Hi Glenn;
I asked:
> How much
> >inaccuracy will you accept in the Bible so as to not consider it "Truth"
> >(with a capital letter) in the naive and absolute sense that you do?
>
You responded:
>
> First off, I would object to the term 'naive'. That is a term that is
> reserved for those to whom we are condescending. I don't think it naive to
> demand that facts from one area of knowledge should be consistent with
> facts from another area. We demand that our theories of science in biology
> conform to the theories of science in physics and chemistry. do you teach
> your students that it is naive for physics and biology to be consistent?
> Unless you think that that type of conformance is 'naive', I object to your
> use of the term.
>
Please know that I use the word naive in the technical, philosophical sense in
your usage of the notion of truth. Such technicality is required for demarcation
between philosophical positions; e.g. to differentiate between a critical realist
and one who subscribes to a naive realism. (As another example of how I mean it,
the term is also used in distinguishing between naive concepts of infinity in
others illicited in the theory of cardinal numbers. ) I applied it to your usage
of "truth" and "Truth" because you use it in a way that does not allow for more
abstract understandings of truth to enter in (e.g. the broken-heart-duct-tape
analogy to which George M. referred), i.e. truth in/as metaphor, antithesis,
objectiveity, correspondence, etc. I mean it as is a distinguishing term not a
condescending insult. Forgive me if you did take it as such.
> The question, however, is a good one (lacking the 'naive'). I want as
> little inconsistency as I can get. I don't think it inappropriate to demand
> as much consistency as we can get. If we don't, then we can believe
> anything at all in religion. In fact, we can even believe young-earth
> creationism because who cares about consistency. As one wag put it,
> "Consistency is the sign of a small mind." Or something like that.
<snip my earlier post>
> Once again I object to the term naive. Unless we are willing to allow
> inconsistencies in other areas of our scientific lives, I am unwilling to
> allow it when it comes to religion. Of the types of conflicts you cite, I
> have worried about these often. It is exactly why Farrell Till whom I
> mentioned the other day, left Christianity. While that might be, in your
> eyes, a naive thing, it was a very honest thing. It is, IMO, a bit
> dishonest to tell the emporer that his clothes are pretty.
But brave honesty is my point! The reality (I am a critical realist in my
science and theology not a naive one :-) ) is that the Biblical authors do
exhibit instances of undeniable inconsistencies in regards to events and their
settings in historic time. Thus, to hold the Genesis record of creation - which
occurred in prehistoric or deep time, and which literally includes solid spheres
holding cosmic oceans at bay, sea monsters and the like - to standards of
consistency required of modern science is not only unreasonable to the
unregenerate mind but is also foolhardy and deserves no further consideration.
Since the Bible does contain inconsistencies in its recording of historical
events we must be realistic and honest in our presentations of it. However, to
put it mildly, it has much to say to and about humanity in terms of its
theology, morality, poetry and the sacred history of Israel and the fledgling
Church; we do not have to reject it in total because of the inconsistencies.
Many do not embrace the faith when the faith is presented to them as placed in a
book. We both know that it is the present belief in the living God as revealed
to us in Christ (now!) that constitutes salvation and the good news; not the
accuracy of the Biblical history of our religion's origin. How then can we trust
the revelation if not by applying modern scientific presuppositions? Well, the
answer is a bit mystical I admit for "The Spirit bears witness with our spirits
that we are the sons of God". This is subjective and completely God dependent by
definition - but subjectivity only disallows proof to others who don't share the
experience; it does not negate the reality of the experience for those who do.
May God have mercy on us all.
> One of the real contradictions I find in this entire issue is that those
> who won't believe that there was a talking snake, because it is so absurd
> to believe in such things, see no problem believing that a man dead three
> days got up and walked around. Everyone knows it is as absurd to believe a
> man rises from the dead 3 days later as it is for a snake to talk.
Well, as I see it, the real contradictions have been mentioned in my previous
post; the belief in the resurrection of the dead vs. belief in talking snakes is
just that: a matter of belief; i.e., the adherence to one does not necessitate
the negation of the other. Again, as you state, you want a consistency within
your religion that parallels that required in modern scientific views of reality;
but it just is not there. However, it is my point that it is not required for
saving faith in Christ. This should not lead one into the open arms of atheism
since the foundation of Christianity includes the effectual and present work of
Christ - not the record of its occurrence in the past. Hence, if one honestly
desires to find God, this desire is first instigated by the Father, and the
Father responds by leading such a one to the Son. May God have mercy on us all.
> Do you believe in miracles at all?
Miracles are very problematic and belief in them is - thankfully - not required;
additionally, their occurrence has little value as evidence; Jesus taught this. I
answer with a question; do you believe humans will eventually (if Christ
tarries) be able to create life? What about present machines that exhibit
intelligence on par with living creatures? If we succeed in these endeavors, are
these successes to be considered miraculous? A related question is the following:
if we can explain an event such as the resurrection in terms of information
theory and energy storage, have we denigrated it as a miracle?
My point is that the notion of a miracle is a categorization which stems from
either a lack of knowledge or ability (power) on the part of humanity. Actually,
I believe the salvation of an individual and gravity are miracles in the classic
use of the term. :-)
>
> I would also suggest you get on the inerrancy list and speak with a few of
> the atheists there, as I have done. Try your arguments there and tell me
> how successful you are with your supposedly sophisticated approach. Tell
> them that the Bible can be true while it is innaccurate. Let me know when
> you are going to do it so I can watch the fun.
> glenn
>
>
Great idea, thanks. Can you give an address; perhaps others would like to too.
Sincerely
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 10:22:41 EST