I keep going back to the fact that I want nothing to do with a zero-loss game.
If everytime I run into a passage that 'literally can't be true," I decide
that it is allegorical, I escape the consequences of that falsehood. By
doing what you suggest, i would show my incredulousness and willingness to
believe anything whatsoever, so long as my religion can be supported. A few
years ago, I was having a letter exchange with the editor of the CRSQ. I
sent him a photo of duck footprints on the Green river layers. In the
context of our discussion this would have invalidated a theological
position of this fellow. He chose to deny the evidence before his eyes.
He denied it was a duckfootprint. That is what the conservatives do. The
liberal Christians when faced with a similar situation deny the historicity
of the passage and make it allegorical. While some think it acceptable to
conclude that such a passage is merely allegorical but I don't. If it
looks wrong, we should find a solution or call it what it really
is---falsehood. Only by risking having one's religion being be false, can
one really find out if it is true.
>>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...)
What do you consider a good reason? He is one of the funniest men I have
ever worked for. But he feels the same claim can be made against all other
religions, and I will say that he has gone to the trouble to study them.
>>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.
But what it boils down to is 'those parts of the Bible for which I can't
find a satisfactory scenario within the framework of modern science, I
should view as allegorical. Depending upon how much work one is willing to
commit to such a project one arrives at different answers to which passages
are allegorical.
For instance, you might say that science has disproven the flood account.
It hasn't. It has disproven the global flood as taught by YECs. It has
also disproven the mesopotamian flood (it doesn't and couldn't match the
account). But modern science has not disproven the flood, nor shown it to
be allegorical. It has only disproven certain flood scenarios.
>>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 didn't mean to give offence. But I remember you saying that you had no
particular religious belief, if I recall correctly. What I am trying to
point out is that such comparisons generally are not taken well by those
who do. I am not offended but there will be some who are.
>
>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.
I understand. I don't think it works the way you think it does.
>
>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.
He does in the Psalms. He doesn't always use that form however. From
Genesis 4-11, the writing style is exactly as Genesis 12-50. There isn't
any demarcation that 4-11 is non-historical and 12-50 is based upon
history. It is hard to ascribe one to history and one to 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?
This is a case of going to the extreme and an overly broad application. NO
of course Genesis is not meant to convey 'exactly how' the universe came
about. It conveys the history of the patriarch which have nothing to do
with the unvierse coming about. Genesis 1:1 was meant to convey that the
universe was created by God but not how it was created. If there is no
history in Genesis 1:1, then God is not the creator of the universe.
>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.
I loved that episode of Star trek. But they weren't communicating by
allegory. They were communicating history via short statements. A
language I am familiar with, Mandarin Chinese conveys an entire word via
one symbol. We require many symbols for a single word. That episode took
communication one step higher than Mandarin and communicated everything
with one sentence. It wasn't allegory but history. If I recall the show
ended with the alien saying something like "Picard and whats his name blah
blah at whatever planet". To the alien it communicated an entire book of
information as one symbol communicates an entire word in Mandarin.
>
>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.
The fall, H.G.Wells, in his _Outline of History_ Vol 2
p. 776-777 (Doubleday, 1961):
"It was only slowly that the general intelligence of the Western
world was awakened to two disconcerting facts: firstly, that the
succession of life in the geological record did not correspond to
the acts of the six days of creation; and, secondly, that the
record, in harmony with a mass of biological facts, pointed away
from the Bible assertion of a separate creation of each species,
straight towards a genetic relation between all forms of life, _in
which even man was included!_ The importance of this last issue to
the existing doctrinal system was manifest. If all the animals and
man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been
no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no
fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story
of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the
current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed
like a house of cards."
>
>(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.)
I think by definition it must engage in subjectivism, and it most assuredly
engages in a no-lose game. No lose games are no fun and indeed are not
valid games. A slot machine which always pays off, eventually become
boring and would eventualy cause monetary inflation making the money
worthless.
> 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.
I disagree that there is no way for science to be joined with Genesis. I
agree that the way Christians have traditionally tried to do it doesn't
work. But take a look at synop.htm on my web page and tell me what is wrong
with my science. What scientific facts I fail to incorporate. I think the
account can make sense if one does what I do.
>>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!"
Wouldn't be my style. And Dr. McCoy never used 'God' in any of the
episodes in that context.
>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.)
I understand. I often see that those who do not share a faith don't
understand how they are perceived by those of faith. There are cultural
differences that make communication difficult.
>
>>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.
I KNEW you didn't mean it. I really did. But as I mention, there are
cultural differences. When I was in China I know of two times I gave
offense, and I had no idea I was doing it. I didn't mean it, I didn't want
to do it, but I did it never the less. I understood the second case, but
only found out about the first case (still don't know what I did) when
apologizing for my second case of giving offense.
>>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.
Geology today defines for us the actual history of our planet, not a
figurative history. Geology doesn't give us figurative truths, it gives us
historical truths. What I see is that you offer for Christianity to never
say anything real about the history of our planet. Since most people
prefer to believe the real story, it means that Christianity is telling a
lesser reality.
>
>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...?
see http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm
>
>>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.
I think I would disagree. Causation can be empirically verified by a high
degree of correlation between two events always temporally related in the
same fashion--one before the other.
>>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.
I am not sure that causation fits that bill! Causation is according to
Hume, if I can recall correctly (it has been over 20 years since my
graduate work in Philosophy) constitutes a high degree of EMPIRICAL
correlation. And one could possibly argue that God himself is not totally
beyond empirical verifiability. The origin of the universe requires a
cause. If there was nothing, there is nothing to cause the universe. Most
big bang theories start with vacuum fluctuations causing the universe. But
a vacuum is not nothing. It is something especially in the context of GR.
The vacuum is a storm of virtual particles. Thus one either must believe in
the eternality of the vacuum (a god-like property) or one must beleive that
something created the vacuum(God). Thus, God, while not strictly
verifiable, can be inferred as one of the possiblitilies for the origin of
the universe. In any event, one is driven to have to believe in something
which has one of God's attributes--eternal pre-existence.
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, :)
Thank you And here is a toast to you!
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm