Of course, I must agree. Many do exactly this. But if an account can be
viewed historically, then I would suggest that for the Christian it is
better to have it historical. Especially in today's world. My former
boss, who is an atheist, is one because he doesn't think the bible says
anything that is historically true and at the same time significant to the
religious claim!
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.
to do that, leaves one picking and choosing what portions they like.
Theology becomes a cafeteria experience. (I'll take some creation of the
universe, but please hold the Fall sauce, and none of that talking snake
steak, thank you)
>>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.
This is why those like you, who do not share our faith, are unable to make
much impact with the young-earth ranks. When you compare the faith of an
animist to that of Christianity, especially when you do it in a way that
makes both faiths really worthless (not real) they will find it offensive
and cease listening to you. I am willing to consider the possibility that
Christianity is false, in fact I almost concluded that several years ago. I
know that if Christianity has no reality it deserves to die.
>
>>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?
I would agree that God is more concerned about our spiritual condition
rather than science. But a God who can't communicate a simple truth (even
in simplified form) is a God who can't be trusted to be able to communicate
an important truth (salvation). The inability to communicate, that you
ascribe to God, means that we can't trust his communication on more
important areas.
>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.
Here is where we disagree. God's communication in areas that touch on
observable reality can be altered by man, (so I don't think one can believe
in inerrancy) but there must be some nugget of truth in them or God is a liar.
>>And I bet you don't worship the ideas of Wordsworth, Keats and Coleridge.
>
>Well, maybe a little. :)
When are the services for the First Church of the Keats? Are you all highly
liturgical or not? :-)
>
>>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.
It does in Psalms. I don't see that Genesis 6-9 is written in a poetic style.
>But is empiricism an even vaguely useful way of *ever* approaching
>theological questions?
When God speaks about what the world is like, or how it was created, that
is subject to verification. When he talks about angels, that isn't.
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.
Don't confuse the proposition that ALL knowledge must be verifiable, with
the proposition that SOME knowledge IS subject to verification. No where
have I suggested that all knowledge must be verifiable. I agree with you
that that would lead to Hume's skepticism. But what I contend, is that if
you are going to believe something non-verifiable, you better be sure that
the parts which are verifiable are actually verified. This is where the
YECs make their biggest mistake. They verify very little of what they teach.
>
>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.
I am not a theologian--I am a geophysicist. Define M-beliefs. And I might
add that the qualifier you add (for whatever reason) seems to imply that it
is surprising to you that someone would believe in religious things. That
is what I am talking about above. It causes people to think that you are
looking down on those that disagree with you about the validity of atheism
or the invalidity of theism.
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.)
No, I would say that there is a certain amount of it in assuming that
religious beliefs are less than atheistic beliefs. (I want to make sure to
state that it doesn't bother me. I think you should know how you come
across or appear to come across to people of faith)
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.
But, in my view, this is merely a surrender of reality which is why I don't
think christians should take this opition. Science is given this world,
this empirical world and religion is given the realm that has no proof--it
becomes mere belief with no certainty. If that is what religion really is,
then it is natural for you to look upon it as a lesser form of knowledge or
relegate it to the realms of the unprovable or tales from the dark side.
>
>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.
Au contraire. If I set up a telescopic experiment and look at a distant
gravitational lens (galaxy behind a nearer galaxy) in such a fashion that I
only look at photons, then the photons I see went on one side or the other
of the intervening galaxy. It looks like:
photon goes on this side
earth lens galaxy distant galaxy
or photon goes on this side
But if you sitting on the hill just next to me set up your experiment in
such a fashion that you only look at light as a wave, the energy you see
went on both sides of the galaxy. If the lens galaxy is a billion light
years distant, then somehow you and I decided how light would behave 1
billion years ago! That is a truly metaphysical power.
with respect
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm