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.
Well, but I'm not saying that ALL religious claims must be allegorical. It
is possible to believe, for example, that Jesus really existed and really
was the wordly incarnation of God, yet simultaneously hold that Genesis is
a figurative account. The question that seems to arise when interpreting
the Bible is, is a given section likely to have been intended as a literal
account of literal events, or an allegorical account meant to convey some
deeper truth? Not even the strictest inerrantist can doubt that there is
figurative language to be found in the Bible. Song of Solomon, Revelation,
and so forth would be pretty nonsensical otherwise. (Does anyone really
think Solomon describes someone as having antelopes on her chest...?) So
if that is granted, then the only question is which parts are literal, and
which parts figurative. I am just saying that maybe some of the apparent
problems for the rational and scientific Christian can be resolved by
seeing some of the more apparently errant passages (e.g., the creation
account) as figurative, while at the same time maintaining that it is the
true word of God.
>>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.
I am not saying that their intelligence was less at all, just that their
"methods of inquiry" would be different, and their grasp of certain
concepts (e.g., "a singularity exploded") would be less due to their lack
of knowledge. A similar example might be those ancient and modern tribes
with *animistic* beliefs, who ascribe a spirit to every animal, tree, and
force of nature. This seems completely irrational to us. But in the
context of what they know about the world, animism might be completely
sensible.
More to the point, suppose that we modern Western types wanted to
communicate something to such a tribe. Suppose, for example, some natural
disaster is about to come, and we need to warn them about it. Our strict
literal account of the disaster could be "extensive flooding, due to
torrential rain, will destroy your village". But if we gave this account
to the tribesmen, they might be somewhat puzzled by it, since it doesn't
take their animistic beliefs into account. So, we might opt to "dumb down"
(I use that very loosely) our language, and instead say this: "the river
spirit has become angered, and will destroy you if you don't leave
immediately". This is a matter of adopting the beliefs of the tribe for
the purposes of communication, and thus to transmit a true message (coming
destruction) through a literally untrue proposal (that there is some "angry
river God"). This is a rather silly example, of course, but maybe it could
be analogous to the ancient Israelites in some notable ways. If God is
all-knowing and all-good, wouldn't He communicate in whatever language was
required in order to get the important points across? And couldn't that
language be figuratively rather than literally true, if it were better
suited to the situation?
>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.
I guess it depends on whether God was more concerned with giving the
Israelites literal facts about how the world came about, or some deeper
spiritual truths about the nature of the universe and their place in it.
Surely, the latter is at least a *possibility*, isn't it?
> 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.
I agree that not all truthful communication need be scientific. This is
exactly my point, in fact! The Bible does not need to convey all its
points in a strict literally-and-scientifically-true sense. Allegorical
communication may be truthful as well.
>>>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.
Well, maybe a little. :)
>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.
I wasn't suggesting that the Bible be *wholly* reduced to poetry, though,
just that the Bible may sometimes communicate "poetically" without losing
its status either as truth, or as Scripture.
>>>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.
But is empiricism an even vaguely useful way of *ever* approaching
theological questions? If we take as a premise that all knowledge must
have empirical verification, then we must ultimately agree with Hume that
all metaphysical questions (including theological ones) constitute nothing
but "sophistry and illusion". The methods of science don't always apply
well to philosophical questions.
The approach I had in mind, anyhow, was certainly a philosophical one. For
whatever reason, you have certain religious beliefs -- these may proceed
from "M-beliefs" of the sort espoused by William Alston, or "properly basic
beliefs" a la Alvin Plantinga, or whatever. You believe these religious
claims are true; but at the same time, you are convinced that the methods
of natural science also yield truth. (Excuse me if I'm being unduly
arrogant in assuming that you believe all this.) The problem is, natural
science and religious beliefs sometimes appear to conflict. What I propose
is that there is a way for a Christian to consistently hold both the
conclusions of science and the tenet of Biblical inspiration: he may take
the evidence of the former as a tool, allowing him to conclude which
Biblical claims are intended to express figurative rather than literal truth.
Basically, I am not trying to reconcile religion with the methods of
science. That would be pretty much doomed from the start, since scientific
methods have little use in metaphysics. I am, rather, trying to show how
some of the beliefs of the Christian scientist may be reconciled, i.e.:
1) That God exists and always speaks truth.
2) That the Bible is God's word.
3) That natural science is a very powerful and often accurate way of
arriving at truth.
4) That natural science sometimes appears to contradict God's word.
>>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. :-)
Yeah, I know, I was just speaking in general terms.
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/