If the bible is meant to be taken literally as the word of god, then all prejudice against human nature expressed in the bible must be observed in order to be close to god.
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
Full Version: Metaphorically literal
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 4 2008, 05:33 PM) 
If the bible is meant to be taken literally as the word of god, then all prejudice against human nature expressed in the bible must be observed in order to be close to god.
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
Judaism's approach is that the Bible is to be taken literally and metaphorically. The two do not contradict each other. They just provide different views.
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 4 2008, 08:34 PM)
Judaism's approach is that the Bible is to be taken literally and metaphorically. The two do not contradict each other. They just provide different views.
But how does one know what is intended to be literal and what is intended to be metaphor? I think that's the main problem with that. Nothing in the bible really dictates that something should be taken one way or the other.
Gosh Dad i dont' know if the bible was ever meant to be taken literal,
it seems to me that humans were then and are now trying to udnerstand themselves by projecting onto this label called god...
it seems to be a lifestyle which excludes most other disciplines which I would feel do a better job or give a broader understanding of ourselves and life perhaps its preference i dont' know.....
for me I think its the arcahic form of anthromorhpic personification, remember when your daughter first became aware of herself (around 3 or so) when she had realized she had thoughts this has to be one of the cutest moments for a parent when the kids realizes he thinks, i rather enjoyed this moment........... when a child realizes this aspect of being human and then it goes from there my how a childs imagination runs wild.. My kids had imaginary friends lots of them with whole historys too,tehn they outgrew it..... .. ah the fun of kids lol....now literarilly or academically or from a historical posit it is interesting as heck to delve into.....
it seems to me that humans were then and are now trying to udnerstand themselves by projecting onto this label called god...
it seems to be a lifestyle which excludes most other disciplines which I would feel do a better job or give a broader understanding of ourselves and life perhaps its preference i dont' know.....
for me I think its the arcahic form of anthromorhpic personification, remember when your daughter first became aware of herself (around 3 or so) when she had realized she had thoughts this has to be one of the cutest moments for a parent when the kids realizes he thinks, i rather enjoyed this moment........... when a child realizes this aspect of being human and then it goes from there my how a childs imagination runs wild.. My kids had imaginary friends lots of them with whole historys too,tehn they outgrew it..... .. ah the fun of kids lol....now literarilly or academically or from a historical posit it is interesting as heck to delve into.....
I'm having problems with the site again. *sigh* 
Oh my dear, I have indeed met many people who've told me that the only way to salvation is to follow all that's written in the bible to a T. They ignored any questions about the blatant contradictions within the bible I posed without so much as a word.
That is what I was getting at. I can understand the idea of god being a metaphor to attaining a deeper understanding ourselves and accepting those of differing lifestyles. It not only makes more sense but offers a much more peaceful existence to everyone whether they believe the same or not.
I agree. It does stem from the ancient past where humankind was struggling to understand existence. To a degree we're all still struggling to find ourselves in this vast universe which grows larger day by day.
My confusion is with people who feel not only the need to hold on to such early concepts, but find logic in doing so (I hope I'm not sounding like Mr. Spock
). That is what I would like someone to explain to me.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 4 2008, 07:01 PM)
Gosh Dad i dont' know if the bible was ever meant to be taken literal,
Oh my dear, I have indeed met many people who've told me that the only way to salvation is to follow all that's written in the bible to a T. They ignored any questions about the blatant contradictions within the bible I posed without so much as a word.
QUOTE
it seems to me that humans were then and are now trying to udnerstand themselves by projecting onto this label called god...
it seems to be a lifestyle which excludes most other disciplines which I would feel do a better job or give a broader understanding of ourselves and life perhaps its preference i dont' know.....
it seems to be a lifestyle which excludes most other disciplines which I would feel do a better job or give a broader understanding of ourselves and life perhaps its preference i dont' know.....
That is what I was getting at. I can understand the idea of god being a metaphor to attaining a deeper understanding ourselves and accepting those of differing lifestyles. It not only makes more sense but offers a much more peaceful existence to everyone whether they believe the same or not.
QUOTE
for me I think its the arcahic form of anthromorhpic personification, remember when your daughter first became aware of herself (around 3 or so) when she had realized she had thoughts this has to be one of the cutest moments for a parent when the kids realizes he thinks, i rather enjoyed this moment........... when a child realizes this aspect of being human and then it goes from there my how a childs imagination runs wild.. My kids had imaginary friends lots of them with whole historys too,tehn they outgrew it..... .. ah the fun of kids lol....now literarilly or academically or from a historical posit it is interesting as heck to delve into.....
I agree. It does stem from the ancient past where humankind was struggling to understand existence. To a degree we're all still struggling to find ourselves in this vast universe which grows larger day by day.
My confusion is with people who feel not only the need to hold on to such early concepts, but find logic in doing so (I hope I'm not sounding like Mr. Spock
). That is what I would like someone to explain to me. QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 5 2008, 01:34 AM)
Judaism's approach is that the Bible is to be taken literally and metaphorically. The two do not contradict each other. They just provide different views.
So which view is the correct view ? 1,2, or 3
1)
2)
3)
People did/do take the bible literally until science came along and showed us we cannot. Over time, more things are taken as metaphors now. 
For example ?
No one believed that the creation story was a "metaphor" to be “interpreted,” but they do now,and only after the fact that we have discovered natural selection and the old age of the earth.
For example ?
No one believed that the creation story was a "metaphor" to be “interpreted,” but they do now,and only after the fact that we have discovered natural selection and the old age of the earth.
QUOTE (Thisisnotmyname @ Jun 4 2008, 05:43 PM)
But how does one know what is intended to be literal and what is intended to be metaphor? I think that's the main problem with that. Nothing in the bible really dictates that something should be taken one way or the other.
Everything is literal and metaphorical according to the Talmud.
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 5 2008, 01:33 AM)
If the bible is meant to be taken literally as the word of god, then all prejudice against human nature expressed in the bible must be observed in order to be close to god.
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
Neither of those is true and the Bible is just a book.
I was intrigued by this section of your OP
To me the bible displays a deep and complex but very true knowledge of human nature. Whether it was written by god's authority, or simply a synthesis of wisdom from wise people, this observation remains true.
What the bible does is take that understanding of human nature and look at how humans can build productive interpersonal relationships on both an individual and societal level.
It says basically, "given that humans are like this, then how can we regulate personal and group behaviour to maximise positive benefits?"
One thing some people today find difficult to accept is the need for such regulation in our lives.
Another thing they find difficult to accept is the balance of regulaton required between individual rights/responsibilities and those of society.
The third, and perhaps most difficult concept for modern people to accept, is the nature of punishments sanctioned in the bible.
I dont see any prejudices against human nature in the bible. i see very accurate and reflective observations of human nature and the consequences to individuals and societies where human nature goes unchecked by regulatory control
Many people complain the bible was just written as a means of controlling people. Well of course that was part of its purpose, but this is not a negative characteristic; it is one of the bibles great strengths. It provides principles and laws by which both individuals and societies may identify dangerous behaviours, and the sanctions required to enforce those laws.
So I do agree, you possibly do need to follow the principles and precepts outlined in the bible to be close to the christian version of god, but those principles and practices are not based on prejudice , but on accurate observations of humanity.
QUOTE
If the bible is meant to be taken literally as the word of god, then all prejudice against human nature expressed in the bible must be observed in order to be close to god.
To me the bible displays a deep and complex but very true knowledge of human nature. Whether it was written by god's authority, or simply a synthesis of wisdom from wise people, this observation remains true.
What the bible does is take that understanding of human nature and look at how humans can build productive interpersonal relationships on both an individual and societal level.
It says basically, "given that humans are like this, then how can we regulate personal and group behaviour to maximise positive benefits?"
One thing some people today find difficult to accept is the need for such regulation in our lives.
Another thing they find difficult to accept is the balance of regulaton required between individual rights/responsibilities and those of society.
The third, and perhaps most difficult concept for modern people to accept, is the nature of punishments sanctioned in the bible.
I dont see any prejudices against human nature in the bible. i see very accurate and reflective observations of human nature and the consequences to individuals and societies where human nature goes unchecked by regulatory control
Many people complain the bible was just written as a means of controlling people. Well of course that was part of its purpose, but this is not a negative characteristic; it is one of the bibles great strengths. It provides principles and laws by which both individuals and societies may identify dangerous behaviours, and the sanctions required to enforce those laws.
So I do agree, you possibly do need to follow the principles and precepts outlined in the bible to be close to the christian version of god, but those principles and practices are not based on prejudice , but on accurate observations of humanity.
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 5 2008, 10:33 AM)
If both of the above are meant to be true, then can someone please explain to me their logic behind such a contradictory conclusion?
Different authors, different writing styles, different contexts.The Bible is both literal in parts and metaphorical in parts. But one has to read the context to find out which is which. The gospels, for example, sometimes speak of literal history (eg, "Jesus went to.... and did.... and taught.... etc). Other parts, such as parables are clearly metaphorical.
I can see what you are trying to say, Source, but to say that you must only take all of it literally or all of it figuratively is just way too big a generalisation. There are large chunks of the Bible that are written as poetry (Song of Solomon, for example). You can't argue that this should be literal anymore than you can claim Robert Frost's poems were literal accounts of the World War. Revelation is highly symbolic and may or may not be literal (perhaps it is both literal and metaphorical, in parts). The same can be said of Daniel. And the Psalms and Proverbs for that matter.
Then there are things which are pretty much written as historical fact. Though what is said to one person at one point does not therefore mean that the same should apply to all people of all time.
I can't answer more specifically than that, because the question is so broad - there are many reasons by which a passage is looked upon as literal or figurative, and contrary to Thisisnotmyname's statement, there is often an easily identifiable reason to point that out (the most recognisable of these being that the text is a piece of poetry, but by no means the only one).
I read somwhere once ", "If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense."
fullywired
fullywired
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 5 2008, 03:16 AM)
Different authors, different writing styles, different contexts.
The Bible is both literal in parts and metaphorical in parts. But one has to read the context to find out which is which. The gospels, for example, sometimes speak of literal history (eg, "Jesus went to.... and did.... and taught.... etc). Other parts, such as parables are clearly metaphorical.
I can see what you are trying to say, Source, but to say that you must only take all of it literally or all of it figuratively is just way too big a generalisation. There are large chunks of the Bible that are written as poetry (Song of Solomon, for example). You can't argue that this should be literal anymore than you can claim Robert Frost's poems were literal accounts of the World War. Revelation is highly symbolic and may or may not be literal (perhaps it is both literal and metaphorical, in parts). The same can be said of Daniel. And the Psalms and Proverbs for that matter.
Then there are things which are pretty much written as historical fact. Though what is said to one person at one point does not therefore mean that the same should apply to all people of all time.
I can't answer more specifically than that, because the question is so broad - there are many reasons by which a passage is looked upon as literal or figurative, and contrary to Thisisnotmyname's statement, there is often an easily identifiable reason to point that out (the most recognisable of these being that the text is a piece of poetry, but by no means the only one).
The Bible is both literal in parts and metaphorical in parts. But one has to read the context to find out which is which. The gospels, for example, sometimes speak of literal history (eg, "Jesus went to.... and did.... and taught.... etc). Other parts, such as parables are clearly metaphorical.
I can see what you are trying to say, Source, but to say that you must only take all of it literally or all of it figuratively is just way too big a generalisation. There are large chunks of the Bible that are written as poetry (Song of Solomon, for example). You can't argue that this should be literal anymore than you can claim Robert Frost's poems were literal accounts of the World War. Revelation is highly symbolic and may or may not be literal (perhaps it is both literal and metaphorical, in parts). The same can be said of Daniel. And the Psalms and Proverbs for that matter.
Then there are things which are pretty much written as historical fact. Though what is said to one person at one point does not therefore mean that the same should apply to all people of all time.
I can't answer more specifically than that, because the question is so broad - there are many reasons by which a passage is looked upon as literal or figurative, and contrary to Thisisnotmyname's statement, there is often an easily identifiable reason to point that out (the most recognisable of these being that the text is a piece of poetry, but by no means the only one).
I agree. The simple fact that there were many authors of the Bible, and that there are different eras in which pieces were written, we can't say that if A is metaphorical that B must be as well. I'm not as well educated on ths subject as I would like to be, but I am pretty sure that there are several historical and geographical accuracies within the Bible, which alludes to the fact that it's not completely symbolic and metaphorical. It's obvious, to me at least, that there are also parts of the Bible that were not meant to be taken literally, as PA stated and gave examples of.
The differences in each Christian denomination is directly related to which parts of the Bible they see as literal and which are seen as figurative. No one has been able to come up with a good enough interpretation of which is which, otherwise there wouldn't be so many denominations and different interpretations.
I do like the title of the thread though. It's oxymoronic.
while I don't believe in any so called holy text . being anything other than opinion............ we ourselves everyday speak/ express ourselves both literally and metaphorically.
Imagine if a whole different culture far removed from ours heard someone say " go take a hike." " take a long walk off a short pier" " get lost " - there are tons of them. yet if someone didn't know how would it appear to them ?
yet I think all texts are a mix of metaphor and literal stances.
how about in science ?
Metaphors in science
http://www.morphostasis.org.uk/metaphors.htm
Imagine if a whole different culture far removed from ours heard someone say " go take a hike." " take a long walk off a short pier" " get lost " - there are tons of them. yet if someone didn't know how would it appear to them ?
yet I think all texts are a mix of metaphor and literal stances.
how about in science ?
Metaphors in science
http://www.morphostasis.org.uk/metaphors.htm
BIBLE for some = Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth. It is not important to know it all but it is important to have a one on one, real and genuine, relationship with God. After the Spirit dwells within all the pieces fall in place. Following the Bible word per word but lacking Spirit does not make one a Christian it makes one a legalist. Using the Spirit to guide you and applying the Bible to your own life makes one a Christian.
PA offered a great explanation of what to follow literally and what was meant for a certain person or group only. No contradictions as Kaizen said.
PA offered a great explanation of what to follow literally and what was meant for a certain person or group only. No contradictions as Kaizen said.
QUOTE
If the bible is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then doesn't that make god simply a metaphor as well?
What? That makes no sense.
I say, "She is a hot-house flower."
I said a metaphor, but it hardly makes ME a metaphor.
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 4 2008, 06:41 PM)
I'm having problems with the site again. *sigh*
Oh my dear, I have indeed met many people who've told me that the only way to salvation is to follow all that's written in the bible to a T. They ignored any questions about the blatant contradictions within the bible I posed without so much as a word.
That is what I was getting at. I can understand the idea of god being a metaphor to attaining a deeper understanding ourselves and accepting those of differing lifestyles. It not only makes more sense but offers a much more peaceful existence to everyone whether they believe the same or not.
I agree. It does stem from the ancient past where humankind was struggling to understand existence. To a degree we're all still struggling to find ourselves in this vast universe which grows larger day by day.
My confusion is with people who feel not only the need to hold on to such early concepts, but find logic in doing so (I hope I'm not sounding like Mr. Spock ). That is what I would like someone to explain to me.
Oh my dear, I have indeed met many people who've told me that the only way to salvation is to follow all that's written in the bible to a T. They ignored any questions about the blatant contradictions within the bible I posed without so much as a word.
That is what I was getting at. I can understand the idea of god being a metaphor to attaining a deeper understanding ourselves and accepting those of differing lifestyles. It not only makes more sense but offers a much more peaceful existence to everyone whether they believe the same or not.
I agree. It does stem from the ancient past where humankind was struggling to understand existence. To a degree we're all still struggling to find ourselves in this vast universe which grows larger day by day.
My confusion is with people who feel not only the need to hold on to such early concepts, but find logic in doing so (I hope I'm not sounding like Mr. Spock
). That is what I would like someone to explain to me.Very good post Dad..I'll use the OT (the Tanakh)as my example...of why i wouldn't take the bible literal.....or call this historically accurate because the vast majority of this material has no ancient or eastern literary or archeological support...therefore the bible can't really be considered a historical account ..
the OT biblical "story" spans from creation to judiasms's encounter with hellenism in the wake of alexander the great( daniel) and for each setting it provides a variety of settings....
Its genre's include cosomlogical myths and stories of origin,(gen1) this alone is a very deep and exhaustive study.....saga's of culture heros (joshua , judges) law codes ( Leviticus, deuteronomy)..prophetic oracles(Amos, isiah) Court tales(Esther, Dan 1-6) and apocalyptic visions(Zech 9-14 Dan.7-12).
amoung its writers are storytellers, burearocrats, prophets. priests. scribes and visionaries.
Its subjects answer diverse questions such as who were we then , what was our history as a culture (meaning mindset, values and fears) all these form cultures traditions and rituals...
what were the standards of morality???? How did we relate to those outside our community?how and whom did we worship...?????
to appreciate the bible, the diversity of the genre's , authors and issues requires a complex approach( a bit of knowldege on history, philosophy , economics, literrature, science, etc etc) for achieveing a well rounded range of scope of what is percieved.....
an example: greater understanding of corpus( a collection of writings) for instance requires recognition that its an anthology( a selection of literary passages) written in differnt times and locations to meet different concerns.....In truth humanity shoudl be writng its ouw story that reflects our own time and i think this is the deeper meaning of the label god its ever changing and evolving so how can it be literal i would ask??????i
A deeper familiarity comes with the knowledge of the ancient near east and the understanding that what was normal /common then.... how do the materials fit toghether chapter by chapter book by book)
tthen the biggie Soo many things affect our perceptions, shape them and color them in our own lives this has to be considerred also .. the wider number of critical tools we employ ( disciplines) the greater questions we pose which give a deeper understanding or as you said it so beautifully ...
Dad quoted:
"That is what I was getting at. I can understand the idea of god being a metaphor to attaining a deeper understanding ourselves and accepting those of differing lifestyles. It not only makes more sense but offers a much more peaceful existence to everyone whether they believe the same or not.".
i agree how could we possibly take the bible literally as i illustrated above ..... this is by far the biggest problem the bible must be looked at with fresh eyes that reflect modern times....We can't use ancient stories to help us solve todays issues.....But what we can see with the bible is see this is the human experience colored by where we are now..
taking the bible literally would be like reading Homer as the guide to lving while on earth?????
It's a question I've asked here in the past, SOURCE...is God/G-d/Allah an allegory?!?
The other interesting observation about the revealed religions is that they all believe their canon to be closed. Once the Word of their deity was written (even though this could have been over millenia) that.is.it. No more revelations into the mysteries of their religion can be made - no-one else is privy in such a way to the Word or inspiration of God/G-d/Allah.
This is, to me, one of THE most contradictory things about the revealed religions - that their deity would inspire a few, many centuries ago, to write about Him, and then suddenly stop. It says a lot for their struggles with reason, imo, not to mention the political nature of religion.
The other interesting observation about the revealed religions is that they all believe their canon to be closed. Once the Word of their deity was written (even though this could have been over millenia) that.is.it. No more revelations into the mysteries of their religion can be made - no-one else is privy in such a way to the Word or inspiration of God/G-d/Allah.
This is, to me, one of THE most contradictory things about the revealed religions - that their deity would inspire a few, many centuries ago, to write about Him, and then suddenly stop. It says a lot for their struggles with reason, imo, not to mention the political nature of religion.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 10:15 AM)
i agree how could we possibly take the bible literally as i illustrated above ..... this is by far the biggest problem the bible must be looked at with fresh eyes that reflect modern times....We can't use ancient stories to help us solve todays issues.....But what we can see with the bible is see this is the human experience colored by where we are now..
taking the bible literally would be like reading Homer as the guide to lving while on earth?????
taking the bible literally would be like reading Homer as the guide to lving while on earth?????
That is only an opinion and many will continue using the Bible as they have for centuries. The biggest problem is people telling others how to worship or not. Everyone can and will decide for themselves. Many decide to appreciate the Bible by simply opening up their heart and allowing the Spirit to guide them. Most likely this will continue to be the popular approach.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 5 2008, 09:05 AM)
That is only an opinion and many will continue using the Bible as they have for centuries. The biggest problem is people telling others how to worship or not. Everyone can and will decide for themselves. Many decide to appreciate the Bible by simply opening up their heart and allowing the Spirit to guide them. Most likely this will continue to be the popular approach.
Clovis, yet culturally we can observe that this method you describe is not effective as a guide for living IMO ..it simply isn't taking us as a humanity to where many say they want to go.. .
I offer some perhaps why , I have no prefernece on how you or, if you consider them......many POV's are a great tool if you want to use them to gain a braoder awreness agan its up to you..........I am on the outside looking in when you are inside looking out it its very hard to see beyond the vested interest in the faith itself....and I would define you as openminded Clovis... i have areas i am on the inside looking out and its hard for me. and I apprecaite the value of another view it helps me refine, evaluate etc.... but this may not be the case for you ..........its not personal its just a pov....
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 5 2008, 03:18 AM)
People did/do take the bible literally until science came along and showed us we cannot. Over time, more things are taken as metaphors now.
For example ?
No one believed that the creation story was a "metaphor" to be “interpreted,” but they do now,and only after the fact that we have discovered natural selection and the old age of the earth.
For example ?
No one believed that the creation story was a "metaphor" to be “interpreted,” but they do now,and only after the fact that we have discovered natural selection and the old age of the earth.
Spot on, MLOR!
One looks at the context of when (and where) the Creation story was written and there is little doubt it was intended to be a literal representation of the origin of Man to those living at the time and who believed.
Necessity is the mother of invention
As scientific knowledge showed the Creation myth to be just that it became necessary for the story to be transmogrified into a metaphor to protect the validity of the belief. The apologistic "God was describing evolution, but the people of the times couldn't understand the concept" is a rather pathetic (imo) attempt to evade the obvious conclusion of the conflict.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 11:17 AM)
Clovis, yet culturally we can observe that this method you describe is not effective as a guide for living IMO ..it simply isn't taking us as a humanity to where many say they want to go.. .
I offer some perhaps why , I have no prefernece on how you or, if you consider them......many POV's are a great tool if you want to use them to gain a braoder awreness agan its up to you..........I am on the outside looking in when you are inside looking out it its very hard to see beyond the vested interest in the faith itself....and I would define you as openminded Clovis... i have areas i am on the inside looking out and its hard for me. and I apprecaite the value of another view it helps me refine, evaluate etc.... but this may not be the case for you ..........its not personal its just a pov....
I offer some perhaps why , I have no prefernece on how you or, if you consider them......many POV's are a great tool if you want to use them to gain a braoder awreness agan its up to you..........I am on the outside looking in when you are inside looking out it its very hard to see beyond the vested interest in the faith itself....and I would define you as openminded Clovis... i have areas i am on the inside looking out and its hard for me. and I apprecaite the value of another view it helps me refine, evaluate etc.... but this may not be the case for you ..........its not personal its just a pov....
It has nothing to do about being on the inside or the outside. Religion is a cultural constant and is not going to disappear anytime soon. The only difference is people are being offered more choices on what to choose now a days. When it comes to the Bible though most people who subscribe to it have used it as an effective guide to living and will continue to do so.
QUOTE (momentarylapseofreason @ Jun 4 2008, 09:18 PM)
People did/do take the bible literally until science came along and showed us we cannot. Over time, more things are taken as metaphors now.
A recent article showing faith in God, Bible or not, will continue strong. Religion itself might change but will continue.
QUOTE
WASHINGTON — Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God, and so it's stupid to think God exists.
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered.
Edited by Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
The practical answer is, "Of course not." Many people worldwide believe.
In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing, but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001.
The faithful aren't going away despite a golden age of scientific descriptions of the mysteries of life and the secularizing, culture-draining force of consumerism.
The answers offered by the booklet's two theologians, eight scientists, two cultural commentators and one philosopher are more creative and sophisticated than the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television.
Some of the thinkers even found ways to synthesize or reconcile God and science without throwing up their hands.
The standard line
The standard scientific line on God is well-represented in the booklet by several of the writers:
— Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.
— Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
— And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." Stenger also contributed to the new booklet.
These arguments are old news.
Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnostic, adds a cosmic twist, casting doubt on our ability to recognize God.
He claims that any encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence, should we go looking, is statistically likely to turn up civilizations that are far more medically advanced than ours and would have the ability to create life, so they will be indistinguishable from God.
"Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science," Shermer writes in the booklet.
Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science.
A handful of those folks — including Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, and William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology — are also represented in the booklet, arguing that the natural world and the world of faith are relatively separate, yet personally reconcilable domains.
"I think that we are all comfortable with the idea there are plenty of things in our lives that we will deal with outside of the scientific paradigm," Phillips told about 70 members of the public who attended the discussion of these issues between himself, Shermer and AEI theologian Michael Novak. "And while I think faith is a particularly important part of our lives that we should deal with outside of the scientific paradigm, it is certainly not the only one."
Reconciling God and science
Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered in the booklet by Kenneth Miller, Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Stuart Kauffman.
Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.
He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Healing the schism
Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature, among other things.
This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.
A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."
Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).
In his own words, here are some things She (yes, Hoodbhoy uses the female pronoun) could do, Hoodbhoy writes:
"Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic wormholes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results — the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory."
Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered.
Edited by Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
The practical answer is, "Of course not." Many people worldwide believe.
In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing, but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001.
The faithful aren't going away despite a golden age of scientific descriptions of the mysteries of life and the secularizing, culture-draining force of consumerism.
The answers offered by the booklet's two theologians, eight scientists, two cultural commentators and one philosopher are more creative and sophisticated than the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television.
Some of the thinkers even found ways to synthesize or reconcile God and science without throwing up their hands.
The standard line
The standard scientific line on God is well-represented in the booklet by several of the writers:
— Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.
— Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
— And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." Stenger also contributed to the new booklet.
These arguments are old news.
Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnostic, adds a cosmic twist, casting doubt on our ability to recognize God.
He claims that any encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence, should we go looking, is statistically likely to turn up civilizations that are far more medically advanced than ours and would have the ability to create life, so they will be indistinguishable from God.
"Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science," Shermer writes in the booklet.
Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science.
A handful of those folks — including Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, and William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology — are also represented in the booklet, arguing that the natural world and the world of faith are relatively separate, yet personally reconcilable domains.
"I think that we are all comfortable with the idea there are plenty of things in our lives that we will deal with outside of the scientific paradigm," Phillips told about 70 members of the public who attended the discussion of these issues between himself, Shermer and AEI theologian Michael Novak. "And while I think faith is a particularly important part of our lives that we should deal with outside of the scientific paradigm, it is certainly not the only one."
Reconciling God and science
Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered in the booklet by Kenneth Miller, Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Stuart Kauffman.
Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.
He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Healing the schism
Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature, among other things.
This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.
A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."
Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).
In his own words, here are some things She (yes, Hoodbhoy uses the female pronoun) could do, Hoodbhoy writes:
"Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic wormholes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results — the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory."
Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 6 2008, 12:24 AM)
PA offered a great explanation of what to follow literally and what was meant for a certain person or group only. No contradictions as Kaizen said.
Thanks. My answer was admittedly short on specifics, but I think/hope I got the overall themes. After all, if I were to quote Song of Solomon, where the author compares a woman's hair to moss on a stone (don't ask - ancient imagery), and then quoted one of the gospels where it says "Jesus went to Galilee to preach the gospel", I don't see how it is ever possible to say that they must both be taken literally or both be taken metaphorically. Such a stance doesn't work.In a modern sense, we see a similar outline in newspaper articles. In Australia, the front page is dominated by headline news (usually either tragic, or events affect ing our everyday lives). The backpages deal with sport. In between we have advertisements, as well as differentiating between an editorial (opinion piece) and a fact-based post. Then there are the comics, the letters to the editor, the crossword, and even in some newspapers the poetry. Liftouts also include food, wine, theatre, etc.
Each section of the newspaper is written in different styles, for different purposes, and aren't necessarily referring to the same thing. I guess I've said it before, but it seems somewhat that people take it as granted that other texts must be read in context, but as soon as someone quotes the Bible, it is often the context that becomes meaningless (and yes, this applies to Christians as easily as non-Christians).
All the best, Clovis, and good night. I'll try and look at this thread sometime tomorrow evening.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ Jun 6 2008, 02:50 AM)
Spot on, MLOR!
One looks at the context of when (and where) the Creation story was written and there is little doubt it was intended to be a literal representation of the origin of Man to those living at the time and who believed.
Necessity is the mother of invention
As scientific knowledge showed the Creation myth to be just that it became necessary for the story to be transmogrified into a metaphor to protect the validity of the belief. The apologistic "God was describing evolution, but the people of the times couldn't understand the concept" is a rather pathetic (imo) attempt to evade the obvious conclusion of the conflict.
While I don't disagree that Christians in the past in many cases did see this as a literal six-day event, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that Genesis is describing evolution either. You see, as I view it, there are more options than just the extremes - ie, it's either "literally six-days", or it "refers to evolution over a period of non-literal six days". There are by far more than two views from Christians on this passage. As I see it, the "how" is not so important. The "why" is much more important, imo. One looks at the context of when (and where) the Creation story was written and there is little doubt it was intended to be a literal representation of the origin of Man to those living at the time and who believed.
Necessity is the mother of invention
As scientific knowledge showed the Creation myth to be just that it became necessary for the story to be transmogrified into a metaphor to protect the validity of the belief. The apologistic "God was describing evolution, but the people of the times couldn't understand the concept" is a rather pathetic (imo) attempt to evade the obvious conclusion of the conflict.
And to be absolutely honest, I have tried looking at this verse from a literal angle and a non-literal angle. The conclusion I came to was quite enlightening. If it was entirely literal, then the most important information I take out of this passage is "God did it and is in control". If it is completely figurative and never took place, the most important information I take out of this passage is "God did it and is in control". My views on a literal or figurative view of Genesis are largely irrelevant - I'd get the same core views/teachings regardless of whcih.
Just my view, of course.
Excellent metaphor regarding the newspaper. While we tend to use the health section to make conscious lifestyle choices to prolong our life no one gets such information from the comics even though there always is a bit of wisdom that can be found within the comic section.
What is ironic is that the people who claim that a belief in the Bible as a guide to life is a mindset that is trapped in a box it is only they who are actually putting the Bible in a box. The living words that are written on our hearts after opening our hearts when reading the Word are what truly counts. The words written on a page are useless if they remain there and are not applied to the reader to effect a change for the betterment of their quality of life.
And you make even more tremendous points regarding the Genesis-Creation-Evolution question. The why is definitely more important than the how when it comes to the faith aspect of our lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
All science can really do to the truly faithful is change more views from biblical inerrancy towards biblical infallibility. In some ways science for the truly faithful only makes God appear more wonderful with every new discovery because the glory is to God in our eyes. Some also realize that anything can be made into an idol no matter its value. Some can choose to worship the creator or the creation. Refashioning valuable gold into the calf below Mt Sinai did not ultimately work to sway away the truly faithful and neither will refashioning valuable science into scientism work either. Some will continue to put God first and place gold and science and everything else after. After all each of those has its uses.
What is ironic is that the people who claim that a belief in the Bible as a guide to life is a mindset that is trapped in a box it is only they who are actually putting the Bible in a box. The living words that are written on our hearts after opening our hearts when reading the Word are what truly counts. The words written on a page are useless if they remain there and are not applied to the reader to effect a change for the betterment of their quality of life.
And you make even more tremendous points regarding the Genesis-Creation-Evolution question. The why is definitely more important than the how when it comes to the faith aspect of our lives.
QUOTE
Biblical infallibility is the theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice, while minor possible contradictions in history (or geography, science etc.) can be overlooked as insignificant to its spiritual purpose. This stance is also known as Limited Inerrancy.
In contrast, Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from all errors, not only in spiritual areas, but in the natural as well.
In contrast, Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from all errors, not only in spiritual areas, but in the natural as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
All science can really do to the truly faithful is change more views from biblical inerrancy towards biblical infallibility. In some ways science for the truly faithful only makes God appear more wonderful with every new discovery because the glory is to God in our eyes. Some also realize that anything can be made into an idol no matter its value. Some can choose to worship the creator or the creation. Refashioning valuable gold into the calf below Mt Sinai did not ultimately work to sway away the truly faithful and neither will refashioning valuable science into scientism work either. Some will continue to put God first and place gold and science and everything else after. After all each of those has its uses.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 5 2008, 09:51 AM)
It has nothing to do about being on the inside or the outside. Religion is a cultural constant and is not going to disappear anytime soon. The only difference is people are being offered more choices on what to choose now a days. When it comes to the Bible though most people who subscribe to it have used it as an effective guide to living and will continue to do so.
A recent article showing faith in God, Bible or not, will continue strong. Religion itself might change but will continue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
A recent article showing faith in God, Bible or not, will continue strong. Religion itself might change but will continue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
religion as once was ascribed to is on its last legs... We can see this reflected in what you are calling cultural norms.. one by one constants have evolved...
relgion is a social construct and its based on need.
As I said when you are in the inside looking out you are bound by the limits of the construct, you filter through this perceptive ........
as illustrated by your post that relgion is here to stay as is what you have missed is it redefining itself in many ways for the better and is based on the current undertsadings and needs of this culture......
Just in 10 years I have personally seen things grow culturally, it is astounding.. growth away from one size fits all beleif constructs,letting go of ideas that are no longer serving us we have had enough time to see the fruits of our labor if you will and assess and redefine based on this input, output modle..... I find this exciting and refreshing why would anyone want things to remain the same??? its goes against the essence of life itself as we now know...........
I define intellegence in 2 ways the ability to adapt and the ability to learn from our exoerinces and i see 'religion ' moving in this direction, albeit slowy .. lets face it we have those that still beleive evolution is Bs and that the earth is flat and that ciggarettes do not cause cancer and that we don't affect the enviorment we live in etc etc.... even the way we reason is changing ,..... most of the biblical ideas have outgrown themselves this is natural just as our ideas will not serve our children they will redefine and move forward......
....there have always been plenty of alternate religions that other have followed many had to kept it to themselves where as now with communicaitons so advanced we share more have accsess to more..... ..
I know many who are athiestic, agnostic theists as a label... , i'd say the fastest growing constructs are paganism, diesm and agnostisim....
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 5 2008, 06:51 PM)
A recent article showing faith in God, Bible or not, will continue strong. Religion itself might change but will continue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
This is fine with myself but only as long as it stays a PERSONAL belief and in the home, in the heads/hearts & in the Church. Godvertising is also a given right (freedom of speech).
Various believers shouldn't intentionally/unintentionally continue to lie, and distort/shapeshift scientific facts.
Government & religion must stay separate
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 5 2008, 05:51 PM)
A recent article showing faith in God, Bible or not, will continue strong. Religion itself might change but will continue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
Well here is another poll/survey
Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.
Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.
Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Note>Figures are percentages.
Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.
For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.
Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States.
The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.
Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu
sorry
QUOTE
QUOTE
We can't use ancient stories to help us solve todays issues
Your whole post was interesting supra, but also illustrates how two different people can see different things in the same info. Even if all the points you made about the bible were correct, i would still see it as an extremely valuable reference book to help understand human nature, and to build many basic moral precepts on.
It contains much distilled wisdom about humanity.
To answer your specific point above "those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it""
In fact oral histories or simple stories allegories metaphors and parables have always been one of the most basic and successful teaching tools of humanity. And so an education without homers stories would be one lacking some significant part of the human experience.
One problem of modern wisdom is that new technologies and wider education means that some people believe that modern humans are both smarter and more capable of developing superior ethical systems, than people from older societies.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, in the physiology of human beings. Ie our brains arent superior. And human nature as a product of evolution is unlikely to change any more rapidly than the more physical elements of humanity. Thus what was wise 2000 years ago is most likely to be wise today, allowing for changes in technology and the potential impact of these on humans and our environment.
For example we once sent our young men off to war. Now we send our young men and women. Just how is this a superior ethical model?
We once disciplined our children and taught them practices which allowed them to live safely in society. Now our children attempt to control us, and live lives just as dangerous as those we sent down coal mines 200 years ago, through their driving, drinking and drug habits and sexual mores, but this is justified through freedom of choice and individual rights.
Why is this way of bringing up children seen to be superior to the model of 200 years ago?
Young people have not changed. They still demand the ability to develop from dependent children to independent adults, and this involves deliberate risk taking to establish identity and assert individual authority. If we are using such superior models, why do our young people continue to have such difficulty making this transition with their physical and mental health intact?
If we judge purely with the evidence of our eyes, then our modern systems of ethics and governance are, at best, no more successful than historical ones, and quite possibly inferior, in their outcomes for people.
For example, while it is arguable whether the abolition of capital punishment is an effective deterrent to serious crimes there certainly is not any evidence that abolishing it has created any safer societies.
There is no doubt however that abolishing capital punishment comes at a significant cost to a society, and that only quite a strong/robust society may be able to afford this alternative.
In effect, modern ethical and governance systems are not superior to those of the past. All that has happened is that societies have developed the resources and robustness to accomodate practices which are really not productive.
We can afford to tolerate more divergent opinions and practices, but that makes neither our societies, nor those practices, necessarily superior to those which worked for simpler and more vulnerable societies.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
religion as once was ascribed to is on its last legs... We can see this reflected in what you are calling cultural norms.. one by one constants have evolved...
relgion is a social construct and its based on need.
As I said when you are in the inside looking out you are bound by the limits of the construct, you filter through this perceptive ........
relgion is a social construct and its based on need.
As I said when you are in the inside looking out you are bound by the limits of the construct, you filter through this perceptive ........
The point that religion is based on society's needs is agreed upon. I made the same point almost two weeks ago.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 23 2008, 04:53 PM)
I am not saying context is meaningless but it is separate than faith. To say that because it was written in another era for a specific culture and then conclude that it 'invalidates it completely outside of that era and culture' is a notion while on its own does have merit but only in the narrowly defined view that certain cultural idiosyncrasies will not be transparent to the modern casual reader. But then to apply that towards modern believers and claim their faith is somehow invalidated is a misapplication of their conclusion. It does not take appreciation for minute facets of historical cultures to appreciate a large part of their legacy in the modern era.
'Relevance' is the key word and there is a difference between 'academic relevance' and 'religious relevance'. When 'the faith' based on the Bible is growing in the modern world around the globe we have to understand that religions are developed, adopted, and discarded based on cultural needs at any given moment of history. Its relevancy is there in this manner for millions are adopting the faith based on the Bible in the here and now. While the growth is mainly within Africa and Latin America that fact itself should not confuse us of another important fact. That many within the West, where secularism is on the rise, still cling on to that faith based on the Bible and for those it is every bit as relevant as a religion as it was in some ways to the early Christians. There does need to be further differentiation though for when it is stated that the faith today is just as relevant today as it was then is using the term relevance in a specific manner because at the same time we do know that in some cases some of the things said then and their meaning escape the casual reader and in that manner it is no longer relevant. But in the end a faith based on the Bible now is not invalidated because of it as the evangelist of secularism would have us instantly believe.
'Relevance' is the key word and there is a difference between 'academic relevance' and 'religious relevance'. When 'the faith' based on the Bible is growing in the modern world around the globe we have to understand that religions are developed, adopted, and discarded based on cultural needs at any given moment of history. Its relevancy is there in this manner for millions are adopting the faith based on the Bible in the here and now. While the growth is mainly within Africa and Latin America that fact itself should not confuse us of another important fact. That many within the West, where secularism is on the rise, still cling on to that faith based on the Bible and for those it is every bit as relevant as a religion as it was in some ways to the early Christians. There does need to be further differentiation though for when it is stated that the faith today is just as relevant today as it was then is using the term relevance in a specific manner because at the same time we do know that in some cases some of the things said then and their meaning escape the casual reader and in that manner it is no longer relevant. But in the end a faith based on the Bible now is not invalidated because of it as the evangelist of secularism would have us instantly believe.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
as illustrated by your post that relgion is here to stay as is what you have missed is it redefining itself in many ways for the better and is based on the current undertsadings and needs of this culture......
I did not miss the fact that religion was redefining itself and mentioned the fact already just a few posts up when I mentioned that 'religion itself might change but will continue'. I have seen the changes personally in church which is becoming more tolerant for others without dismissing the Bible but clinging to it even closer in the true Spirit it was intended for. Not to judge others but to better ourselves. Not much more is needed to survive in the pluralistic culture society finds itself in today.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
Just in 10 years I have personally seen things grow culturally, it is astounding.. growth away from one size fits all beleif constructs,letting go of ideas that are no longer serving us we have had enough time to see the fruits of our labor if you will and assess and redefine based on this input, output modle..... I find this exciting and refreshing why would anyone want things to remain the same??? its goes against the essence of life itself as we now know...........
Your view is quite narrow and one that focuses locally it seems and lacks a true global perspective. Globally the rise of religion, Islam and Pentecostalism especially, has grown immensely. The case can be made that a spiritual vacuum is developing and people around the world are abandoning older antiquated faiths and becoming people of the Book, which both Christians and Muslims are. Christianity is growing more so in Africa, Latin America, and Asia while Islam is growing tremendously in the West especially within the UK and the USA.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
I define intellegence in 2 ways the ability to adapt and the ability to learn from our exoerinces and i see 'religion ' moving in this direction, albeit slowy .. lets face it we have those that still beleive evolution is Bs and that the earth is flat and that ciggarettes do not cause cancer and that we don't affect the enviorment we live in etc etc.... even the way we reason is changing ,..... most of the biblical ideas have outgrown themselves this is natural just as our ideas will not serve our children they will redefine and move forward......
Weak attempt to mix a few facts, such as evolution and causes of cancer, to your personal view that people who remain faithful to the Word lack intelligence. This is what seems implied. This is nothing more than scientism in one of its worse forms. It is not that people are not intelligent for remaining believers it is that your view is intolerant and attempts to paint those who disagree with it as unintelligent. Whether your view actually believes this or is actually using it as a tactic is not clearly apparent. Regardless many intelligent people remain and are becoming believers.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
....there have always been plenty of alternate religions that other have followed many had to kept it to themselves where as now with communicaitons so advanced we share more have accsess to more..... ..
I know many who are athiestic, agnostic theists as a label... , i'd say the fastest growing constructs are paganism, diesm and agnostisim....
I know many who are athiestic, agnostic theists as a label... , i'd say the fastest growing constructs are paganism, diesm and agnostisim....
Well the first part of this statement agrees with when I stated 'people are being offered more choices on what to choose now a days' just a few posts before this one and it is due to the information explosion our global culture is undergoing and the effects of globalism itself. The latter part of your statement again demonstrates your view is confined into thinking locally and not globally. 'You' might know many atheists and agnostics and while it is true paganism is making a rise in the West the fact remains that globally the fastest growing religions are Islam and Pentecostalism and in America itself the majority of people are still Christians. I understand your views and your aspirations for society but just because you surround yourself with people that think as you do does not mean they are the majority of Americans. Too many people believe in God in America personally. While a vocal minority can remove God from government they have failed and will continue to fail if they wish to remove God out of the hearts and minds of our citizenry. Your view has self-deluded itself into believing some drastic change is occurring or will occur among the people when the facts do now show that. Change within institutions are another matter but that does not represent the majority when all it takes is a minority to seize said institutions.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 5 2008, 12:54 PM)
As I said when you are in the inside looking out you are bound by the limits of the construct, you filter through this perceptive ........
as illustrated by your post that relgion is here to stay as is what you have missed is it redefining itself in many ways for the better and is based on the current undertsadings and needs of this culture......
as illustrated by your post that relgion is here to stay as is what you have missed is it redefining itself in many ways for the better and is based on the current undertsadings and needs of this culture......
The facts are there and consistently disagree with your assertions especially when you claim that me claiming religion is here to stay is merely based on my filtered perspective. This post has shown that your view is quite the filtered one. When I claim religion is here to stay, and I should expand and say instead that God believers in America are here to stay, and it has nothing to do with filtered views since this claim is based on the facts which speak for themselves. We, believers in God, are the majority of this land and will continue to remain so whether you and your ilk, which are a minority regardless of their domination of public institutions, like it or not.
QUOTE
Among "developed nations", the US is one of the most religious. According to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, an attitude similar to that found in its neighbors in Latin America.[1]
Most U.S. adult citizens, at least in a general sense, adhere to some variant of Christianity (as high as 78.5%[2] by some estimates, as low as 70% in others). A 2001 survey[2] found 15% of the adult population to have no religious affiliation...
Most U.S. adult citizens, at least in a general sense, adhere to some variant of Christianity (as high as 78.5%[2] by some estimates, as low as 70% in others). A 2001 survey[2] found 15% of the adult population to have no religious affiliation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
You know if the opposite was true, as in the case of Europe, I would have no issue accepting the facts, but is is straining at times to read your views and deciphering what is fact and personal opinion since they seem to be unable to differentiate between the two. It is not like it matters in the end if Christianity wanes or not in America, it seems like that is not going to be the case, but there will always be true believers, the problem though within your views in the inability to separate fact from your aspirations and might simply be due to an emotional attachment for the outcome. Facts though are emotionless and even though we might be passionate about our views it is no excuse to keep attempting to make the facts fit to your views when it is our views that must work around rigid facts that take no side. This theme is repeated consistently in your views and posts though and that theme is quite in error.
Sorry for my absence, it was unavoidable.
Excellent posts, everyone. Excuse me if I don't address any one post.
I should clarify why my questions were so broad. In a discussion with a friend of mine I was told that everything in the bible must be taken literally. God did in fact create the universe in 6 (24 hour) days. Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. The incredible ages mentioned in the bible were fact (Methuselah living to 969, Noah to 950, etc.) The list went on and on.
When I mentioned that perhaps there had been errors in translation or maybe some of the stories were simply allegory I received the following quick (and somewhat angry) reply, "The bible is the word of God and a true believer would never question the word of God."
This belief is in contrast to the views I've read expressed by many in this forum. And yet, she's not the only person I know who believes this way.
This got me to thinking. By reading past comments here I was already aware that not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. But what if everything in the bible is all simply a metaphor? I'm not speaking of certain historical events mentioned, but of the concept of God as expressed in the bible.
If God, as mentioned in the bible (especially in the OT) was meant to be a metaphor for the strengths and failings of humanity rather than an all powerful and omniscient being, then would that really be such a bad thing? Wouldn't that make the bible more of a personal guide to living rather than a guide to pleasing the almighty?
The reason I mentioned that it might make for a more peaceful existence is because, as I see it, striving to become closer to humanity (which God is the metaphor for) would lead to a greater acceptance of one another.
I can understand why in the past a powerful and frightening entity was needed to get the point across. And God also served as an umbrella to protect earlier man's ignorance.
But as some have stated, religion is moving forward and is also trying to work together with the discoveries made by science. Is the idea of God still required to gain any benefit from the bible?
I find the bible interesting and somewhat entertaining, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would hold onto every word as absolute fact (as in the case of my friends).
OTOH, I feel what good that can be gained from reading the bible is sometimes lost beneath a misinterpretation of metaphor.
Excellent posts, everyone. Excuse me if I don't address any one post.
I should clarify why my questions were so broad. In a discussion with a friend of mine I was told that everything in the bible must be taken literally. God did in fact create the universe in 6 (24 hour) days. Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. The incredible ages mentioned in the bible were fact (Methuselah living to 969, Noah to 950, etc.) The list went on and on.
When I mentioned that perhaps there had been errors in translation or maybe some of the stories were simply allegory I received the following quick (and somewhat angry) reply, "The bible is the word of God and a true believer would never question the word of God."
This belief is in contrast to the views I've read expressed by many in this forum. And yet, she's not the only person I know who believes this way.
This got me to thinking. By reading past comments here I was already aware that not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. But what if everything in the bible is all simply a metaphor? I'm not speaking of certain historical events mentioned, but of the concept of God as expressed in the bible.
If God, as mentioned in the bible (especially in the OT) was meant to be a metaphor for the strengths and failings of humanity rather than an all powerful and omniscient being, then would that really be such a bad thing? Wouldn't that make the bible more of a personal guide to living rather than a guide to pleasing the almighty?
The reason I mentioned that it might make for a more peaceful existence is because, as I see it, striving to become closer to humanity (which God is the metaphor for) would lead to a greater acceptance of one another.
I can understand why in the past a powerful and frightening entity was needed to get the point across. And God also served as an umbrella to protect earlier man's ignorance.
But as some have stated, religion is moving forward and is also trying to work together with the discoveries made by science. Is the idea of God still required to gain any benefit from the bible?
I find the bible interesting and somewhat entertaining, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would hold onto every word as absolute fact (as in the case of my friends).
OTOH, I feel what good that can be gained from reading the bible is sometimes lost beneath a misinterpretation of metaphor.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Jun 5 2008, 05:27 PM)
Your whole post was interesting supra, but also illustrates how two different people can see different things in the same info. Even if all the points you made about the bible were correct, i would still see it as an extremely valuable reference book to help understand human nature, and to build many basic moral precepts on.
It contains much distilled wisdom about humanity.
To answer your specific point above "those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it""
In fact oral histories or simple stories allegories metaphors and parables have always been one of the most basic and successful teaching tools of humanity. And so an education without homers stories would be one lacking some significant part of the human experience.
One problem of modern wisdom is that new technologies and wider education means that some people believe that modern humans are both smarter and more capable of developing superior ethical systems, than people from older societies.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, in the physiology of human beings. Ie our brains arent superior. And human nature as a product of evolution is unlikely to change any more rapidly than the more physical elements of humanity. Thus what was wise 2000 years ago is most likely to be wise today, allowing for changes in technology and the potential impact of these on humans and our environment.
For example we once sent our young men off to war. Now we send our young men and women. Just how is this a superior ethical model?
We once disciplined our children and taught them practices which allowed them to live safely in society. Now our children attempt to control us, and live lives just as dangerous as those we sent down coal mines 200 years ago, through their driving, drinking and drug habits and sexual mores, but this is justified through freedom of choice and individual rights.
Why is this way of bringing up children seen to be superior to the model of 200 years ago?
Young people have not changed. They still demand the ability to develop from dependent children to independent adults, and this involves deliberate risk taking to establish identity and assert individual authority. If we are using such superior models, why do our young people continue to have such difficulty making this transition with their physical and mental health intact?
If we judge purely with the evidence of our eyes, then our modern systems of ethics and governance are, at best, no more successful than historical ones, and quite possibly inferior, in their outcomes for people.
For example, while it is arguable whether the abolition of capital punishment is an effective deterrent to serious crimes there certainly is not any evidence that abolishing it has created any safer societies.
There is no doubt however that abolishing capital punishment comes at a significant cost to a society, and that only quite a strong/robust society may be able to afford this alternative.
In effect, modern ethical and governance systems are not superior to those of the past. All that has happened is that societies have developed the resources and robustness to accomodate practices which are really not productive.
We can afford to tolerate more divergent opinions and practices, but that makes neither our societies, nor those practices, necessarily superior to those which worked for simpler and more vulnerable societies.
It contains much distilled wisdom about humanity.
To answer your specific point above "those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it""
In fact oral histories or simple stories allegories metaphors and parables have always been one of the most basic and successful teaching tools of humanity. And so an education without homers stories would be one lacking some significant part of the human experience.
One problem of modern wisdom is that new technologies and wider education means that some people believe that modern humans are both smarter and more capable of developing superior ethical systems, than people from older societies.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, in the physiology of human beings. Ie our brains arent superior. And human nature as a product of evolution is unlikely to change any more rapidly than the more physical elements of humanity. Thus what was wise 2000 years ago is most likely to be wise today, allowing for changes in technology and the potential impact of these on humans and our environment.
For example we once sent our young men off to war. Now we send our young men and women. Just how is this a superior ethical model?
We once disciplined our children and taught them practices which allowed them to live safely in society. Now our children attempt to control us, and live lives just as dangerous as those we sent down coal mines 200 years ago, through their driving, drinking and drug habits and sexual mores, but this is justified through freedom of choice and individual rights.
Why is this way of bringing up children seen to be superior to the model of 200 years ago?
Young people have not changed. They still demand the ability to develop from dependent children to independent adults, and this involves deliberate risk taking to establish identity and assert individual authority. If we are using such superior models, why do our young people continue to have such difficulty making this transition with their physical and mental health intact?
If we judge purely with the evidence of our eyes, then our modern systems of ethics and governance are, at best, no more successful than historical ones, and quite possibly inferior, in their outcomes for people.
For example, while it is arguable whether the abolition of capital punishment is an effective deterrent to serious crimes there certainly is not any evidence that abolishing it has created any safer societies.
There is no doubt however that abolishing capital punishment comes at a significant cost to a society, and that only quite a strong/robust society may be able to afford this alternative.
In effect, modern ethical and governance systems are not superior to those of the past. All that has happened is that societies have developed the resources and robustness to accomodate practices which are really not productive.
We can afford to tolerate more divergent opinions and practices, but that makes neither our societies, nor those practices, necessarily superior to those which worked for simpler and more vulnerable societies.
Mw we learn from our experiince and adapt to our circumstances, i do not find any construct superior, i am fully aware that we have much to learn and that we are probalby at a 1st grade understanding of life and how it works....
Reliigon will adapt this idea that one already knows all there is to know about god/life and its contained in a book may of worked for the time this was concieved but it doesn't serve us now.....
good greif more and more humans don't want to be a label in and of itself its limiting... things change and as they do one adapts.....fear seems to hold on for fear of uncertainty. IMO ....
my kids and their generation will redefine life's systems and change things also this is the way of the human and life.... I look forward to it... eventually IMO....
Not to say stories don't speak of mindsets and fears and ideas we valued/value ....nor will they stop or should they but religion is redefining itself as is pareting we know more now and when we know more we try to do better...this my freind is wisdom... its not anymore profound than that,,,IMO....
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 9 2008, 06:26 PM)
Mw we learn from our experiince and adapt to our circumstances, i do not find any construct superior, i am fully aware that we have much to learn and that we are probalby at a 1st grade understanding of life and how it works....
This can be seen as a construct in itself.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 9 2008, 06:26 PM)
Reliigon will adapt this idea that one already knows all there is to know about god/life and its contained in a book may of worked for the time this was concieved but it doesn't serve us now.....
good greif more and more humans don't want to be a label in and of itself its limiting... things change and as they do one adapts.....fear seems to hold on for fear of uncertainty. IMO ....
my kids and their generation will redefine life's systems and change things also this is the way of the human and life.... I look forward to it... eventually IMO....
Not to say stories don't speak of mindsets and fears and ideas we valued/value ....nor will they stop or should they but religion is redefining itself as is pareting we know more now and when we know more we try to do better...this my freind is wisdom... its not anymore profound than that,,,IMO....
good greif more and more humans don't want to be a label in and of itself its limiting... things change and as they do one adapts.....fear seems to hold on for fear of uncertainty. IMO ....
my kids and their generation will redefine life's systems and change things also this is the way of the human and life.... I look forward to it... eventually IMO....
Not to say stories don't speak of mindsets and fears and ideas we valued/value ....nor will they stop or should they but religion is redefining itself as is pareting we know more now and when we know more we try to do better...this my freind is wisdom... its not anymore profound than that,,,IMO....
Every generation assumes they know more and every generation assumes either they or their children will change the world for it. Religion if anything will bond closer through ecumenism. The Book serves many now and does quite well...speak for yourself. Labels can be limiting but there is two sides: one is what you label yourself and the other is what you label others...I would rather label myself something accurately than label another incorrectly. The only fear is really one's own fear and worrying about other people's fear is the most trivial fear of all and quite unnecessary. You can accept as fact that many religious have no fear and find liberation in their beliefs.
The part in bold is very revealing...you are claiming your own words are wisdom? That is usually something someone else should only do.
There also should be a noted difference between offensive dogma and defensive dogma. We do not attempt to push our views on society at large but we will not accept others telling us we should believe differently than we want to. In other words, and I rarely use larger font, but when it comes to dogma:
We are not SELLING it and we are not BUYING it!!!
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 9 2008, 07:34 PM)
When I mentioned that perhaps there had been errors in translation or maybe some of the stories were simply allegory I received the following quick (and somewhat angry) reply, "The bible is the word of God and a true believer would never question the word of God."
Given that there are over 3,000 differences between just the 4 gospels within the two oldest surviving full bibles - I think you have a pretty good case.
Thanks for the link Tiggs. That was the point I was trying to make to my friend. Just the omission (or conversely, addition) of a word or two can radically change the interpretation of any passage.
Why then must so much of the bible be taken so literally (excluding the poetry and what not)?
I'm not trying to bash the Christian religion. But since it's based on such a varied amount of interpretations of the bible how can anyone feel so secure about their beliefs?
As an analogy, isn't that the same as simply gambling at the race track and hoping you picked the right horse (the difference being that, instead of betting all of your money, you dedicated part of your entire life for a chance at going to heaven - or being closer to God as some have said)?
My friend jokingly refers to me as being a Satan worshiper, simply because I don't believe in (any) God. Joking or not, it saddens me to be considered in negative context because of their religious beliefs.
Why then must so much of the bible be taken so literally (excluding the poetry and what not)?
I'm not trying to bash the Christian religion. But since it's based on such a varied amount of interpretations of the bible how can anyone feel so secure about their beliefs?
As an analogy, isn't that the same as simply gambling at the race track and hoping you picked the right horse (the difference being that, instead of betting all of your money, you dedicated part of your entire life for a chance at going to heaven - or being closer to God as some have said)?
My friend jokingly refers to me as being a Satan worshiper, simply because I don't believe in (any) God. Joking or not, it saddens me to be considered in negative context because of their religious beliefs.
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Jun 10 2008, 11:15 AM)
Thanks for the link Tiggs. That was the point I was trying to make to my friend. Just the omission (or conversely, addition) of a word or two can radically change the interpretation of any passage.
Why then must so much of the bible be taken so literally (excluding the poetry and what not)?
I'm not trying to bash the Christian religion. But since it's based on such a varied amount of interpretations of the bible how can anyone feel so secure about their beliefs?
As an analogy, isn't that the same as simply gambling at the race track and hoping you picked the right horse (the difference being that, instead of betting all of your money, you dedicated part of your entire life for a chance at going to heaven - or being closer to God as some have said)?
My friend jokingly refers to me as being a Satan worshiper, simply because I don't believe in (any) God. Joking or not, it saddens me to be considered in negative context because of their religious beliefs.
Hi Source,Why then must so much of the bible be taken so literally (excluding the poetry and what not)?
I'm not trying to bash the Christian religion. But since it's based on such a varied amount of interpretations of the bible how can anyone feel so secure about their beliefs?
As an analogy, isn't that the same as simply gambling at the race track and hoping you picked the right horse (the difference being that, instead of betting all of your money, you dedicated part of your entire life for a chance at going to heaven - or being closer to God as some have said)?
My friend jokingly refers to me as being a Satan worshiper, simply because I don't believe in (any) God. Joking or not, it saddens me to be considered in negative context because of their religious beliefs.
I see what you're saying, but there are a few points I wanted to add. First, though Tiggs is correct that there may be 3,000 differences between the two oldest complete copies of the Bible, but that is not to say they are the only texts we use. There are literally thousands more individual books (and small groupings of books), and partial copies of books. Using all these thousands of fragments, it is easy to piece together the original. This of course doesn't include the many writings of the early Church fathers who quoted said passages in their writings (someone once said you could piece the whole New Testament together just using the writings of the early fathers, though I don't know more detail than that).
So just looking at the 2 complete copies is a very narrow way of testing the differences. Thus the omission/addition of words which change meanings only end up being a quite-small percentage of the overall Bible. And most of those changes are usually minor grammatical differences. If you compare all the known documents, you will find that the difference in the end is very minor, and where those differences are they do not in any way affect doctrine.
As for feeling secure, I am perfectly secure in knowing God. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, it is true, but many of those ways are based on incorrect contextual understanding of the text. Most of the time, when you look at the context of a passage, the passage interprets itself. In the few instances where there are "grey areas", I have found that it is also in areas that make no difference to my life as a Christian - in other words, I have found that the core concepts of the Bible are easily understood and accepted by most Christians, and so despite the differences, the overarching similarities in the major issues are what counts. In short - these similarities, coupled with the support of ancient documentation that I discussed above (more than just the two oldest complete copies), I am quite secure in my belief.
Finally, to your point on the Bible (excluding poetry) being taken literally, I wouldn't say that either. Some parts of the Bible are written as an historical narrative. other parts are Teachings from prophets or apostles. How we approach an historical event documented in the Bible is different to how we would approach one of Paul's letters calling people to perservere. It all depends on the context, and it's NEVER as easy as saying "Oh, the passage says x so therefore we must do x". That's the lazy person's approach (alas, there are many people - both Christian and non-Chrsitian - who take this approach to the Bible).
I hope this has given you a few things to think about. All the best,
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 10 2008, 06:55 AM)
The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, it is true, but many of those ways are based on incorrect contextual understanding of the text. Most of the time, when you look at the context of a passage, the passage interprets itself.
Would it not be fair to say, PA, that Christian belief hinges on the bible (just as Judaic belief hinges on the Tanakh, the Muslim on the Qu'ran etc)?
If the bible did not exist there would be no Christianity, no belief in God (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it would be a different God)?
However, looking at your statement above, those believers who constantly use "context" as a way of making the bible validate their belief (in how it is interpreted) have made this context already the 'fact the bible is true' (not necessairly inerrant, but true in the sense it is inspired by the divine) - according to their belief. It is circular logic.
The interpretation of any particular passage of the bible would be best examined in context of non-belief, with the view to examining whether the bible does satsify its' claim of divine provenance. Only then (if the claim is satisfied) would the context of any passage be allowed to be interpreted in the context of divine wisdom - rather than uncertain, possibly ill-informed (from the persective of not understanding natural phenomena) and very subjective human theosophy.
That is the difference between theology, a study of religion from within a tradition to gain understanding, and religious studies, a secular study of religion from outside any tradition to gain understanding. Clearly the understanding gained from each approach is different and it is best not to confuse one for the other or prescribe your own value judgments as something everyone should accept.
So while a critical approach and deductive reasoning might be the preferred method some approach the Bible with; it does not mean believers have to use the same approach. To claim that it has to be so is applying reason to faith and they are separate entities. Any such charges that faith needs to stand up to reason also makes the mistake of applying reason to faith. It is the same as claiming Mars needs to have the same atmosphere as Earth in a sense or that Russia must have the same social systems and political structure as America. Ill suited examples but the meaning is clear. And the other commonly held charge that faith involved a suspense of reason also does not hold true for faith is outside of reason.
It is understandable though you are using the conflict model as described below when comparing faith and reason and not everyone accepts or needs to view faith and religion in terms of the conflict model.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/faith-re.htm
So while a critical approach and deductive reasoning might be the preferred method some approach the Bible with; it does not mean believers have to use the same approach. To claim that it has to be so is applying reason to faith and they are separate entities. Any such charges that faith needs to stand up to reason also makes the mistake of applying reason to faith. It is the same as claiming Mars needs to have the same atmosphere as Earth in a sense or that Russia must have the same social systems and political structure as America. Ill suited examples but the meaning is clear. And the other commonly held charge that faith involved a suspense of reason also does not hold true for faith is outside of reason.
It is understandable though you are using the conflict model as described below when comparing faith and reason and not everyone accepts or needs to view faith and religion in terms of the conflict model.
QUOTE
Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Religious faith involves a belief that makes some kind of either an implicit or explicit reference to a transcendent source. The basis for a person's faith usually is understood to come from the authority of revelation. Revelation is either direct, through some kind of direct infusion, or indirect, usually from the testimony of an other. The religious beliefs that are the objects of faith can thus be divided into those what are in fact strictly demonstrable (scienta) and those that inform a believer's virtuous practices (sapientia).
Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone. The former includes evidence garnered from the testimony and works of other believers. It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simply on the basis either of faith alone or of reason alone. Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny His existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion.
The basic impetus for the problem of faith and reason comes from the fact that the revelation or set of revelations on which most religions are based is usually described and interpreted in sacred pronouncements, either in an oral tradition or canonical writings, backed by some kind of divine authority. These writings or oral traditions are usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. As such, they are in some measure immune from rational critique and evaluation. In fact even the attempt to verify religious beliefs rationally can be seen as a kind of category mistake. Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs.
The key philosophical issue regarding the problem of faith and reason is to work out how the authority of faith and the authority of reason interrelate in the process by which a religious belief is justified or established as true or justified. Four basic models of interaction are possible.
(a) The conflict model. Here the aims, objects, or methods of reason and faith seem to be very much the same. Thus when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry. This model is thus assumed both by religious fundamentalists, who resolve the rivalry on the side of faith, and scientific naturalists, who resolve it on the side of reason.
(b) The incompatibilist model. Here the aims, objects, and methods of reason and faith are understood to be distinct. Compartmentalization of each is possible. Reason aims at empirical truth; religion aims at divine truths. Thus no rivalry exists between them. This model subdivides further into three subdivisions. First, one can hold faith is transrational, inasmuch as it is higher than reason. This latter strategy has been employed by some Christian existentialists. Reason can only reconstruct what is already implicit in faith or religious practice. Second, one can hold that religious belief is irrational, thus not subject to rational evaluation at all. This is the position taken ordinarily by those who adopt negative theology, the method that assumes that all speculation about God can only arrive at what God is not. The latter subdivision also includes those theories of belief that claim that religious language is only metaphorical in nature. This and other forms of irrationalism result in what is ordinarily considered fideism: the conviction that faith ought not to be subjected to any rational elucidation or justification.
© The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though both maintain distinct realms of evaluation and cogency. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve miracles; that of reason to involve the scientific method of hypothesis testing. Much of the Reformed model of Christianity adopts this basic model.
(d) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have an organic connection, and perhaps even parity. A typical form of strong compatibilism is termed natural theology. Articles of faith can be demonstrated by reason, either deductively (from widely shared theological premises) or inductively (from common experiences). It can take one of two forms: either it begins with justified scientific claims and supplements them with valid theological claims unavailable to science, or it starts with typical claims within a theological tradition and refines them by using scientific thinking. An example of the former would be the cosmological proof for God's existence; an example of the latter would be the argument that science would not be possible unless God's goodness ensured that the world is intelligible. Many, but certainly not all, Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians hold to the possibility of natural theology. Some natural theologians have attempted to unite faith and reason into a comprehensive metaphysical system. The strong compatibilist model, however, must explain why God chose to reveal Himself at all since we have such access to him through reason alone.
The interplay between reason and faith is an important topic in the philosophy of religion. It is closely related to, but distinct from, several other issues in the philosophy of religion: viz., the existence of God, divine attributes, the problem of evil, divine action in the world, religion and ethics, religious experience and religious language, and the problem of religious pluralism. Moreover, an analysis of the interplay between faith and reason also provides resources for philosophical arguments in other areas such as metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology.
While the issues the interplay between faith and reason addresses are endemic to almost any religious faith, this article will focus primarily on the faith claims found in the three great monotheistic world religions: Judaism, Islam, and particularly Christianity.
This rest of the article will trace out the history of the development of thinking about the relationship between faith and reason in Western philosophy from the classical period of the Greeks through the end of the twentieth century.
Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone. The former includes evidence garnered from the testimony and works of other believers. It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simply on the basis either of faith alone or of reason alone. Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny His existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion.
The basic impetus for the problem of faith and reason comes from the fact that the revelation or set of revelations on which most religions are based is usually described and interpreted in sacred pronouncements, either in an oral tradition or canonical writings, backed by some kind of divine authority. These writings or oral traditions are usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. As such, they are in some measure immune from rational critique and evaluation. In fact even the attempt to verify religious beliefs rationally can be seen as a kind of category mistake. Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs.
The key philosophical issue regarding the problem of faith and reason is to work out how the authority of faith and the authority of reason interrelate in the process by which a religious belief is justified or established as true or justified. Four basic models of interaction are possible.
(a) The conflict model. Here the aims, objects, or methods of reason and faith seem to be very much the same. Thus when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry. This model is thus assumed both by religious fundamentalists, who resolve the rivalry on the side of faith, and scientific naturalists, who resolve it on the side of reason.
(b) The incompatibilist model. Here the aims, objects, and methods of reason and faith are understood to be distinct. Compartmentalization of each is possible. Reason aims at empirical truth; religion aims at divine truths. Thus no rivalry exists between them. This model subdivides further into three subdivisions. First, one can hold faith is transrational, inasmuch as it is higher than reason. This latter strategy has been employed by some Christian existentialists. Reason can only reconstruct what is already implicit in faith or religious practice. Second, one can hold that religious belief is irrational, thus not subject to rational evaluation at all. This is the position taken ordinarily by those who adopt negative theology, the method that assumes that all speculation about God can only arrive at what God is not. The latter subdivision also includes those theories of belief that claim that religious language is only metaphorical in nature. This and other forms of irrationalism result in what is ordinarily considered fideism: the conviction that faith ought not to be subjected to any rational elucidation or justification.
© The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though both maintain distinct realms of evaluation and cogency. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve miracles; that of reason to involve the scientific method of hypothesis testing. Much of the Reformed model of Christianity adopts this basic model.
(d) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have an organic connection, and perhaps even parity. A typical form of strong compatibilism is termed natural theology. Articles of faith can be demonstrated by reason, either deductively (from widely shared theological premises) or inductively (from common experiences). It can take one of two forms: either it begins with justified scientific claims and supplements them with valid theological claims unavailable to science, or it starts with typical claims within a theological tradition and refines them by using scientific thinking. An example of the former would be the cosmological proof for God's existence; an example of the latter would be the argument that science would not be possible unless God's goodness ensured that the world is intelligible. Many, but certainly not all, Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians hold to the possibility of natural theology. Some natural theologians have attempted to unite faith and reason into a comprehensive metaphysical system. The strong compatibilist model, however, must explain why God chose to reveal Himself at all since we have such access to him through reason alone.
The interplay between reason and faith is an important topic in the philosophy of religion. It is closely related to, but distinct from, several other issues in the philosophy of religion: viz., the existence of God, divine attributes, the problem of evil, divine action in the world, religion and ethics, religious experience and religious language, and the problem of religious pluralism. Moreover, an analysis of the interplay between faith and reason also provides resources for philosophical arguments in other areas such as metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology.
While the issues the interplay between faith and reason addresses are endemic to almost any religious faith, this article will focus primarily on the faith claims found in the three great monotheistic world religions: Judaism, Islam, and particularly Christianity.
This rest of the article will trace out the history of the development of thinking about the relationship between faith and reason in Western philosophy from the classical period of the Greeks through the end of the twentieth century.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/faith-re.htm
QUOTE (Leonardo @ Jun 10 2008, 04:17 PM)
Would it not be fair to say, PA, that Christian belief hinges on the bible (just as Judaic belief hinges on the Tanakh, the Muslim on the Qu'ran etc)?
If the bible did not exist there would be no Christianity, no belief in God (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it would be a different God)?
However, looking at your statement above, those believers who constantly use "context" as a way of making the bible validate their belief (in how it is interpreted) have made this context already the 'fact the bible is true' (not necessairly inerrant, but true in the sense it is inspired by the divine) - according to their belief. It is circular logic.
The interpretation of any particular passage of the bible would be best examined in context of non-belief, with the view to examining whether the bible does satsify its' claim of divine provenance. Only then (if the claim is satisfied) would the context of any passage be allowed to be interpreted in the context of divine wisdom - rather than uncertain, possibly ill-informed (from the persective of not understanding natural phenomena) and very subjective human theosophy.
When I speak of context, I refer to the text itself, not a person's state of belief or unbelief. Whether the Bible is true or not should not change the context of the verse! Though whether the person believes or not would have an effect on the way a person interprets the key characters or events, but the context itself should remain apparent. For example, a personal and private letter written to an individaul (eg, 1 and 2 Timothy) and a public letter written to a whole gathering of believers (eg, Ephesians) would have different ways of reading it, just as you would differentiate a personal letter to a friend and a "Letter to the Editor" in a newspaper.
If the bible did not exist there would be no Christianity, no belief in God (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it would be a different God)?
However, looking at your statement above, those believers who constantly use "context" as a way of making the bible validate their belief (in how it is interpreted) have made this context already the 'fact the bible is true' (not necessairly inerrant, but true in the sense it is inspired by the divine) - according to their belief. It is circular logic.
The interpretation of any particular passage of the bible would be best examined in context of non-belief, with the view to examining whether the bible does satsify its' claim of divine provenance. Only then (if the claim is satisfied) would the context of any passage be allowed to be interpreted in the context of divine wisdom - rather than uncertain, possibly ill-informed (from the persective of not understanding natural phenomena) and very subjective human theosophy.
Excellent points in your last two posts PA regarding the differences in the texts in regards to textual criticism, the context of the text regarding how to plain read the Bible, and also how some are perfectly secure in knowing God and understanding that much of confusion demonstrated by many skeptics, not all, is when they make simple mistakes of the context, the kind that can easily be differentiated by a plain reading.
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 10 2008, 06:55 AM)
Hi Source,
I see what you're saying, but there are a few points I wanted to add. First, though Tiggs is correct that there may be 3,000 differences between the two oldest complete copies of the Bible, but that is not to say they are the only texts we use. There are literally thousands more individual books (and small groupings of books), and partial copies of books. Using all these thousands of fragments, it is easy to piece together the original. This of course doesn't include the many writings of the early Church fathers who quoted said passages in their writings (someone once said you could piece the whole New Testament together just using the writings of the early fathers, though I don't know more detail than that).
So just looking at the 2 complete copies is a very narrow way of testing the differences. Thus the omission/addition of words which change meanings only end up being a quite-small percentage of the overall Bible. And most of those changes are usually minor grammatical differences. If you compare all the known documents, you will find that the difference in the end is very minor, and where those differences are they do not in any way affect doctrine.
I see what you're saying, but there are a few points I wanted to add. First, though Tiggs is correct that there may be 3,000 differences between the two oldest complete copies of the Bible, but that is not to say they are the only texts we use. There are literally thousands more individual books (and small groupings of books), and partial copies of books. Using all these thousands of fragments, it is easy to piece together the original. This of course doesn't include the many writings of the early Church fathers who quoted said passages in their writings (someone once said you could piece the whole New Testament together just using the writings of the early fathers, though I don't know more detail than that).
So just looking at the 2 complete copies is a very narrow way of testing the differences. Thus the omission/addition of words which change meanings only end up being a quite-small percentage of the overall Bible. And most of those changes are usually minor grammatical differences. If you compare all the known documents, you will find that the difference in the end is very minor, and where those differences are they do not in any way affect doctrine.
Au contraire.
Wikipedia has a list of early surviving Papyri and uncials. There are hardly thousands. I count (conservatively) 77 prior to Sinaiticus.
It's impossible to piece together even the Gospel from these fragments. Mark, for example, has only one Fragment (p45), consisting of Mark 4-9 and 11-12.
I've also heard the claim that it's possible to piece the whole New Testament together, using just the writings of the Early Fathers. Having read a lot of their writings - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I remain extremely skeptical to that claim.
^Well Tiggs, I'm going to have to look into this just a little bit, because by all previous accounts I have read, there are over 4,000 (includes, all books/collection of books/fragments ever found). Perhaps wiki has left some of them out (maybe it didn't include the thousands of fragments, which would literally be only a couple of verses scribbled on parchment???). I'll have to look into it a little further. However, even if it is only 77, if you compare it to other authors such as Aristophanes, who's earliest known copies date 1200 years after he lived, and are only ten copies in total. Or Pliny the Younger, who's earliest writings are found 750 years after, and we have only 7 surviving copies, then if we go by the logic that the Bible is untrustworthy under these grounds, then what does that say about Pliny and Aristophanes (as just two examples)? Should they be discounted as unreliable also?
I'm sure there are over 4,000, PA. Just not New Testament prior to 350 AD. Most of them cropped up post 8th century.
Anything which is hand copied is subject to error. I think you'll find that Historians equally apply textual criticism to all all early texts.
Anything which is hand copied is subject to error. I think you'll find that Historians equally apply textual criticism to all all early texts.
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 10 2008, 01:25 PM)
^Well Tiggs, I'm going to have to look into this just a little bit, because by all previous accounts I have read, there are over 4,000 (includes, all books/collection of books/fragments ever found). Perhaps wiki has left some of them out (maybe it didn't include the thousands of fragments, which would literally be only a couple of verses scribbled on parchment???). I'll have to look into it a little further. However, even if it is only 77, if you compare it to other authors such as Aristophanes, who's earliest known copies date 1200 years after he lived, and are only ten copies in total. Or Pliny the Younger, who's earliest writings are found 750 years after, and we have only 7 surviving copies, then if we go by the logic that the Bible is untrustworthy under these grounds, then what does that say about Pliny and Aristophanes (as just two examples)? Should they be discounted as unreliable also?
No because they are not putting forward extraordinary claims like the bible does .
fullywired
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 10 2008, 10:34 PM)
I'm sure there are over 4,000, PA. Just not New Testament prior to 350 AD. Most of them cropped up post 8th century.
Anything which is hand copied is subject to error. I think you'll find that Historians equally apply textual criticism to all all early texts.
Possible, though the impression I have always had was of them being older fragments. As I said, I'll look into it a little further. Might take a day or so, I've got a busy couple of days coming up. Anything which is hand copied is subject to error. I think you'll find that Historians equally apply textual criticism to all all early texts.
All the best,
QUOTE (fullywired @ Jun 10 2008, 10:37 PM)
No because they are not putting forward extraordinary claims like the bible does .
fullywired
It does not matter. By claiming it doesn't matter with other texts, you are admitting that you are holding the Bible up to an unrealistic expectation but not any other text. You don't doubt the reliability of Aristophanes. You don't doubt the reliability of Aristotle (49 copies, the earliest 1200 years after Aristotle lived), yet you doubt the Bible (77 copies, less than 300 years - based on Tiggs' research, that is). Considering the complete saturation of ancient texts, it is very dishonest to dismiss the Bible on these grounds but not other texts. fullywired
Of course, that does not stop you from dismissing the Bible on other grounds (for example, you may feel that what is written is unbelievable, and therefore false). I would understand that view. But I don't understand how you could/would dismiss the Bible on the grounds of lack of textual evidence, when historically speaking it is the most well-preserved ancient text in existence - the Illiad is a close second. Nothing comes close after that.
Know what I'm trying to say.
Not copies, PA. Fragments. Some only a few lines long.
QUOTE
This got me to thinking. By reading past comments here I was already aware that not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. But what if everything in the bible is all simply a metaphor? I'm not speaking of certain historical events mentioned, but of the concept of God as expressed in the bible.
If God, as mentioned in the bible (especially in the OT) was meant to be a metaphor for the strengths and failings of humanity rather than an all powerful and omniscient being, then would that really be such a bad thing? Wouldn't that make the bible more of a personal guide to living rather than a guide to pleasing the almighty?
If God, as mentioned in the bible (especially in the OT) was meant to be a metaphor for the strengths and failings of humanity rather than an all powerful and omniscient being, then would that really be such a bad thing? Wouldn't that make the bible more of a personal guide to living rather than a guide to pleasing the almighty?
My personal opinion, based on my own experiences, is that it is both . The bible outlines a way of life, and god may be a metaphor for that way of life, but god too, exists as a real physical entity. The people who were physically responsible for writing the bible had real physical contact, in a variety of forms, but like most of us, came away with a very incomplete image of the full form and function of god.
These people tried to describe their experiences, and what they learned from them, as physicallly accurately as they could, yet because of human limitations, particularly in the science and physics of the day, ended up speaking in what seem like metaphors to us.
. I look at god, and can describe him a liitle more"accurately," only because i have better scientific tools and terminologies to use, such as change in energy forms, and the ability to transform from matter to energy.