Tina Beattie on The New Atheists, Part 2: Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies (interview by Becky Garrison)
Following is a continuation of Becky Garrison's e-mail exchange with Tina Beattie, author of The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion
Elaborate on what you meant by this statement: "To understand the impact of [Darwin's] The Origin of Species and the ongoing struggle between evolutionary science and religion, we need to situate Darwin in a wider context with regard to the changing relationship between theology and science in Victorian England."
My argument is that the 19th-century conflict between science and theology in England in particular, which is being played out again today by the so-called "new" atheists, has to be understood as much in terms of power as in terms of truth, bearing in mind that, since the Enlightenment, the relationship between knowledge and power have gone hand in hand -- to quote Francis Bacon, "Knowledge is power." Until the mid-19th century, the institutions and values of English public life were to a very considerable extent dominated by the Anglican church, and theologians and clergy were custodians not only of knowledge but of considerable power and influence. When scientists sought autonomy from theology, they had to struggle against the vested interests of a church that wielded considerable power, and not surprisingly the struggle was sometimes expressed in militant and hostile terms. However, just as today militant atheism masks a much more fertile and mutually informative debate between science and religion and often involves scientists who are themselves religious believers, so in the 19th century, the vast majority of those caught up in the debate did not see it in terms of an irreconcilable conflict between science and religion, but as a struggle for meaning that was capable of encompassing both the truths of the Christian religion and the new discoveries of science, even if the latter demanded considerable rethinking of the former. I think that's still very much the tone of the debate today, even if we often don't hear the quiet voices of reason amidst the din of militancy on both sides.
It's also worth pointing out that this is a debate that plays out very differently in Britain and America. A 2006 survey suggested that atheists are more feared and despised in America than Muslims, gays, or lesbians. In Britain, there is no stigma attached to being an atheist, and British thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens are somewhat dishonest when they present atheists as universally reviled. In fact, until the recent resurgence of religion in British politics during Tony Blair's government, British politicians were very wary about declaring any religious convictions. Certainly, atheism remains every bit as respectable as liberal Christianity in mainstream British society, and a good deal more acceptable than Catholicism, Islam, or any overt display of religious enthusiasm.
How has science been co-opted by intelligent design theorists and militant atheists?
Intelligent design theorists such as Michael Behe and William Dembski seek to challenge the teaching of evolution by natural selection in American schools, by offering a different theory of the origins and evolution of life based on the idea of an intelligent designer. Their argument is that some living organisms (e.g. the bacterial flagellum) are so complex and so finely tuned that their existence cannot be explained by evolution alone. Because this is a theory that ostensibly does not rely on any particular religious understanding of God, intelligent design theorists argue that it should be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to Darwin's theory. Intelligent design theory is not the same as creationism, which challenges Darwin's theory by appealing to a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis. Atheists such as Dawkins argue that the theory of natural selection eliminates any need for an intelligent designer, because it suggests that, given enough time and enough cumulative evolutionary modifications, even the most complex life forms can be explained without recourse to the idea of God. However, intelligent design theorists are not the only ones to point to considerable inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Darwinian hypothesis, so that even if the theory of evolution is broadly correct, there is still much work to be done on accounting for the emergence of complex life forms and, most importantly, the evolution of human consciousness as a capacity to reflect on the laws and phenomena of the material world. Of course, if we bring physics as well as biology into the picture, then the vision of the universe that modern science lays before us is far more mysterious and elusive than we once thought. Some would argue that the boundary between philosophy and/or theology and science dissolves in the face of quantum physics.
Why do you think we might be at "the dawning of a near era of plurality, diversity and freedom, but it may also be the beginning of a long night of violence and conflict?"
We live on the brink of environmental disaster and in an era of proliferating threats of war. Our global economy is in crisis, largely thanks to the corruption, greed, and cynicism of those who have profited from the unfettered capitalism of the last 20 years. We know that many people in our world today are willing to resort to violence to achieve their political and ideological goals, whether that is the ruthless violence of the modern nation-state with its high-tech armies and increasingly repressive techniques of government and imprisonment, the anarchic violence of tyrants such as Robert Mugabe, or the chillingly unpredictable and suicidal violence of Islamist extremism. We also have opportunities as never before to communicate across divisions of race, culture, and religion, to use this as a time of opportunity for the transformation of our political and economic structures, and to insist that our politicians, religious leaders, and others in power channel the earth's limited but still abundant resources into the service of human life and dignity. Faith and reason are not enemies. They enable us to cultivate a vision of human dignity and purpose, and to create the social and economic structures that allow humans to flourish in many different cultural, religious, and geographical contexts. Only if we rescue democracy from its alarming decline, in which apathy and tyranny together are turning our modern societies into dystopian nightmares, might we find the collective resources to meet the challenges we face. Only hope can give us the energy we need to change, and whether we find that hope in secular or religious visions of the future, we all need to discover it before it's too late. I think our starting place must be our relationship to violence and our acceptance of war as "politics by other means," and this is a challenge to the modern nation-state as much as it is to the world's religious traditions.
Becky Garrison is the author of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
This is the second article title that has spelled atheist "athiest" while getting it right in the text. Is this conceptual or is it just a misspelling that was never corrected? It hurts my eyes.
Posted by: I and I | July 23, 2008 10:39 AM
"the dawning of a near era of plurality, diversity and freedom, may also be the beginning of a long night of violence and conflict"
We're already deep in the middle of this long night of violence and conflict. America's overwhelming support for the Bush/Cheney perpetual "war & torture machine" is the first example that comes to mind.
Jack Nicolson's Joker character in Tim Burton's "Batman" said: "you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet." This pretty much sums up the dominant U.S. evangelical-military ideology....it's certainly more popular than Jesus' gospel. It's pretty sad that the backwards logic of a cinema villain has become the new Golden Calf of U.S. fundamentalists.
The U.S. has gone from "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later" to "Shoot First and Don't You Dare Ask Questions." This is the prevailing gospel of contemporary American politics and religion. Welcome back Constantine.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 23, 2008 10:48 AM
Faith and reason are not enemies.
Faith means believing in impossible idiotic things that have no evidence. There's nothing reasonable about it. Faith is a mental illness.
considerable inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Darwinian hypothesis
Hypothesis? Biological evolution has so much powerful evidence, it can be called the strongest fact of science. There will always be more to learn about the history of life, but these are research opportunities, not "inconsistencies and improbabilities".
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 23, 2008 11:33 AM
Tina Beattie's use of the term "intelligent design theory" in the same paragraph with "Darwin's theory" is unfortunate, since it's roughly the same thing as equating the ability to click a remote control with the ability to build a television set from scratch.
Intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is an idea. It does not explain the mechanism by which the results it observes come into being: indeed, it cannot, since doing so would undermine the idea. Therefore, intelligent design cannot possibly advance to the status of a scientific theory, in which - by definition - explicable results are consistently obtained by an observable and comprehensible set of principles.
The most ID advocates will ever be able to do is to cast doubt on the ability of the theory of evolution (which, BTW, no biologist today would equate with "Darwin's theory;" Darwin didn't even understand simple genetics) as an adequate explanation for all forms of life. If it does so successfully, then it strongly suggests the intervention of a Designer. Thus, it would serve the same purpose as William Paley's watchmaker analogy, which argued for the existence of God based on the complexity of human life. (The watch was actually just a pretext for this: watch implies watchmaker, human beings imply God).
Paley's argument is still widely read by students, but in humanities courses, not science courses. That's because it is not a scientific theory, and cannot pretend to be one. It does no service either to evolution or to the advocates of ID to label both with the term "theory," as though that term had no precise, scientific meaning.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 23, 2008 1:13 PM
"We're already deep in the middle of this long night of violence and conflict. America's overwhelming support for the Bush/Cheney perpetual "war & torture machine" is the first example that comes to mind."
A few comments on this. 1) America does not overwhelmingly support anything Bush/Cheney do...this has been the case almost the entire 2nd term; 2) they certainly do not and would not support the "machine" you imagine.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Tina says the sky is falling ("We live on the brink of environmental disaster and in an era of proliferating threats of war. Our global economy is in crisis, largely thanks to the corruption, greed, and cynicism of those who have profited from the unfettered capitalism of the last 20 years...")
Wow. The world is a mess and it just happened in the last 20 years. Not so. The earth has always seen evil and violence, and war is as common to nations as flags. Read the Old Testamaent if you want to know what savagery went on thousands of years ago. As for more modern history, the Roman Empire, the importation of African slaves, Stalin, Hitler, both world wars, etc etc. What is different are the tools of war. But on the plus side, I would argue that nations today at least serve as a check and balance on one another which ultimately discourages war. Hitler didn't have to worry about the UN Security Council, sanctions, or NATO when he began invading countries.
And Tina goes on to say it is because of unfettered capitalism that we are on the precipice. I wish I could make such simple statements without convincing backup and have someone publish my book. Yes, capitalism is the enemy. It is the thing that provides people with jobs so they can buy and read books, and we have had the presence of this dreaded disease since the dawn of history. If Tina thinks capitalism is unfettered she should try to start a business. I have a real estate business and everything I do is monitored, regulated, inspected, documented, proscribed, and must await approval from agencies in municipal, county and state government. I don't exactly feel unfettered.
Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 23, 2008 2:55 PM
Intelligent design theorists such as Michael Behe and William Dembski seek to challenge the teaching of evolution by natural selection in American schools, by offering a different theory of the origins and evolution of life based on the idea of an intelligent designer.
Not correct, everyone's still waiting for the theory part of intelligent design to show up.
Posted by: aaron | July 23, 2008 3:32 PM
aaron:
Then 'everyone' will be waiting a very long time. As another nonymous said, intelligent design can never become a scientific theory. The work of an unidentifiable, supernatural intelligent designer cannot be proven or disproven with the scientific method, which is limited to natural causes and effects.
Becky Garrison wrote:
Intelligent design theory is not the same as creationism, which challenges Darwin's theory by appealing to a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis.
Sorry Becky, but this is incorrect. Although intelligent design doesn't rely on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, it is still a form of creationism. This fact was demonstrated at the Dover, PA, school board trial. Specifically, court testimony demonstrated that the book Of Pandas and People, which the school board selected as an ID "textbook," was nothing more than a revised edition of an earlier pro-creationism book. The only significant revision made to the ID edition was the substitution of the term "intelligent design" for "creationism" and/or "scientific creationism."
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 4:10 PM
Correction to my comments above:
The book Of Pandas and People was never published as a specifically creationist book. However, testimony in the Dover trial demonstrated that early, unpublished drafts of the book did speak of creationism, not intelligent design. The drafts were changed after a US Supreme Court decision (Edwards v. Arkansas, 1987) ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in science classes.
The changes in wording from "creationism" to "intelligent design" were made prior to final publication without any substantive changes in the content of the book.
D
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 4:55 PM
Such is the conundrum of evolutionary theory for Christians. It cannot explain the origin of the universe (e.g. what came before the big bang), because the origin of the universe is God. As such, it is by definition incorrect.
Yet, because it is the best explanation science can offer, its status as a valid theory remains. As such, we are essentially teaching a fiction, and Christians know as much.
This would be fine if the understanding of science were a mere academic pursuit. We could study various scientific theories the way we study history or anthropology.
The problem comes when we accord science the ability to divine truth. In my science classes, I was not only taught science, but also how to live. I was told to use a condom, to recycle, to tsk-tsk my parents for using an inefficient water heater. Why? Science says so.
American consciousness conflates science and truth, else the contentious battle over Intelligent Design would not exist.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 23, 2008 5:34 PM
"Faith and reason are not enemies"
Uh, yes they are.
Posted by: A non y mouse | July 23, 2008 6:17 PM
"American consciousness conflates science and truth, else the contentious battle over Intelligent Design would not exist."
I hear you, Kevin. I just don't think the way to address this is by adding a conflicting value system to the science curriculum. That's only going to compound the problem by further eroding people's understanding of science's very real limitations.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 23, 2008 8:11 PM
"Faith and reason are not enemies"
Uh, yes they are.
Uh, no they're not. Not unless you are prepared to deny that the ability to reason is a reflection of the divine image in which we are all made.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
The problem comes when we accord science the ability to divine truth. In my science classes, I was not only taught science, but also how to live. I was told to use a condom, to recycle, to tsk-tsk my parents for using an inefficient water heater. Why? Science says so.
bullsh...poop and you know it.
You weren't told to use a condom. You weren't told to recycle. You weren't told to tsk-tsk your parents because science sez so.
You were told if you were going to engage in risky sex, that you should use a condom to protect yourself. Do I detect a hint of free-will in there? You were presented with the facts of finite quantities of natural resources, if that doesn't tell you to recycle, then the Almighty Word of Science Sez So will never convince you. As for tsk-tsking your parents, do you feel bad that children go home knowing not to dump motor oil down the storm sewer when their parents don't?
Posted by: aaron | July 23, 2008 9:01 PM
American consciousness conflates science and truth...
But hasn't that notion been severely tested in recent years? After all, if American consciousness conflates science with truth, then how can we explain the widespread denial of scientific findings on earth's climate? This denial is mostly an American phenomenon. Apparently, many Americans have abandoned the notion that science equals truth.
...else the contentious battle over Intelligent Design would not exist.
This may be a chicken-or-egg question. IMO, the widespread lack of understanding and acceptance of evolution is one of the primary reasons many find it easy to deny scientific findings in other areas--such as climate.
Just my thoughts,
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 9:05 PM
Wow Bob,
I guess Hitler was right. If you repeat a lie enough, people will eventually believe it to be "the truth". Such is the hypothesis of evalution.
How easy to say "evidence" concerning biology and evolution.
If you drink from the same fountain, the water will always taste the same. If you look through the same lense, things will always look the same, (generalities I know but you get my drift).
Try looking at the "information" that the scientist who support inteligent design/creationism...what ever the view point, are offering. Not all mens views are bias for a hidden agenda. What we are looking for is open, free and honest inquiry concerning, again, "information" (I use parrenthesies because you may call it evidence, but I am calling it information. I only wish to make a distinction).
If you say evolution is a by-gone conclusion then you must understand, you say this "by faith".
Please remember. You were not there. You must look at the information and allow that to lead you to, not a conclusion, but to a system of belief.
Posted by: Todder | July 23, 2008 9:15 PM
Do the proponents of Intelligent Design not read their bibles? "No one knows the ways of God." Do they think they are Some One?
If you believe in an all powerful god, then, almost by definition, you have to believe that this god had a hand in the creation of the life and the universe. I do. I am not certain of all the details, but I do believe that evolution (survival of the ones that have the most offspring) is how God chooses to work. Do I see regular departures from the natural laws of physics? Not when I am on my meds. Do I see 'spontaneous generation' of life (use wikipedia)? Science and scientific experiments disproved that in 19th century.
Science never has the final answer. Science is always comparing observed phenomena with the strongest (meaning is consistent with observed phenomena) theory, and proposing or refining the theory when the theory cannot account for new data. Frankly, more honest than anyone I have ever met who said that evolution was false (or whatever).
Belief, faith, and religion, however, are searching for the ultimate answer to the ultimate questions. The ultimate question to me is not how I came to be here, but
what is my purpose now that I am here? Science, CANNOT, and would not attempt to, answer that question.
Sorry that your 'science' classes were so unscientific, Kevin S. Perhaps you should try a different school or teacher. You did not get a grounding in the scientific method. And your understanding of what science is incorrect.
Radical Moderate
Posted by: Radical Moderate | July 23, 2008 9:28 PM
Who is this Tina person, to so extravagantly not understand the basics of science? Why is she being interviewed by Sojourners as if she were an expert? Why isn't she challenged by the interviewer? Your readers could read this and assume what Tina says is actually true!
She calles Intelligent Design a theory. It is not. It is a hypothesis, which even the Discovery Institute admits has not had any studies done- something necessary to achieve the status of a theory.
She is incorrect in saying that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism. It is not that simple. At times it is, at times it isn't. They advocate evolution, and then at certain times, say it was too complex, and God literally created.
She calls evolution a hypothesis, in a rather clever way making Intelligent Design seem better, as evolution is only a hypothesis. It is actually one of the most supported theories in science, with a weight of evidence capable of burying many dinosaurs. But she uses the standard Intelligent Design approach of deriding and making fun of evolution and evolutionists, calling it "Darwinian". This has long been done by Literal Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates to suggest that we evolutionists are just following a religion with its own leader, namely Darwin. In truth, there were Darwinian evolutionists. That ended in about the 1920s, subsequently evolving into the Post-Darwinian Evolutionists, who encapsulate the understanding of genetics and DNA that Darwin never had, and in turn replaced by the evodevo hypothesis, taking into account evolutionary development, cladistics, and punctuated equilibrium. We've moved far beyond Darwinian Evolution- *twice*. Any one with an elementary understanding of this science would know this, and not refer to evolution unless she was purposely trying to insult.
Of course there is much more work to be done on origin of life (not a biology issue but chemistry, and not something covered by evolution), and the evolutionary development of morality, and thousands of other issues- which is what makes evolution and biology and science so exciting. It would be disappointing if we were close to understanding it all. But it is absolutely and completely inaccurate to say there are considerable inaccuracies and inconsistencies in evolution. Unless of course, you are an Intelligent Design advocate or Literal Creationist, trying to disprove evolution.
Why is Sojourners giving such unchallenged airtime to such an incredibly conservative viewpoint, one lacking strongly in orthodox theology or sound exegesis? Why are you lettering one of those you interview so blatantly insult others? I thought Sojourners had Rules of Conduct. Do they only apply to us commentators, or do they also apply to what you print? I am disapointed.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 23, 2008 10:21 PM
Bob, you say evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe.
Okay...
Who told you it was supposed to?
Yes, everyone who knows anything about evolution would agree with you. Incidently, economic theory also doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Architecture classes don't explain the origin of the universe. Pyschology doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Meteorology doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Were you planning to reject all of these because they also don't explain the origin of the universe?
What does explain the origin of the universe? Cosmology, a physics thing outside my field. And it has a long way to go to explain how it happened. But if you are going to attack a scientific hypothesis/theory for being insufficient for explaining the origin of the universe, that would be the science you were looking for. Evolution explains how populations change over time in response to natural selection and chance. It's part of biology. It explains changes in life.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 23, 2008 10:31 PM
Correction to above. Should be addressed to Kevin. My apologies, Bob.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 23, 2008 10:34 PM
Todder, please, let us leave off wild allusions to Hitler and the Nazis, as if we were part of the producers of "Expelled". This doesn't help open and polite dialouge.
You say "you were not there", and therefore I guess you were saying we should not be sure of what we are saying. I grant you that we can't be sure, because all of science says that- it's not a matter of faith, so we can be sure of nothing in science, in the same way that one is when they have faith. In science we always have skepticism of our deepest held beliefs, and are open to a better hypothesis and theory coming along to supplant what we currently believe- even a theory so well attested to as evolution.
However, your statement seems to imply you deny postdiction and retrodiction analysis. I am in my 30s, so I must point out I was not around for WWII. Per your statement, I can not be sure of it having occurred either. You may argue that others alive were here at the time, so it's easy enough to throw it back to the French Revolution. I don't think it happened. No one alive was there at the time. Sure, I know others argue that there's plenty of evidence for having occurred, but really, can we really believe it if we can't reach out and touch it?
And don't get me started on the William's invasion of Britain. As if my ancestors could ever be invaded by another people.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 23, 2008 10:43 PM
Jedidiah (love your name),
Not that I was purposely giving Hilter any credit for anything but just the same, anyone could have said it...its true...it works or more acurrately, it has worked and or does work at times. Esp when people in influential positions are saying it and nowone who is willing and able to is getting much if any "air time". (are you really going to waist our time by getting side tract with things that are not there like my making referrence to Hitler and something about the "expelled" movie making a totally different piont concerning Hilter ie. Evolution leads to violent, unjust, inhumane, evil actions. Like extermination a "bad" people group and raising up a "good" one. I happen to not like Mr. Stien's analogy in the movie, though I very much like the movie I only wish he would have not used that part. I think it somewhat takes away from the real point of bias and unjust hateful prejudice.
My point concerning the fact that you were not "there" is more clearly this: first, there are many types of evolution. Why can't this be on the surface and not tucked away. 2nd, those who support and preach about micro evolution are changing thier story alot, I mean it is changing faster than we can write new text books sometimes (evolutionists bibles). I am not trying to insult with a comment like this, I am making a point.
You guys are having a hard time admitting that what you have is a religion, a belief system. Its based on yourlatest idea concerning the latest information discovered and then you manipulate your "system" to fit it. This is your choice. I choose to base my system on the one whom is called Yahweh, the creator to me. I have no problem calling it a belief but I also believe the information we find in our world points to him as such.
If you can't see the difference between origins and recent history, as far as the importance of someone being there, than we need not go any further, Please man! the nonspecifics that are postulated and assumptioncaried along with them are getting so old.
You have simply based your belief system upon the infomation you have found or at least your interpretation of this information. I have said Ibelieve "this way" which at 1st is based upon eye witness testimony and historical documents, then as I gather more information (be it "science" orwhatever)I see that info pointing to and confirming my belief system.
Posted by: Todder | July 23, 2008 11:52 PM
Todder, I'm having difficulty following your grammar. If I understand you correctly, no, I don't think it's a waste of time to keep us on a polite footing, follow Sojourers guidelines, and avoid insults and allusions to the Nazis. While it is true that religion leads to violent, unjust, inhumane, and evil actions, I don't think the focus should be on what evil people do with religion, as much as the good that belief and faith has caused in us.
I'm not sure what you're talking about of "those who preach about microevolution". Scientists don't. It is the IDists and Literal Creationists who talk about microevolution; evolutionists don't differentiate on that level. You're right, there are different types of evolution, such as gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Rest assured, these are in no way tucked away. On the contrary, they are not only extensively discussed in the scientific literature, but it is something we absolutely love to discuss and investigate.
But you are right, a college textbook, and even more so a high-school textbook, in any scientific field, is going to be behind current research. Which is why it is good to be taught by someone doing active research, or in high-school, someone committed to keeping up on the latest research.
I have no problem admitting I have a religion and belief system. I believe in Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I do not believe in the idolatry of elevating the Bible to the status of godhood by insisting on a literal interpretation of it. Not to imply that you do either, but many Literal Creationists do.
You're right as well, in science one should always base your understanding on the latest information discovered and understood.
You probably don't see the difference between ancient history and near history because you do not have sufficient background in biology and sciences. Unfortunately, it would truthfully require the time of a college degree in that field to go through it all. Which is a major problem in explaining it, of course. But I must point out you've just mixed up two different issues. We were talking about the history of evolution, vs. something like William of Normandy. Then you just introduced the question of origins. That means going back some 3.5 billion years, and you're quite right, we have much more limited information on that, and therefore have difficulty in knowing what went on then. But again, that's not my field. My field is biology, which evolution applies to. Evolution doesn't apply to the question of origins. Evolution has a great deal of retrodictive evidence, as well, of course, as the extensive evidence for evolution occurring all around us in the present.
You are right again, I have based my belief system on information I have found or my interpretation of that information. Who do you know who does not do this?
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 24, 2008 12:45 AM
Jedidiah, I am sorry about the poor grammer and statement structure. I am trying to go to fast and I am not considering the fact that we are not communicating in person and I need to explain more thouroughly.
I believe you missed my hole point on Hitler. I originally was only quoting him. I was not attributing his sins on all evolutionists...a simple quote.
So,I feel the need to interject a new question for you.
I must admit I am very surprised that you can say you have a belief in Jesus when you at the same time say you do not apply a literal interpretation of the Bible. Since we get all our information about Jesus from the Bible (barring other historical accounts ie Josephus and others). How can you put REAL faith in someone when the information on Him is not taken literaly? (by your own admission).
Before I leave. I need to clearify my point on you having a belief system. What I was getting at is. Most evolutionist want to point at creationist and label them as those who are trying to get religion "into the classroom". My point is that evolutionists already have there religion in the classroom only they don't want to call it that because the one labeled as such is assumed to not have scientific data to back it up and this is simply not true. You can argue and scream all you want about infomation pointing to evolution. But until you put down your original assumptions on any scientific field. You will always see the data the same and that is not honest inquiry.
To many scientist who at one time believed and taught evolution have found information on there own that leads them away from the religion of evolution and they are being HONEST with there findings and are finding themselves kicked out of the church of evolution/academia and no longer have a position.
I must also say that your indoctrination into evolution must be complete because anytime origins is brought up, you go right to the billion year chapter. Without a glance or thought that maybe I cannot be so sure. Again this is one of the assumptions I was talking about.
Every calculation for dating anything must...must carry with it certain assumptions...Do you agree?
I hope I was a little clearer.
Thanks
Posted by: Todder | July 24, 2008 2:51 AM
Todder, actually, most committed Christians in the world are not literalists, and for most of Chrsitian history, this was not the standard exegetical approach to the Bible. It is a relatively recent development, starting in the late 1800s, and rather peculiar to America, as well of course as those areas missionized by certain groups in America. The Bible itself warns against taking the entire thing literaly. Which only makes sense considering the process of canonization, culminating in the 4th century. Christians are called to have the Holy Spirit as the center of their lives, a living relationship. For a book to be in that place, see Islam. Admittedly, many American Christians would be much happier with Islam if they would only investigate it more closely.
It is not that the information on Jesus isn't true, or isn't literal. Some of it is literal, and some is not. One needs to accept the genre of a particular part of the Bible, and not impose their own value system upon it, and thereby do injustice to the text and the authors. Additionally, something can easily be true, without being literal. That is what myth is- something often more true because it is not literal. The passages on Jesus of course aren't myth, as can be clearly seen in the way they were written- unlike the passages of early Genesis, as C.S. Lewis pointed out long ago. While certain events in Jesus' life from the Gospels aren't literally true (Judas died once, not twice), much is, and more importantly, the basic facts actually occurred. But we know of Jesus not primarily through the scriptures. We know of him through relationship- through relationship with him, and through relationship with others. This is the Principle of Apostolic Succession that Irenaeus argues for, allowing us to know Jesus through a history of those who heard from those who first knew him, therefore giving us authenticity to the books of the New Testament that we currently have, and therefore giving us a Bible to have that written record at all. That comes only through relationship. But make no mistake, we do not follow a Word made book, as the Muslims do, but rather a Word made flesh.
As to putting down the original assumptions- actually, I grew up a Literal Creationist. It was only after a long time that I began to see the vast wealth of data for evolution, ironically similar to the development of data for the authenticity of scriptures, that I began to change my mind. That, and also being willing to be open to develop and learn to respect scriptures, and not interpret them always literally.
Contrary to what Expelled tries to present, very few scientists (and none of those in the movie) have had their positions hurt by teaching evolution. Basically, Expelled lied, and this is well documented. However, a good number have lost positions because they did teach evolution- including myself. A very much larger number of scientists have learned to reject Christianity entirely, because they have come to believe what the Fundamentalists state- that to be Christian is to deny evolution. Of course, Augustine predicted this in Literal Interpretation of Genesis centuries ago, when he counseled Christians not to hurt the Gospel by insisting that they knew more about science than the scientists. Unfortunately, few Christians read Augustine these days, especially his more obscure writings, and thus they miss out on his warnings. Thus the insistence on evolution being wrong has lead many away from the Gospel, and hurt the Gospel enormously.
As to your reference to billions of years: this is a red herring. The point is more that you were switching the question to origins, rather than to the discussion of a parallel between history 500 years ago and the history of evolution. I will say it again, for the third time, evolution is not the science that studies origins. You need to have a conversation with a chemist if you are wanting to get into that.
But I think your suggestion is that you have an issue with the time frame of billions of years, and if so, I think rather surprisingly you are suggesting that you are a YECer. I suppose the indoctrination is complete, in the same way that my indoctrination is complete enough for me to accept a round Earth. Both are based on my studies of the evidence, in both biology and theology. (Well, round Earth is more just geology.) Yes, every belief anyone has is based on assumptions. The round Earth and evolution idea is based on the assumptions that there is a material world, we can trust our senses to a certain extent, and that it is possible to study the material world. I recognize that there are certain philosophies such as Idealism that reject these notions, and I further recognize that they hold some allure, even once for myself. I also recognize that that was my greatest slip into heresy, as far as Christianity is concerned.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 24, 2008 4:06 AM
I realize I should further explain the first paragraph above. We in the modern world have a videocam idea of reality. We think it is possible to capture what "actually happened". Even before videocameras this was developing. Perhaps it was in concord with the first movies; I don't know. But for the ancient person, this was not the kind of way that they thought. They didn't look for a truth that could be recorded word for word, moment by moment. I realize that is uncomfortable for the modern person, as our ancient texts that we revere are written by these ancient people, and we would really rather like them to be just like us. But they weren't. They looked for a truth that was revealed by God, through history and myth, but not through a videocam. Thus they not only did not have a literal interpretation, they had no expectation of it, and indeed probably wouldn't be able to even understand the concept.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 24, 2008 4:09 AM
Anonymous: ""Faith and reason are not enemies"
Uh, yes they are."
What about faith in human potential? Is that an enemy of reason?
This is where platitudes and soundbites get you.
Posted by: I and I | July 24, 2008 10:04 AM
Jedidiah, I am intrigued and impressed by your explanations. I have some questions that I would be interested in asking outside the public forum if that would be alright with you. My e-mail is Skeptic111305@gmail.com... if you could e-mail me, I would really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. Thanks!
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2008 11:09 AM
Jedidia,Well now that my explanations and acusations have fallen flat because I first need to apoligize for my own assumptions about you (a hard lesson for me).
From what you said, there are more than lies coming from Mr. Stien. Just off the hip of my Bible knowledge, what you are saying about scripture itself (being nonliteral in places and even suggesting that we not take it literally. I should be more specific. I belive that as well but as far as creation goes please shed some light. Where has the scripture suggested a non literal interpretation of this?) and the idea that most of history would suggest christians through the ages and even today believe the same....Jedidia, these are huge statements. I am never closed to finding the truth, but why would this information be so hidden.
I will not assume anything at this point.
I know at this point I am asking for far to much info than this platform would accomidate. I am setting up a separate e-mail account to confir further if possible.
Posted by: Todder | July 24, 2008 11:56 AM
"You weren't told to use a condom. You weren't told to recycle. You weren't told to tsk-tsk your parents because science sez so."
My grade in science depended on recycling and tsk-tsking, though not condom use, obviously.
My point is that even if I cede the argument that ID has no place in a science class, then the same should certainly be said for curricula that attempts to influence personal decisions.
"After all, if American consciousness conflates science with truth, then how can we explain the widespread denial of scientific findings on earth's climate? "
Politics. Conceding the science with respect to the fact that the climate is warming and that we have had something to do with it is always tangled up in agreeing with the proposed solutions. Environmentalists are at least equally culpable for this phenomenon.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 12:17 PM
Conceding the science with respect to the fact that the climate is warming and that we have had something to do with it is always tangled up in agreeing with the proposed solutions.
Not true. Not all that long ago, the debate would be centered only on what we should do about it; the emergence of a strong consensus among the scientific community would have ended the debate over cause.
But since the "successes" of the tobacco industry in attacking the science demonstrating the health risks of smoking, and with the aid of politicians who have ideological reasons not to accept the findings of science, we have a new industry that is able to attack the scientific findings and sew doubt among the population.
The environmentalists are not responsible for the emergence of this new industry, but plenty of so-called conservatives have aided and abetted it in many ways.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 12:51 PM
In keeping with my original point, I should have added to my comment above that the scientific-doubt industry has had an easier time spreading uncertainty about scientific findings in areas like climate change because of the widespread mistrust and doubt over evolution.
D
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 12:57 PM
"Not true. Not all that long ago, the debate would be centered only on what we should do about it; the emergence of a strong consensus among the scientific community would have ended the debate over cause."
Right. But now anyone who doesn't agree with hard-line environmental policy is accused of denying science. It goes both ways.
"But since the "successes" of the tobacco industry in attacking the science demonstrating the health risks of smoking,"
They weren't all that successful.
"The environmentalists are not responsible for the emergence of this new industry, but plenty of so-called conservatives have aided and abetted it in many ways."
You are trying to craft a narrative out of a few anecdotes. On most issues, there are going to be scientists who have a minority opinion. You can generally expect politicians to leverage those opinions. That isn't anything new at all.
But I don't think this has much to do with the ID debate, which has more to do with the school's role as surrogate parent than any attack on science.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 1:17 PM
"Do the proponents of Intelligent Design not read their bibles? "No one knows the ways of God." Do they think they are Some One?"
ID does not make the claim to know the ways of God.
"Sorry that your 'science' classes were so unscientific, Kevin S. Perhaps you should try a different school or teacher. You did not get a grounding in the scientific method. And your understanding of what science is incorrect."
No. My understanding of science is entirely correct. Further, my experience is not extraordinary. It was part of a curriculum that was instituted statewide under the guise of "Outcome Based Education".
That said, I have no intention of sending my kids to public school, so it won't be a worry.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 1:27 PM
"Who told you it was supposed to?"
I didn't say it was supposed to. I simply said that it cannot, and that this fact produces a conundrum in need of remedy.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 1:33 PM
You are trying to craft a narrative out of a few anecdotes.
I am doing no such thing. Read Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science before responding.
D
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 1:47 PM
Todder, my impression is that these things have not been hidden, but just conveniently ignored and have rarely been questioned. The scientific developments of the 20th century have brought the disputes between science and religion into sharper contrast and the strict literal interpretation of the Bible seems (to me, with admittedly no evidence to back it up) to have been part of the response of American Evangelical Christians to defend their faith against scientists who were claiming that science proved God did not exist. Reading C.S. Lewis and a few other theologians has shown me that the conflict between science and religion does not need to exist. Science simply seems to be the best way of understanding the physical world God "created" by whatever methods He employed. The real conflict seems to occur when sientists try to extend their conclusions to subjects their studies could not possibly prove.
My favorite example of this occurs in "A Brief History of Time," by Stephen Hawking, which is a fascinating book about origins of the universe. After introducing a concept of a kind of "spherical" imaginary time (and thus, with no beginning), Hawking concludes that his explanations prove that God need not exist because the universe does not need an explanation for a beginning because it is eternal with no beginning or end. This could be a bad summary, but that conclusion made me pause... he introduces the notion of an eternal "imaginary time"... and then claims that this proves God does not need to exist?? I feel like biology does the same thing with the origin of the universe by claiming the fact of evolution and then just extending it backwards without providing (in my mind) adequate explanations for consciousness and the actual beginnings of life. And, again, the conclusion is that life does not require God. I think the seeming need of scientists to claim that God does not exist produces an unfortunate backlash against science - particularly in areas that scientists use to deny the existence of God.
To tie this all back in, I don't think Evangelicals have hidden the interpretations of the previous generations. If Jedidiah is correct, I think they were more or less unaware. The literal vs. non-literal interpretations had very little bearing on the issues they were addressing because, unlike today, the debates were not typically centered on issues like the origins of the earth and life - at least nothing of particular interest.
To Jedidiah: if the literal interpretation of the Bible is a new phenomenon, why did the Church persecute Galileo and others?
God Bless...
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2008 1:55 PM
Brian, Wow. Thanks for your overview.
This is so interesting. I wish I had time to thouroughly study all these different points etc...
Just an added point, Jesus also seemed to plainly be a literalist, referring to Jonah and adam and eve etc...etc...
I thouroughly appreciate yours, kevin's and jedidia's learned perspectives and I intend to continue to study as I can.
Posted by: Todder | July 24, 2008 2:31 PM
That's a good point, Todder, and one definitely worth looking at. I think in considering those references in this context, it would be important to look at how he refers to them (i.e. as physical events vs. truths to be learned from the Word of God), because reference does not necessarily imply a strictly literal interpretation. Jesus says Scripture cannot be broken, so there is something of divine truth in everything in Scripture even if it was not meant to be a literal description of physical events. So regardless of literal or non-literal, I would expect Jesus to refer to the people and events of Scripture.
In the end, I'm thankful that my faith does not depend on these things because if the Bible is strictly literal despite the seeming implausibility, that would bring me joy; but I don't see the necessity of a strictly literal translation to understand the truth of God's Word. Science provides insights into our physical world in a way that the Bible does not, but I don't think the Bible was ever intended to be a sientific journal. The Bible is intended to illuminate our purpose and our salvation and the glory of God.
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2008 3:13 PM
"if the literal interpretation of the Bible is a new phenomenon, why did the Church persecute Galileo and others?"
Brian -
The simple answer to this is that Galileo was contradicting what all authorities, both Christian and pagan, had long maintained. Since the authorities have changed their minds, even Biblical literalists have no problem understanding the earth being at the center of creation as a description of God's priorities, not an actual location.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 24, 2008 4:16 PM
Kevin: ""But since the "successes" of the tobacco industry in attacking the science demonstrating the health risks of smoking,"
They weren't all that successful."
They were enormously successful until about 10 years ago. People still smoke, don't they?
Posted by: JEM | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM
"I am doing no such thing. Read Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science before responding."
I don't read political tabloid books on either side of the spectrum, and I don't see why I should need to do so in order to participate in a discussion here.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 5:10 PM
Re: the tobacco industry's attacks on science. True, ultimately they weren't successful in preventing public acceptance of the scientific evidence demonstrating the health risks of smoking. However, this was where the science attackers and doubt manufacturers learned their craft.
Some of the same people who worked on behalf of the tobacco companies 15-20 years ago are now engaged in the deliberate obfuscation of the scientific evidence concerning global warming and in other areas where scientific data is under political attack.
Despite the unfortunate title, Kevin, Mooney's book is no "tabloid" publication. Far from it. It is well-researched and well-documented evidence of a systematic effort to undermine public confidence in scientific findings. The people involved in this effort are by no means all Republicans, but the title reflects the fact that the political effects of this effort are most visible in Republican administrations and among Republican politicians.
I only suggested that you read it before responding because your comment about my making a narrative out of a few anecdotes is so demonstrably false. Mooney exposes the very narrative that you so wish to dismiss. In order to respond intelligently to my refutation of your comment, you need to read it.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 5:41 PM
Genesis says the creatures reproduced after their
own kind, not by changing into other kinds. If
this isn't to be taken literally, then what does it
mean? Those who claim the Bible shouldn't be
taken literally are at pains to explain just what
it is supposed to mean, then. And what about
Romans 5:12, "Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin"? So how could
there have been eons of time, with species dying
out while giving rise to other species, if death
did not happen before Adam's sin? Oh, wait, I
forgot. We're not supposed to take the story of
Adam and Eve literally, are we? Then why is
Jesus referred to as "the Second Adam," if the
first one never existed? But, in Sojo and other
liberal thinking, far better to try to co-exist
with the world than to stand for the truth of
the Bible.
Posted by: John G. | July 24, 2008 8:49 PM
Don,
"Apparently, many Americans have abandoned the notion that science equals truth."
Just a commentary on this statement (hopefully it will be coherent). I agree, but I would add that the irony is, many Christians have latched onto a scientific means of attempting to understand the Bible, hence this need to take all of it literally, even when it is full of poetry, allegory, and metaphor. So, although some Christians do not respect science, they nevertheless have adopted a scientific way of thinking which is evidenced by an insistence of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
So we see that even those who don't value science adhere to a scientific thought system, and as such often devalue artistic thought, as if the scientific way of thought is superior to artistic thought. I anticipate some would respond to my post by saying I am not giving Scripture true respect because I don't take it all literally. What this is really saying is that poetry or metaphor or literary devices are inferior to the exactness of scientific description or historical accounts.
It isn't just a science vs religion debate, but a science vs. humanities debate as well. Ironically, both Atheists and Creationists insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture. Ironically, both elevate scientific thought as a superior aspect of humanity.
It's as if we have no value for the artistic side of being human. And while we punt that part of ourselves, we also punt our ability to understand a mystical book that cannot be understood scientifically as if God was something quantifiable that we can measure and describe. He isn't even adequately described in the Bible itself, or does anyone really believe He literally is a rock?
Posted by: Squeaky | July 25, 2008 12:38 AM
John G.,
"So how could
there have been eons of time, with species dying
out while giving rise to other species, if death
did not happen before Adam's sin? "
God also told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree, on that day they would surely die. Yet, they still lived, and lived for several hundred years after that day. This is an example where actual events require a different understanding of the text. We can't take the text literally, and so we need to go deeper.
Posted by: squeaky | July 25, 2008 12:58 AM
Just a brief response to Jedidiah's question above: "Who is this Tina person?" I am this Tina person. If you read my book, you will see that I am critical of intelligent design "theory" and I broadly accept Darwin's theory of natural selection. However, I was asked a question about the co-option of science, and I tried to answer that question in a balanced way.
With best wishes,
Tina Beattie.
Posted by: Tina Beattie | July 25, 2008 5:31 AM
Hi Todder,
I have appreciated our dialouge. This is a response to your 12 AM post.
As far as the first 10 chapters of Genesis, CS Lewis said it best, to paraphrase: I am not a theologian. But I do know literature. And the first ten chapters of Genesis read like classic myth. They are markedly different in form from the historical narratives of Kings or the Gospels.
There are many clues within the two creation stories, albeit they are obscured by the popular NIV translation which purposely hides disagreement between the two stories by rewording the original language, such as in the 2nd story when the animals are clearly created after the humans. One of the biggest clues is in the name itself- Adam, meaning man, or humanity. It is something classic in myth, the world over, to use a name to represent all humanity. This seems to indicate something archetypal. Indeed, Adam is neither male nor female, until the female is formed, when ish and ishah are created, allowing for the juxtaposition of the two. Further, Eve, mother of all the living, is another archetypal name.
The Genesis stories don't work as historical events. They do work very well as the authors intended, revealing an intimate yet extremely powerful God, the first time those two ideas were juxtaposed in history. And that is really what we should be talking about when we talk about Genesis, but sadly that gets lost in all the evolution vs. literal creation talk.
As far as most Christians no having a literal interpretation of reality- Todder, I don't think this has been hidden really. Not from theologians, or historians. Perhaps from the masses of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals in America, and I could only geuss as to why. Perhaps because we believe only what we want to. Perhaps something outside our world view is too difficult to hear. Perhaps it would reduce the power of those who run media empires. But I'm only shooting in the dark.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:08 AM
Kevin states, ""Who told you [evolution was supposed to explain the origins of life?"
I didn't say it was supposed to. I simply said that it cannot, and that this fact produces a conundrum in need of remedy."
Kevin, see my point in the same response above. Yes, evolution can not, and no scientist says it's supposed to. I am sorry that you want evolution to be able to explain that, but unfortunately, you are attacking the wrong science. You can no more fault evolution than you can fault geology for not having a suitable explanation for the development of stars.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:14 AM
Brian, on your Galileo question from 2 PM today:
I think that particular example of Galileo actually related much more to politics and personal strife between two powerful men, then it did to a great conflict between religion and science. Stephen Jay Gould has an excellent analysis on this in one of his books. Galileo's ideas weren't really discredited within the scientific community of his day. But it really doesn't help when you write a book called Simple Fool, all about a man of the same name who happens to seem exactly like the Pope, e.g. the most powerful man in Europe. It's even worse when Galileo and the Pope were friends, before that book was published. I think that had a lot mroe to do with Galileo's troubles than anything else.
But of course, your very valid point/question still remains on a larger scale. I would say that, with the rise of the Englightenment and Modernism, the Church also began to take on those ideas, just as she is now taking on the ideas of Post-Modernism. This is the tragic flaw of Fundamentalism, in my opinion- that it buys into the arguments of the Englightenment and accepts them wholesale.
So, yes, there was some of this before the late 1800s in the Church. I should say rather, it reached it's zenith in the American Fundamentalist movement, where it began to be applied to the whole Bible. But before the development of science (as defined with a scientific method, something beyond mere alchemy), there was simply not a need to know or understand what literally happens. Irenaeus isn't spending his time trying to understand just how the sun orbits the Earth; Augustine doesn't need to know in what order tha animals are created and how long that day is. What is important to them is the nature of grace and salvation, or how the truth of the Gospel can be known and accurately transmitted. They recognized (as witnessed in Augustine's ironically titled On the Literal Meaning of Genesis [since by literal meaning he meant what we'd call symbolic]) that the point of these books wasn't science, but rather what it takes to bring us closer to God.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:27 AM
Thanks, Squeaky, for your clarification. You are correct; in fact I just emailed a correspondent yesterday about that very thing. The topic was the woodenly literalistic way the Left Behind/dispensational theology interprets the book of Revelation, which is full of figurative language and metaphor. The first-century Christians who were Revelation's original audience would have understood these images immediately, but we can't seem to see beyond their literal meaning. The result is that so many see Revelation as predicting some kind of cosmic bloodbath, which is far from the way the original readers would have understood it.
My correspondent replied that I ought to re-read the Song of Solomon, which is full of metaphors and similes:
"I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots. Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold...A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi."
A modern comment on this phenomenon is Kathleen Norris' essay, "The War on Metaphor," found in The Cloister Walk. Her topic is hymn lyrics and "politically correct" Bible translations.
both Atheists and Creationists insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture.
The real irony of the creation/ID vs. evolution debate is that in their underlying presuppositions regarding evolution, the creationists agree with the atheists! Therefore, creationism/ID implicitly denies God!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 25, 2008 8:36 AM
John G.:
I think you raise a great point, that needs to be explored further by all- if these passages are not to be taken literally, then what is their meaning? For if they are revealed scripture, then still carry a great weight of meaning for us all, and, I would argue, an even deeper and greater meaning when they are not literal.
But if we are arguing for taking everything literally, then I must ask you: Can you explain why the Bible literally supports evolution? The snake changes, losing it's ability to walk. How do you explain that Genesis one clearly (in the Hebrew) shows that humans are created after animals, but Genesis two clearly (in the Hebrew) shows that animals are created after humans? What is the theological meaning of putting humans at the end in one story, and in the beginning of another? How do you explain the developmentof all humanity from two people? Did God allow for incest being okay? (It's not in the text- you have to make apology.) Did he create some other folks we haven't heard about? (Again, not in the text.) Do you insist on not boiling a kid in it's own milk? Do you believe that Heaven is somewhere in the sky? If you want to take things literally, everything literally, you must address these issues as well. Sure, of course, it's silly to think that Jesus was actually going to his mansion somewhere in the Stratosphere, and a bit uncomfortable to put him at the level of some sort of Hellenistic deity on Mount Olympus. But that's the whole point- literalism taken to an extreme is silly.
Sure, you can bend over backward to make arguments, like God creating others for Seth, et.al. But frankly, that bending over backward is precisely how God showed me the light and the error of my ways, in helping me to reject Biblical literalism. If I have to constantly hurt my brain and logic to make things work, even if I can then make them work, then how is it worth it? If God gave me the skills to reason, why should I deny and demolish this gift of God, effectively spitting on his free gift?
To take the issue you raise, if I am to take that truly literally, then a "kind" must be a clone. Yes, again, silly, but we're doing the literal. Often Literal Creationists want to extend the meaning of kind to something outside the Bible, putting it at the level of genus or order or class, but they are usually not consistent, even in the words of the same person in the same book. But rather, we see that all creatures, as they reproduce, have change in their offspring, excepting of course those that truly are clones, like the eternal hydra. And here then is change in kind, because sexual reproduction is the mixing of gametes and therefore change in offspring.
But, of course, your very insistence that the changing of kind be explained is an insistence that we commit to literalism. I will not do that. It is a myth, a wonderful, life-changing myth, not a literal history. The kind reprouction can be explained by doing the requisite exegesis to understand the Priestly authors' intent to communicate the glory and majesty of God, YHWH, and not Marduk or Nebadconezzer or anyone else.
Romans 5.12 is explained by looking at the context, to see that Paul is speaking of spiritual death, not physical.
How could there be life at all, if no death occurred, if bacteria reproducing without death would cover the entire planet in tens of feet of bacteria in only a few days? Please don't tell me that bacteria don't matter because they're invisible.
As another above said to a different question, Jesus is the 2nd Adam because he is different and greater than the 1st, but the 1st need not be literal for Jesus to fulfill the role of being the 2nd. I could just as easily say Obama is the new Batman, but in that case everyone would understand that Batman is a cultural myth that we often gain value from, but we recognize is not literally true. Yet Obama can still fulfill the mythos of Batman. (Please note I'm just looking for an example here. I haven't really thought about if Obama fulfills the Batman role or not.)
Liberal refers at it's core to someone who gives of themselves and cares for others. This sounds to me like something very in keeping with the Bible, and also something very not in keeping with "the world". Fundamentalism's capitulation to Modernism and the Englightenment baseline of thinking is, however, this very commitment to coexistence and selling out.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:47 AM
Squeaky,
So much better said than I could have ever said it!
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:50 AM
Tina,
I appreciate your responding here. I of course have not read your book at this time. It would be great if your ideas are more fully explained in it, on how you are critical of ID, and how evolution is accurate or at least compatible with Christianity. However, I found your use of language in the interview posted to be decidedly biased, in favor of ID. Perhaps that was unintentional, and you are using their language without realizing it. But those of us who study biology and evolution find the use of some of the terms you posted to be decidedly accurate, and other terms to be insulting, when used with the intent that groups like the Discovery Institute quite obviously have. Perhaps, as it seems you indicate above, the interview response did not accurately reflect your work, and I would hope this is true.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:55 AM
Don,
Another good book on this subject is What the Bible Really Teaches: About Crucifixion, Resurrection, Salvation, the Second Coming, and Eternal Life by Keith Ward. I gave it a low review because of problems I had with some of his arguments, but one thing he did very well was show the hollowness of the literal interpretation of the Bible, where everything has to be interpreted literally. In that case, we end up with a shadow of a book, and, incidently, a book that no Fundamentalist or Evangelical would ever agree to.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 8:59 AM
"They were enormously successful until about 10 years ago. People still smoke, don't they?"
In spite of the health risks, not out of ignorance of them.
"I am sorry that you want evolution to be able to explain that, but unfortunately, you are attacking the wrong science."
I am not attacking it, but I will broaden my point to say that science has not explained the origin of the universe and cannot do so because the origin is God. Which is fine, so long as we recognize science for what it is.
"God also told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree, on that day they would surely die. Yet, they still lived, and lived for several hundred years after that day. "
Where does God say that they will die on that day? I don't find that reference in the texts.
It is possible to believe that the Bible is both accurate, pertaining to events that literally happened, and that it uses allegory. If some Christians have created this dichotomy by insisting that God is actually a rock, that is too bad, but is not particularly relevant here.
Any Christian has to believe that science could never explain every event that has happened on Earth. There is no science to explain the resurrection, but Christians believe it anyway.
The idea of the resurrection as allegorical fiction, wherein the real Jesus lies in a tomb somewhere, is not beautiful at all. It would not give me deeper pleasure to discover that the whole story was simply an allegory for rebirth.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 25, 2008 11:59 AM
"But if we are arguing for taking everything literally, then I must ask you: Can you explain why the Bible literally supports evolution? The snake changes, losing it's ability to walk."
This is losing the forest for the trees. Adherents to ID or creationsim do not deny that animals have changed over the years.
"How do you explain that Genesis one clearly (in the Hebrew) shows that humans are created after animals, but Genesis two clearly (in the Hebrew) shows that animals are created after humans?"
The latter point is not clear at all. There are rafts of theological analysis of these passages, but even critics of inerrancy generally concede that Genesis 1 is a chronological depiction while Genesis 2 might not be so.
"What is the theological meaning of putting humans at the end in one story, and in the beginning of another?"
The first explains the origin of the universe, the second describes the condition of Adam and Eve's homestead.
"How do you explain the developmentof all humanity from two people?"
Birds and the bees. Though not literal birds and bees, of course.
"Did God allow for incest being okay? (It's not in the text- you have to make apology.)"
God rather frequently allows for incest, and it is in the text throughout the old testament. But it is not even necessary for it to be in the text. At some point incest occurred, though an evolutionary biologist could argue that it happened in a prior iteration of man (amoebic incest, anyone?).
"Did he create some other folks we haven't heard about? (Again, not in the text.)"
Nope.
"Do you insist on not boiling a kid in it's own milk?"
Not in my kitchen. I am sure you are aware of the scholarship contending with OT law. Simply peddling a list of passages that seem absurd in a contemporary light argues for nothing in particular.
That said, I do wonder what you are arguing. You contending that God never provided the law in the Old Testament? If so, this has very serious implications for your hermeneutic.
"Do you believe that Heaven is somewhere in the sky?"
This is the problem with the term "literalist". There is no such thing as a literalist. The term is simply a bludgeon with which to pound those who believe the Bible to be accurate or inerrant (or both).
I am aware that the Bible uses metaphor, as does any well written history book. The question of what is and is not simply metaphor is the subject of serious theological discussion, but few believe that Heaven is literally in the sky.
"But that's the whole point- literalism taken to an extreme is silly."
Correct.
"Sure, you can bend over backward to make arguments,"
Poisoning the well a bit, I see. I would note that I didn't have to bend or flex one bit to make the arguments above.
"If I have to constantly hurt my brain and logic to make things work, even if I can then make them work, then how is it worth it?"
If making your brain hurt and testing logic are difficult for you, then why should I take your word over those who find Biblical scholarship fascinating? These questions interest me immensely. I find that they challenge and embolden my faith.
"If God gave me the skills to reason, why should I deny and demolish this gift of God, effectively spitting on his free gift?"
God gave me the skills to reason as well, my friend. Yet we have arrived at different conclusions. If your tact was simply to live and let live, this wouldn't be a problem, but the sheer volume of your posts implies that you wish to persuade. As such, we would do well not to claim sole possession of reason.
"Romans 5.12 is explained by looking at the context, to see that Paul is speaking of spiritual death, not physical."
That doesn't address his question.
"the 1st need not be literal for Jesus to fulfill the role of being the 2nd."
And therefore, Jesus need not be literal either. Or, at least, not literally the son of God. This is important because you make use of a very telling analogy.
"Yet Obama can still fulfill the mythos of Batman."
Let's sidestep politics by assuming you are correct, and take this analogy to its logical conclusion...
Batman is a beautiful, inspirational mythology from which we can learn much. We read the Batman comics knowing that he does not literally exist, but is formed from a creative ethos designed to describe something innate about the nature of man, good or evil.
Obama, with his complicated background and absolute virtue, fulfills the Batman myth. He can inspire, and will others to change, thereby restoring a fallen nation.
We can, then, put our faith into Barack Obama, not because he is anything particularly special or important, but because he speaks to something inherent in the human condition. This is as beautiful as anything a literal "religion" could provide.
Here is the problem. The mythology is our own invention. We are simply believing in Obama to the extents that he fulfills that which we believe to be true of ourselves. While we pretend to worship Obama, we are really worshipping ourselves.
Such is the problem inherent in deciding that the Bible is myth.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 25, 2008 1:05 PM
Such is the problem inherent in deciding that the Bible is myth.
False dichotomy. Wooden literalism and mythologizing are by no means the only options.
Posted by: Don | July 25, 2008 2:22 PM
Kevin: "In spite of the health risks, not out of ignorance of them."
Mostly, yes, but you'd be amazed at how many people buy the phony science that the tobacco companies are still putting out there.
Posted by: JEM | July 25, 2008 2:29 PM
Kevin,
You're only partly right. Adherents to ID allow for evolution at times, but then, they don't take Genesis literally, as a whole. Literal Creationists *do* deny that animals changed over time, other than their invented term of "microevolution". They, however, do not allow microevolution to the extent of a major physiological change like a change in basic locomotion. Creationists like myself fully embrace change in organisms, as we accept the truth of evolution.
You are right, literalism is losing the forest for the trees, which is precisely my point. The forest is how powerful God is in Genesis One, and how intimate he is in Genesis Two. It is the shalom relationship we had with God, between men and women, between us and nature, that was destroyed by our embracing sin as we became aware of good and evil. The tree is in what particular way God created or trying to turn an ancient text into a modern scientific text.
Most theologians consider both Genesis stories to not be chronological, but mythic. In the Hebrew, the difference between the order of creation is incredibly clear. In the most popular version among Evangelicals, the NIV, it is not clear, as the authors of the NIV chose to purposely change or obscure the original Hebrew to fit their preconcieved understandings of theology. It is of course not limited to this particular passage; they do that in numerous places in the Bible. This is however one of their most glaring examples. But to argue for some way to combine the two into one story ignores the intent of the Redactor, of including two stories, so that we would know not to interpret this literally!
The point is that the theological understanding is way more important than trying to turn the Bible into a scientific text. That is a Muslim ploy, where they interpret their text literally, and therefore argue that it predicts scientific advances. They do their theology correctly, for it is the correct way to approach the Qur'an, within Islam. It is not the correct way to approach the holy book of Christians. Muslims elevate their book to be the literal word of God, making it part of God. For Christians, this is heresy, and a damnable heresy. (Please note, this is not cussing, but literally true.)
Humans can't develop from two people without both a miracle to keep the genetic code working, and without someone else to have sex with. The latter leads to incest. The former of course could occur, but again, it's not in the text, so one has to make apology for it. And at that point, God could just do anything to make our preconcieved worldviews correct. He could have made the world and our memories look like it started long ago. In truth, he created everything Last Thursday.
Evolutionists would *never* argue that a prior itineration of humans occurred. Some creationists argue something like this, in the Gap Theory. Evolutionists would argue that incest has certianly occurred in human history, and before we were Homo sapiens in human history, and before we were humans.
It is not a matter of peddling passages that seem absurd today, as if you can blow that off. The entire point is that, if you are to insist that the entire Bible is be literal, you have to pay the piper. There are passages that are absurd, simply because they were never intended to be taken literally. There are passages, like the kid in mother's milk, which were intended to be taken literally, but not to apply today.
Actually, Biblical Literalism is not the bludgeon as you describe. There is a great difference between accepting the Bible as infallible or insisting that it is also inerrant. There is even a difference between believing it is infallible and believing it is not but only inspired.
You purposely twisted my words when I said that one would have to injure logic to make the argument work, to make it appear as if I said it was difficult to test logic.
Again, you are setting up a strawman. There was no implication that you were not using logic, and I was. Rather, that Literal Creationists like yourself seek to deny that logic used and evidence follows, if it contradicts the literal interpretation of selected passages from the Bible. (Rarely is the creation story in Psalms considered.) To do this, Literal Creationists of course use logic, however I might disagree with their reasoning. But they state that reasoning should be subservient to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I find this not only contradictory, but a repugnant denial of the free gift of God, who by his grace gave us a witness of himself in both creation and the written word.
Jesus is easily literally the "son of God", as the term meant someone close to God, and didn't connote divinity. I think you mean to refer to the title of "Son of Man", which did connote divinity. But there is no need to make Jesus non-literal, as if he did not exist, just because he relies on a non-literal entity which did exist, namely the Adam. If Jesus did or did not exist, this would be determined for entirely different reasons than the use of analogy, such as the authenticity, reliability, and veracity of ancient texts.
Again, there are many examples in the Bible, outside of the obvious parables, where we do injustice to the text if we take them literaly. "Jesus is the first-born of all creation." If we take this literally, then we embrace the greatest heresy in the history of Christianity, namely the Arians. But that is the plain reading of the text- he was the first created. The Orthodox theological development became that this means something like creation, and Jesus is the most important part of creation (in his humanity), and heads all of creation, for he is "begotten, not made". While begotten is of course used in the New Testament, later theologians in the early church had to imbue it with numerous new shades of meaning, and this became standard orthodox Christian teaching.
You did a much better job of describing the Obama/Batman analogy than I had even considered, as, as I said, it was just a throwaway example. But, as you know, every analogy breaks down. Jesus was not literally a second Adam, in the sense that he was a human who would one day die for good and was sinful. Paul is at pains to point out this precise point, that the analogy breaks down, when he says the second Adam is not like the first.
Here we get in murky waters, I think, as we are using analogies to differentiate how analogy works. But, pretending everything you said about Obama was true (for he did not truly visit his birthplace when he was in Bethlehem this week), we would put our faith in him in part because he is like Batman. This would not preclude our putting our faith in him also because he is special and important. In the same way, we put our faith in Jesus for reasons completely apart from his fulfilling the 2nd Adam persona. We just do it also because he fulfills that persona. However, if Jesus were not special and important, and only was like Adam before, and the Adam story was a myth (in the true sense of the word myth, something true on a deeper level while not being literally moment-by-moment true), then, yes, I would agree that we would only be putting our faith in an understanding of ourselves. But if the Genesis stories are inspired (as I believe they are), or if we were to pretend the Batman stories are inspired, then what we are trusting in is not only an understanding of ourselves but also an understanding of ourselves that we believe God revealed to us. For myth never means it is not true. It means that it is true on another level, and often it is more true.
And with that, I end in what has to be one of the top strangest posts ever put on Sojourners: Obama is the new Batman, and so we understand that Jesus is the 2nd Adam.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 25, 2008 2:58 PM
The word is "tack," not "tact."
Posted by: JEM | July 25, 2008 3:21 PM
Sigh. I meant the above post to be jokelike by putting pretend programming brackets around the words, "Grammar Police Alert." However, sadly, the HTML editor got rid of my witticism, thereby making the joke fall rather flat and making me seem rather pedantic, which I am but I don't like people to know.
Posted by: JEM | July 25, 2008 3:26 PM
"Wooden literalism and mythologizing are by no means the only options."
I did not say or imply that they were. I was responding to a comment about mythos.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 25, 2008 5:02 PM
"Most theologians consider both Genesis stories to not be chronological, but mythic. "
Insofar as a lot of theologians aren't even Christian, there is no other way to interpret it.
"In the most popular version among Evangelicals, the NIV, it is not clear, as the authors of the NIV chose to purposely change or obscure the original Hebrew to fit their preconcieved understandings of theology. "
The KJV is pretty fluid as well. I disagree that the purpose of having two passages is simply to cue us not to take it literally. Do you have any evidence that this was the intent, or is it just your opinion?
"The point is that the theological understanding is way more important than trying to turn the Bible into a scientific text. "
I am not trying to do so, and taking the Bible literally does not require this.
"For Christians, this is heresy, and a damnable heresy. (Please note, this is not cussing, but literally true.)"
Saying that the Bible is literally true is heresy because Muslims treat the Quran accordingly? Is that what you are saying?
"The former of course could occur, but again, it's not in the text, so one has to make apology for it. "
The Bible does not record every sex act resulting in offspring. Now that I have made the apology, please explain how this argues for a mythological reading of the Genesis text.
"It is not a matter of peddling passages that seem absurd today, as if you can blow that off."
I didn't blow it off, and that is precisely what you were doing.
"The entire point is that, if you are to insist that the entire Bible is be literal, you have to pay the piper. There are passages, like the kid in mother's milk, which were intended to be taken literally, but not to apply today."
I have no problem believing that God forbade the Israelites from cooking goats (the passage refers to goats, not human children) in their mother's milk. We can leverage the new testament and the gospel texts to determine what remains applicable.
"Actually, Biblical Literalism is not the bludgeon as you describe."
Who are it's primary adherents? Who calls themself a literalist?
"You purposely twisted my words when I said that one would have to injure logic to make the argument work, to make it appear as if I said it was difficult to test logic."
I was more concerned with your comment about your brain hurting.
"There was no implication that you were not using logic, and I was."
a) you believe that accepting the Genesis account of creation as literally true is literalism
b) I believe the Genesis account of creation is literally true
c) You consider literalism to "demolish" the gift of reason from God.
d) Consequently, you (albeit incidentally) accused me of lacking reason.
"Rather, that Literal Creationists like yourself seek to deny that logic used and evidence follows, if it contradicts the literal interpretation of selected passages from the Bible."
I don't find a logical flaw with believing that Genesis is true. As such, I am saying your logic is flawed.
"But they state that reasoning should be subservient to a literal interpretation of Genesis."
This is not my contention. I can't speak for "they".
"Jesus is easily literally the "son of God", as the term meant someone close to God, and didn't connote divinity."
No, I meant the term to connote divinity. Fully man and fully God.
"But there is no need to make Jesus non-literal, as if he did not exist, just because he relies on a non-literal entity which did exist, namely the Adam."
This wasn't the argument I made.
"Again, there are many examples in the Bible, outside of the obvious parables, where we do injustice to the text if we take them literaly."
I agree. But the reciprocal also applies.
"Paul is at pains to point out this precise point, that the analogy breaks down, when he says the second Adam is not like the first."
I don't think he was saying they were analogous, but that is beside the point.
What you seem to be saying is that we can believe that God inspired a fiction about this Adam fellow, who is symbolic of the inherent sinfulness of man. Does that do your view justice?
If so, we are left with a predicament, as we could just as easily apply this interpretation to Jesus. Perhaps Jesus' resurrection was something that God inspired for the purpose of teaching us that we had the opportunity for forgiveness.
Unless you can indicate why this is not so, then you are left with the possibility (I would say probability) that God's inspiration is simply a self-serving platitude and that the entire Christian religion is a figment of our imagination.
"And with that, I end in what has to be one of the top strangest posts ever put on Sojourners: Obama is the new Batman, and so we understand that Jesus is the 2nd Adam."
Meh, half the people here seem to think Obama is the 2nd Jesus.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 25, 2008 5:45 PM
Yeah, I was referring to Christian theologians.
You are right, helping us understand that we should not interpret the passages literally is by far not the only reason why there are two stories. And I'm making the argument that is one reason the Redactor included both stories, just as in the case of the four Gospels. Not of course that they understood the concept of "literalness" even enough to reject it, but rather that the Compilers saw the benefit of multiple points of view, and thus that there is not one videocam concept of reality, but rather a reality communicated through humans. Unlike the Muslims with their divinely recited Qur'an, we have a God who is committed to working with and through humans, affirming the beauty of our many cultures as also coming from God. Thus our Holy Book has the benefit of many different viewpoints, and an inherent recognition that one view is by far inadequate. The first command can not be followed without the second; we follow God through community, and not as individuals.
Putting a written word on the level of God, making it god in itself- that is damnable heresy. For all Muslims speak of la illaha illa allah, there is no god but God, in truth they make another god of the Qur'an, because they elevate it to the level that it can do no wrong, that it is the guidance to all of life. Sadly, some Christians do the same with the Bible, particularly in their pursuit of a consistently literal interpretation. (Though of course, even the Biblical Literalists pick and choose what they will be literal about.)
I fail to see how stating that the Bible doesn't record every sex act even remotely responds to the need for apology of allowing for miraculous intervention in the human genetic code. Nor do I see how having sex acts not recorded relates to arguing for or against a mythological reading of the first chapters of Genesis.
I am glad that you understand that the passage refers to goats and not humans. I agree with you that NT trumps OT, in the sense that the OT needs to be interpreted in the light of the NT.
Whether or not there are people who call themselves literalists is not the issue, though there are plenty who do. Rather, again, as I said, there are differences between a belief in inerrancy vs. infallibility vs. inspiration alone.
Again, you are playing games with words, as you pick out phrases like "brain hurting" from their context, despite my pointing out for you how it was related to injuries in logic. It hurts my brain to watch Jackass too. The problem is not in my brain, but in Jackass.
No, as I explained, it is not that you are lacking reason, though I disagree with your reason, but rather that the commitment to literal interpretation denies the value of the gift of reason by insisting on a blind acceptance of what the Bible says rather than a living faith.
I do not find any logical flaw in believing Genesis to be true either.
Okay. Then it appears you are not aware that the term "son of God" doesn't imply divinity. "Son of Man" does. But it is a common misunderstanding.
I agree there are places in the Bible where we do injustice to the text if it is not taken literally.
I never said Adam was fictional. I said he was mythic. There's a world of difference. (Metaphorically :-)
Your right, by logic, we could argue that Jesus was just as mythical. But I go back to the key point that Lewis pointed out so many decades ago- they are written in two different genre. Gen 1-11 are written in a very different form from the historical narrative of the Gospels, or for that matter Gen 12 on. My argument is to be committed to the text and respect the viewpoint of the author, and not try to put on our interpretation our own interpretation and so commit the sin of eisigesis- which of course we all do at times.
Also, if there is no resurrection (of Jesus), then there is no change in the basic nature of sin, death, and all reality. The same applies if Gen 1-3 are just fiction. It does not apply if Gen 1-3 are myth. There must be some way in which we need Christ's death, and that we became committed to sin, and that we can't change who we are on our own.
I completely agree that Obama isn't Jesus. He's more like the return of Elijah. ;-)
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | July 26, 2008 12:28 AM
"And I'm making the argument that is one reason the Redactor included both stories, just as in the case of the four Gospels."
I haven't seen an argument here. Is there any historical documentation indicating this was the intent?
"Not of course that they understood the concept of "literalness" even enough to reject it,"
This fact would seem to trump your argument entirely.
"but rather that the Compilers saw the benefit of multiple points of view, and thus that there is not one videocam concept of reality, but rather a reality communicated through humans."
Right. But this is not an argument against taking the Bible as fact. If two people witness a murder, one from a balcony and one from down the street, they have witnessed the same murder. The prosecution introduces both witnesses at trial as a means of proving that the crime actually happened in a certain way.
"Putting a written word on the level of God, making it god in itself- that is damnable heresy."
I have not done so.
"For all Muslims speak of la illaha illa allah, there is no god but God, in truth they make another god of the Qur'an, because they elevate it to the level that it can do no wrong, that it is the guidance to all of life."
This is not the problem with Islam. The problem is that there book is not inspired by God. They are using a phony guidebook.
"Sadly, some Christians do the same with the Bible, particularly in their pursuit of a consistently literal interpretation."
Do I understand correctly that you are taking issue with Christians using the Bible as "guidance to all of life"? I don't understand this criticism. This seems akin to admonishing a child to respect his parents, and then telling him not to obey their words.
"I fail to see how stating that the Bible doesn't record every sex act even remotely responds to the need for apology of allowing for miraculous intervention in the human genetic code."
I didn't say anything about miraculous intervention. I said they had sex and produced babies. Biology is miraculous, on a certain level, but intervention it is not.
"Nor do I see how having sex acts not recorded relates to arguing for or against a mythological reading of the first chapters of Genesis."
It doesn't, and I didn't say it did. You insinuated that, because the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve's children laid with Eve, we must make apology for some reason. So I made apology. I think this is a red herring in the extreme.
"Whether or not there are people who call themselves literalists is not the issue, though there are plenty who do."
Who? While it is not THE issue, it is an important issue insofar as literalism is a pejorative, nebulous term that makes discussion about issues such as inerrancy difficult. It tends to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.
"Again, you are playing games with words, as you pick out phrases like "brain hurting" from their context,"
I used it in the context that you wrote it, though perhaps not as you meant it. I am playing no word games. You apparently meant that taking Genesis literally causes your brain to hurt because the injury to logic causes injury to your innate thinking patterns, which are built on logic. Is this the correct interpretation?
"I do not find any logical flaw in believing Genesis to be true either."
Then I am completely confused as to what you intended to convey.
"My argument is to be committed to the text and respect the viewpoint of the author, "
Kind of a funny statement on a blog for an organization that believes the commandment to honor thy mother and father necessarily demands that we reject S