Hi Paul, good to hear from you. It was wonderful to meet you last year.
On Sat Jun 3 14:46 , "Paul Seely" sent:
>Glenn wrote,
><<Where does it say that God will only
>prevaricate about science but not prevaricate about theology?>>
>
>The question is good, but you have distorted the issue by using
>the word prevaricate. Like many evangelical Christians you have put God in
>a box and given him just three possible ways of speaking about matters: He can
>make a mistake (whoops), or he can lie, or he can tell the truth. Apparently,
>you have decided, I think rightly, that biblical statements accommodated to the
>science or cultural beliefs of the times are not due to God’s ignorance or
>failure of memory, so in the box you have made for God, there is nothing left
>but to label them as lies (prevaricate).
>
>So, I ask, Where does it say that God only has these three options?
GRM: In logic. One is either speaking about what is true or what is false when it
comes to macroscopic items. This isn't quantum mechanics we are speaking of.
The category mistake you make, in my opinion is to offer God a chance to
accommodate his message and you would place it equal to those categories above--
mistake, truth or falsehood. But accommodation is not as fundamental as these. To
say something is accommodated is to explain WHY God didn't tell the truth. It isn't
a category akin to truth or falsehood. INdeed, mistake is not a fundamental
category either. It is also an explanation of WHY one doesn't tell the truth--he
made a mistake. In the case of accommodation, God didn't tell the truth because HE
ACCOMMODATED his message to those dummies (they weren't dummies and could have
understood much more than God gave them credit for when he accommodated the
message.)
In communication, propositional statements are either true or false. They are not
accommodated or non-accommodated unless you equate truth with non-accommodated and
falsity with accommodated. In that case, you have just played an equivocation game,
and committed the logical fallacy of equivocation in which you change the meaning
of a word during a logical syllogism.
>
>
>A few years ago I heard of a missionary who went to central Africa to
>preach, but he knew very little of the native language, so when he preached he
>used an interpreter. In the midst of a sermon, he quoted James 3:4 “Behold, the
>ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still
>directed by a very small rudder, wherever the inclination of the pilot
>desires.” But, the interpreter’s message at this point did not sound right
>to the missionary, so he stopped preaching and asked the interpreter, “What did
>you just tell them?” The interpreter said, These people have never seen a ship
>and do not know what one is, so I told them that even though trucks are large,
>they are directed by a little steering wheel.”
I guess I am always a bit puzzled by analogies which make God out to be a
linguistic bumbler. Having spent much of the past 14 months learning Mandarin, I
know a bit about being a linguistic bumbler. But that isn't my view of God. But I
also know something about ALL languages. They can be used to communicate any and
all complex ideas and concepts. In the poor analogy you provide, you have
provided, the thing I note is the false concept that the people had never seen a
ship. In central Africa they use canoes. The paddles act as rudders. Everyone can
relate to this, even if they are using dugout canoes. So, first off, I doubt your
story is true--it doesn't ring true. Secondly, the claim that the translator had to
use an example of a modern truck is equally silly. If this is during the 20th
century, those people may very well have seen boats on rivers or lakes.
In any event, this is merely a case of poor translation, but is not a case where
some alien concept had to be communicated to these people.
>
>The interpreter was telling the people that the missionary and the
>Bible spoke of a truck and a steering wheel, which is NOT TRUE. It is not what
>they said. Now my question to you is this: Did the interpreter accidentally get
>the translation wrong, or did he lie? Or is it just possible that
>there is another perfectly ethical and even rational alternative?
The rational alternative I see is that the story is bogus. People know of trucks
but don't know of boats??? Give me a break. I don't think this story is true in any
way shape or form. You should have a wee bit more scepticism.
But lets take God's communication to a primitive society. IF God is actually
communicating something, then why not communcate the truth, even if they don't
quite understand it? I mean, what is the harm in saying/inspiring/communicating
that the world ISN'T created in six days? What is the harm in saying that the
earth is extremely old? God doesn't have to give a figure to communicate the truth
that the earth is very old (by the way, I think there is evidence in the Scripture
that God does communicate an ancient age of the earth
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm ) By whatever means God's communication
happens, he doesn't have to fill the bandwidth with false faerie tales, or allow
man to dictate to Him what should be in the Holy Bible.
Your view places man in the driver's seat and makes God to be a politician who
tells his followers what they want to hear so that God will get their votes and
elect Him ruler of the universe. Isn't that what good politicians do? They lie to
their constituents, collect the votes (adulation and followers), and then the
politicians do whatever they want to do.
Received on Sat Jun 3 19:29:50 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 03 2006 - 19:29:50 EDT