At 09:16 AM 11/6/98 -0800, Mike Hardie wrote:
I should
>note that I have also engaged in numerous scholarly debates on the subject.
> Well, okay, it was just arguments in the university pub over pints of
>Guinness, but dammit, that has to count for something.
It probably counts for more fun with or without the enlightenment of a debate.
>
>>First, what I haven't given up on is the standard of truth. It wouldn't
>>bother me if Noah took 15 pair of animals, or if something like that, so I
>>am not an inerrantist. But if I am to believe some story that claims to be
>>divinely inspired and claims to tell me something of my relationship with
>>God, I want more certainty than warm and fuzzy feelings and I want more
>>certainty than my parents told me this was true. All parents around the
>>world representing all religions, tell their kids that their religion is
>>true. But they all can't be true.
>
>But there is a sense in which all religions can be true, without for a
>moment espousing subjectivism. That is, if we reduce the claims in holy
>books -- or at least, specific claims -- to the level of allegory, it is
>possible for two *prima facie* contradictory accounts to in fact be
>complementary. Nor does this for a moment seem to lessen the worth of the
>books in question. Figurative truth is still truth.
This is precisely the view that I find totally incompatible with
Christianity. Jesus claimed to be God, and part of that claim was based
upon the idea that God was revealing himself to us via both the old and new
testaments. If that
claim is not true, then Christianity is false. I can get figurative truth
out of Aesops fables, Grimm's fairy tales and the like. I don't necessarily
need to add the concept of the divine to my figurative truth.
>Suppose that there is a God and He inspired the writing of the Bible. In
>this situation, God is communicating to a culture with extremely limited
>capacity for scientific analysis. Wouldn't it be preferable, then, from a
>divine perspective, to "dumb down" the account somewhat, and make general
>points by way of allegory?
This implies that somehow their intelligence was less. Their technology
and science was less, not their intelligence. They would have perfectly
well been able to understand a statement by God such as: "Life arose from
mud." That would entirely encapusulate the evolutionary concept with out
any scientific jargon. But this isn't what happened.
Imagine for a moment that Genesis said "the
>universe began when a singularity exploded, and, after the planet earth
>coalesced, abiogenesis occurred" or some such thing. While this is
>certainly what modern western science would like to see, how comprehensible
>would such an account have been to the Israelites? From God's point of
>view, the strict literal correctness of an account would, at least in this
>case, seem to be less valuable than the message it conveys. For example,
>we might take the creation account in Genesis as a purposefully
>anthropomorphized and mythical account, but one which serves to convey the
>true message that "God is the creator of the universe, and humans have a
>special place in that universe".
Don't confuse truthful communication with scientific communication. I
often use this analogy: I can say the red car hit the blue car, and that is
a truthful statment. I don't have to describe the quantum states of every
atom in the two vehicles to convey truth. God could have done similarly.
>>Then we should reject it utterly if it isn't the work of God. It becomes
>>merely the Bhagadvadgita or any other religious document--the conception of
>>men of what god is like. It becomes an anthropomorphism--god created in
>>man's image. Under that scenario, the OT is historically interesting but
>>useless as a purveyor of metaphysical truth.
>
>True, but the value of figurative truth is not to be disparaged. The works
>of Keats and Coleridge are historically interesting and (pretty much)
>useless as literal purveyors of metaphysical truth, but, all the same, the
>themes conveyed in much of their poetry are universal and of great
>interest. This is why I personally believe that the Bible contains
>important truths, even though I am entirely skeptical on the matter of
>whether it is divinely inspired.
And I bet you don't worship the ideas of Wordsworth, Keats and Coleridge.
You don't because they are not any more special than any other poetry.
Taking the view you do of Scripture emasculates Christianity, which is what
I think the nonhistorical approach is doing to it. The YECs are busy
making Christianity false by tying it to false science, but the
nonhistorical advocates are turning it into a Keats poem. Both are
destructive of Christianity's roots.
>>Unfortunately, I live in a world that has a large amount of objective
>>reality. What you are offering is the willingness to live in two worlds,
>>one without any objective reality (theology) and the other with it.
>
>That isn't necessarily the implication. The relevant question is, are
>those theological claims which may appear to literally contradict the
>results of empirical inquiry in fact *meant* to be claims of the same sort?
The problem with that approach is that it is a zero-loss game. One never
loses. If it contradicts empirical research then we say it wasn't meant to
be real, if it matches epirical data we say it was supposed to match. That
is a meaningless and useless approach to theology.
>I think there is a certain value to be found in "Gods" whether they really
>exist or not, but certainly the reduction of God to a mere anthropormorphic
>construct is unacceptable to theists.
I am a theist. :-)
>Food for thought? Or am I just stating the obvious in very roundabout
>ways? :)
Food for thought.
Thanks.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm