I'm curious: leaving aside the issues of inerrancy and complete historicity,
does truth matter to you when it comes to religious belief?
Is this the common "science deals with reality, religion with feelings"
breakdown? Modernism (or perhaps post-modernism?) wrt science,
post-modernism wrt faith?
Or are you just saying that fictional stories could be used by God to teach
non-fictional truths (e.g., parables)?
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Glenn R. Morton
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 8:00 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Glenn wrote: a clarification
Greg said I could post this. He forgot to send it to the reflector..
>From: Greg Billock <billgr@cco.caltech.edu>
>Subject: Re: Glenn wrote: a clarification
>To: grmorton@waymark.net (Glenn R. Morton)
>Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
>
>Glenn,
>
>> >
>>
>> So God is mythical?
>
>No, he's a 6002-year-old bearded White guy who sits on an uncomfortable
>blue chair atop Mt. Sinai. Nobody visits him much anymore. :-(
>
>>Why believe anything about Christianity, or any other
>> religion?
>
>Why not just believe in thermodynamics? At least we can test that
>ourselves beyond all reasonable doubt. :-)
>
>For me, I think religions are trying to do something quite different
>than mount scientifically-minded programs of inquiry into the past..
>
>> >This is probably getting
>> >a bit off-topic, though....perhaps we should continue off-screen..
>>
>> Actually, I would prefer to continue on list for one reason. The
>> young-earthers here need to know that I do hold to a similar view of
>> historicity as they do. they don't always believe this..
>
>That's true, and a good point..
>
>> [list of things not to be literalized snipped.]
>>
>> Greg, looking at the list, I wonder why one would want to study or
believe
>> a book that was so wrong about what it said, other than as a historical
>> curiosity. Surely a book which is so erroneous historically can have no
>> claim on my life or anyone else's either..
>
>That the only thing with any power to compel or provide guidance is a kind
>of denatured ideological list of historical truths?! In my experience,
>this isn't what I find to have the most spiritual significance at all..
>Certainly what has happened is important, and has spiritual ramifications,
>but (for me anyway) what is happening *now* seems much more significant..
>
>> >Of course, this doesn't mean mythology has no historical basis. (The
>> >case of Mt. Mazama in the Northwest is a good example.) I take it
>> >to mean, though, that the message of the story is primarily
mythological,
>> >or theological, and not primarily historical.
>>
>> That is fine but who creates the mythology, God or man? If it is man
made,
>> what possible relevance should it have for me if it is merely man made
>> myth? Should I change my behavior for man made myth?
>
>Why should I change my behavior because this set of historical facts is
>true and not that one? Out of fear of punishment?
>
>Advertisers have learned that the way to make people change their
>behaviors reliably is *not* by setting out dry arguments about the Civil
>War, or whatever, but by setting up associations, experiences, and the
>like. While I don't think much of advertising generally, I am persuaded
>that advertisers know more about the basics of human motivations and
>behaviors than pretty much anybody else, and the strategies they use,
>even when I think they are wrong, betray a reality about the way people
>are.
>
>Spiritually, this can perhaps be boiled down to a simple statement which
>Jesus knew well and applied consistently:
>
> People respond to stories..
>
>So he told them stories; he didn't drag out a chalkboard and start drawing
>geophysical diagrams about Pleistocene biogeography and its implications
>for modern radiations. That's what mythology is: stories. Stories tuned
>to evoke spiritual responses, and to inculcate spiritual awareness and
>attitudes. Now I am sure we agree that history is a story, or can be
>told that way, as can other scientific ideas. What I'm saying, though,
>is that what is paramount is the *story*. A story or mythology can have
>bad aims of course (building a myth of smoking as a romantic pursuit of
>steely-eyed, tough cowboys, for instance, or ultra-hip party animals, which
>gets children addicted), so I do not think the suggestion that stories
>with no factual basis have no persuasive power, and cannot be judged on
>their effects, is born out in fact..
>
>-Greg
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm