely objective
"just the facts" accounts, and not nearly as sure as you that, to the
extent that such accounts are possible, they are always "more true" in
some sense than other types.
By the way, there is an essay by Owen Barfield in the Charles
Williams FESTSCHRIFT volume which Lewis edited, "Poetic Diction and
Legal Fiction", which is helpful in this area.
Yes, the mathematics of a physical theory is highly objective.
But when we interpret the math - as we must do to confront the theory
with observation - we find ourselves talking about "particles" with
"spin" etc. and those entities correspond only metaphorically to things
like rotating baseballs.
Someone else's turn!
SHALOM,
George
> You wrote:
>
> >Glenn Morton wrote:
> >> details. So my rejection of bringing the poetic parts of the scripture into
> >> this discussion is based entirely upon their track record on factual data.
> >>
> >> Psalm 17:8 says "hide me in the shadow of your wings". Is God a chicken?
> >
> > No? Is the psalmist therefore in error?
>
> Factually yes, the psalmist is wrong. God has NO actual wings. As a metaphor
> it is OK but that is not objective truth. I think this is why I felt no pangs
> about leaving my graduate studies in philosophy. Unless there is a way for
> two people to objectively agree on a given fact, there is no way to determine
> truth. With science, you and I can look at a rock and agree that it is 60%
> quartz, 40% feldspar. That it has burrows in it and was found in such and
> such a geologic formation. We can agree on the species of fossil found in the
> rock by comparing the fossils with previously published examples.
>
> With systems lacking such a check and balance one must assume that one's
> assumptions are correct rather than have verification from prediction that the
> assumptions are valid. If I assume that the law of gravity is an inverse
> cubed law, that would lead to a prediction that the moon is spiraling into the
> earth. Since we don't see that, we know that such an assumption is erroneous.
> But if I assume that God has wings, how do I verify that? When the psalmist
> asks God to hide him "in the shadow of your wings", there are two
> interpretations. One, the psalmist might be using a metaphor referring to
> God's comfort. Second, one could assume that this is an extraordinary psalm
> which got into the Bible by mistake. It might have been written by a guy who
> worshipped the Thunder Bird and is wanting that actual bird-god to hide him.
> There is no actual objective way to prove that this is not included by
> mistake. All our reasonable assumptions that this is a metaphor may be wrong
> and can not be objectively defended.
>
> > Of course not all poetry conveys truth. But in order to find
> >out, one has to be willing to enter into the poetry. As the German puts
> >it,
> > Wer den Dichter will verstehen
> > Muss in Dichters Lande gehen" -
> >"Whoever wants to understand the poet must go into the poet's country."
> >This is part of the reason Jesus' parables function as they do. Some,
> >even though they "don't get it", will stick around and listen again.
> >Others won't.
>
> I agree with that German saying. Don't every say call someone an "old turtle"
> in China, you will give great offense.
>
> However, while poems can convey truth, the poet is not confined to telling
> truth which as I see it, makes the poet transmit SUBJECTIVE truth. Artistic
> license is permission to distort the facts. There is a set of facts which are
> objective facts regardless of whether or not the poet transmits those facts.
>
> Now, as to Genesis 6-9, I do not find the use of metaphor more powerful than
> the use of idiom. "The windows of heaven were opened" is not any more
> metaphoric than saying "Its raining cats and dogs", or "This is a real
> frog-strangler"
>
> > In fact, if you get rid of all poetic language, in the broadest
> >sense, in the Bible, you don't have much left. Metaphor etc. is
> >pervasive - in science as well, I might add.
>
> Generally speaking I have not found geophysics to be very metaphorical. I
> would be curious in what sense the propagation of sound through rocks can be
> metaphorical? In physics, while pictures and metaphors are used to understand
> the mathematics involved, the actual math is not metaphorical at all. One
> never sees in physics statements like, "An alpha particle is hidden in an
> atomic nucleus as bird is hidden under his mother's wing".
>
> >> The only way I can figure out how to decide who created the world,is by who
> >>told the true account of the creation. And I do believe it was Jehovah.Ijust
> >>don't believe any of the Genesis interpretations I have seen published.I had
> >>to come up with a new one or conclude that Jehovah didn't have a thing to do
> >> with creation.
> >
> > For a start, Gen.1:1 is a theological statement. The world
> >depends entirely, and always has so depended, on God alone. When
> >considered in connection with a possible temporal origin of the universe
> >(as I think is appropriate), the world is to be understood as having
> >been made not IN time but WITH time (Augustine). Thus while Gen.1:1
> >refers to a beginning of cosmic history, it is not a beginning IN
> >history.
>
> My understanding of General Relativity and Augustine is that they both agree
> that time was created with space(universe). As such, since history depends
> exclusively upon time, I would not feel comfortable with your last statement
> that Genesis 1:1 is not a beginning in history. History began then. Whatever
> higher plane God exists on is above time.
>
> > Psalm 104 is another of the great biblical passages on creation.
> >Of course it is manifestly poetic. Does that mean it's "less true" than
> >Genesis 1? If so, is Psalm 104 "false"?
>
> If it is not understood in the manner that we understand all poems, then it is
> false. I would agree with you probably on the mis-use of the psalms to
> support geocentrism. This is another reason I don't like to use psalms/poems
> as scientific or historical statements about the world.
>
> The problem I have with your original position, is that you seem to want to
> relegate Gensis 6-9 to the same status I would relegate the psalms, yet I
> don't find similar literary patterns in Genesis 6-9 as I find in Psalms. In
> fact it sounds much like the account of the parting of the Red Sea.
>
> You have the last word.
>
> thanks
>
> glenn
> Foundation,Fall and Flood
> http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm