Wouldn't it be optimal to base one's interpretation on *all* relevant
evidence? If we presuppose that the Bible is true, and some parts of the
Bible, viewed literally, are UNtrue, then this would seem to be a good
reason to consider those parts allegorically (i.e., to see them as
allegorical truths rather than literal untruths). This would hold even if
the account in question would appear *prima facie* to be 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!
That's a pretty bad reason to be an atheist...! (No disrespect meant to
your former boss...)
>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)
Except that what I propose is not *arbitrary* picking and choosing, but
rather to decide which claims are literal and which allegorical based on
exterior evidence -- i.e., the evidence presented by the natural sciences.
I agree that it would be rather silly for every Christian to simply
interpret those parts of the Bible allegorically that he happens to
arbitrarily like. What I am suggesting is that the rational Christian
scientist can, by considering the totality of evidence available to him,
make choices which optimize the consistency of his belief system.
>>>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.
Whoa there! This isn't what I said at all! I was using animism to
describe the basic principle of using literally untrue language to
communicate true concepts to people with different belief systems. I
didn't compare any of this to *Christianity* at all -- unless we suppose
the unlikely idea that the ancient Israelites who received the Book of
Genesis were Christians!
I also never suggested that Christianity was untrue. Obviously, I don't
personally think it is true, but that is beside the point. I have
throughout been arguing for a way to *preserve* the rationality of
Christianity even while being strictly scientific -- i.e., I have been
trying to show that the two really can be consistent.
>>>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.
But I'm not ascribing an inability to communicate at all. I'm say that, in
some cases, maybe the ideal thing to do -- and consequently, the thing God
would do -- is communicate using devices like allegory. As for whether God
can communicate a simple truth... well, it really depends on what "truth"
it is we think Genesis is trying to communicate. Is it meant to convey
facts about exactly how the universe came about? Could be, but if one
holds that, then one must apparently hold either that Genesis or science is
incorrect. The alternative is to suppose that it is meant to convey deeper
spiritual truths, and does so by means of figurative language.
>>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.
But allegories *do* have a "nugget of truth in them". Maybe I can show why
with a really absurd example. :)
Just the other night, as I was dozing off, an episode of "Star Trek: The
Next Generation" came on TV. (Wow, a philosophy major / computer geek who
watches Star Trek. Go figure. ;) In this episode, the crew came across a
group of aliens who appeared, at first, to be saying absolutely nothing
sensible. They would speak as though they were telling little snippets of
stories.
As it turns out, these aliens speak this way because they communicate
entirely through allegory -- they find an analog for every situation in the
ancient mythology of their culture, and then use descriptions of that
mythology to convey their meanings. It's rather like I, wanting to
communicate the message "I feel weak", said "Samson's hair is cut".
Anyhow, eventually the crew figures out this obscure means of
communication, and there's a happy ending, blah blah blah.
The question for you is: would you say that these aliens, by speaking in
this way, are *liars*? I doubt it. The truth of a communication is not
found in whether it is literally true, but rather in whether its *meaning*
is true. And meaning may be *either* literal or figurative. An alien who
used a fictional allegory to tell you "I have 2 apples", and who does in
fact have 2 apples, is hardly a liar simply because the allegory he uses is
not *literally* true.
Similarly, just because we suppose that God sometimes communicates
allegorically, we cannot say that God is lying. As long as God's intended
meaning is true, God's words are true. So, to get to your example of
"areas that touch on observable reality". The question is: is Genesis
meant as a literal commentary on reality? Or is it an allegorical
commentary which conveys some other truth? I don't see how believing the
latter requires in any way invalidating Christianity or the Bible.
(Incidentally, just so there's no confusion, I am not trying to tell you
what you must believe about Genesis. I'm just trying to make the point
that believing in Scripture as allegory is one way of reconciling
Christianity and science, without in any way espousing subjectivism.)
>>>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? :-)
Oh, absolutely. In fact, I and about 30 others spend an hour every Tuesday
and Thursday in worship. Granted, we don't have to do that anymore once
the final exam comes... but isn't that the same for all religions? :)
(Kidding, kidding...)
>>>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.
Well, but whether it is in poetic style or not pretty much depends on
whether it is literal or figurative. :) That is, we can't say that
something is poetic or not -- i.e., whether it employs poetic devices like
metaphor, symbolism, allegory, etc. -- until we have come to some sort of
conclusion about the nature of the passage in question. For example:
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four
corners of the
earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should
not blow on the
earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
-Revelation 7:1
How do we know whether or not this is "poetic"? Well, because it certainly
sounds literally absurd that there are angels standing on the corners of
the earth holding the wind, not mention because the earth doesn't have
corners. I.e., we decide it is poetic, because it makes no sense as a
literal account. This is all I propose for Genesis. If Genesis makes no
sense as a literal account -- and I think science shows fairly well that it
doesn't -- then it too can to that extent be seen as poetical.
>>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.
I suppose that's true.
>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.
I definitely agree with that.
>>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.
I think you should have worded that "God damn it, Jim, I'm a geophysicist,
not a theologian!"
>Define M-beliefs.
Well, I really just threw that in for flavour. But okay. M-beliefs are
"manifestation beliefs": beliefs in religious claims which come about as a
direct result of religious experience. William Alston argues that, just as
our seeing something tends to directly and rationally result in our
believing it, so too can the theist's claim of religious experience
directly and rationally result in his believing some religious claim.
Alston calls the practice of "seeing is believing" Perceptual Practice; he
calls the practice of "experience of religious claims is believing them"
Christian Practice.
>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.
I added that qualifier just because I didn't want to assume that I knew why
you hold the beliefs you hold. There was no element of "surprise" or
condescension there... I was actually just trying to make sure that I
*wasn't* construed as attempting to sound arrogant. (Did that ever
backfire...!) In fact, I tend towards the view that many religions are,
for their believers, *rational* -- rational being understood as "implied
given one's evidence".
Please don't assume that, just because I am an atheist, I am antagonistic
towards religion. Just because I do not believe Christianity *true* does
not mean that I believe it is *irrational*. (Indeed, it would be pretty
odd if I *did* think it was irrational, since my whole argument so far has
been in *defense* of its rationality. Of course, it's certainly fair to
suggest, as you have done, that my "defense" misses the point or
invalidates Christianity in some way -- but that is not my intended aim.)
>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)
Frankly, I don't know how I came across that way. But yes, if I come
across as arrogant, I want to know about it. I hope I've cleared that
issue up above.
>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.
But where is the surrender of reality? I think you agree that figurative
truths are still legitimate truths.
Maybe I should just ask: how do *you* reconcile the claims of science with
the claims of the Bible? You are clearly both a rational scientist and a
Christian. So, if Genesis says that the world was created in 6 days, and
this is to be taken at literal face value, then what do you conclude...?
>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.
I disagree, actually. Just because religion is not *empirically*
verifiable doesn't mean it is, in principle, unverifiable or uncertain -- I
think we can rule out logical positivism and the like. Many things are
empirically unverifiable, but nonetheless verifiable and certain through
metaphysical inquiry. An example would be *causation*. Causation, to draw
again from Hume, is not observable; we observe correlation, and we infer
causation from this. But certainly, causation is not a "mere belief with
no certainty". We could make no sense of the world at all without causation.
>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.
I don't look on religion as a "lesser form of knowledge". I look on
religion as the codification of certain sets of metaphysical beliefs -- the
belief that God exists, that God created the universe, that God has such
and such a nature, etc. These beliefs are not *a priori* any more or less
rational than any other metaphysical claim.
>>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.
I'm not sure that's "metaphysical" in the relevant sense. By metaphysics,
I mean claims about reality beyond the reach of strict empiricism. The
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines metaphysics thus: "questions about
reality that lie beyond or behind those capable of being tackled by the
methods of science." The apparently incomprehensible results of light
being both particles and waves wouldn't seem to be metaphysics in this
sense. Of course, the line between science and metaphysics is sufficiently
blurry that you could perhaps argue otherwise...!
Here's tilting a Guinness to you, :)
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/