I just wanted to register the fact, without rancor, that I am a "naive Biblical literalist" myself. As a matter of fact, it sort of sounds like a lot of Jews are too. And there's a difference between "Biblical literalism" and "sola scriptura" or "soul compentency" or Scottish common sense philosophy (or "any milkmaid could understand it perfectly").
Did not the Lubavitcher Rebbe insist on the "literalness" of the creation account in Genesis? In fact, didn't he insist that the sun moves around the earth?
Others are poignant and (in a gentle way) make me feel guilty. An email correspondent asks:
As a Gentile who has had a long interest in the Jewish Scriptures, who has visited Israel, and loves the Jewish people and supports Israel in whatever small capacity I am able, I found your article very interesting.
I've always assumed that Genesis is recording real history from the time I was first taught the stories as a young boy. I always accepted that G-d is real, that He speaks to people, has a plan for this world and made a promise to Abraham that is irrevocable. I guess that is why I also support the creationist position but I notice that you say that is a naïve position. So, I am very interested to understand how the Jewish rabbis interpret Genesis and what I should be thinking about this issue. If Genesis is not literal, does that mean that we should no longer consider Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph as historic figures (forgive me if I spelt them wrong)? Does that mean that G-d's promise to Abraham never happened and the Jewish people never entered Egypt? I'm interested to understand.
If we're willing to entertain the idea that Noah's flood (the subject of this week's Torah reading, Noach) did not occur as plain historical fact exactly the way it's described in Genesis, why not put Abraham between similar brackets? What about Moses?
Regarding Moses, his historical existence and the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai would seem to be nonnegotiable. They are the subject of No. 7 and No. 8 among Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. But is Noah, just as the literal Scriptural account of his flood experience expresses things, similarly nonnegotiable? I don't see grounds for thinking so.
For Moses and for Abraham, furthermore, you could point to many authenticating details in the historical record -- not proof, of course, but confirmation that the narratives are historically plausible. I wrote a whole book on Abraham from that angle: The Discovery of God.
The question is whether thinking of the flood, or the Garden of Eden for that matter, as figurative is damaging to the integrity of your faith, or not. Accepting the Darwinian account of evolution -- life emerging through blind, purposeless churning of matter -- would sure seem to do radical violence to that integrity. But as for narratives where the historicity is not so clearly essential to theological coherence, a saying of the Talmud that I often think of recommends itself:
"Teach your tongue to say 'I do not know'" (Berachot 4a).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mark2: I like to do what Bradley Monton does.
You mean irritate people on both sides, because you get a kick out of it? Since that seems to me, from reading his blog, to be a large component of what he's doing. At least he seems less given to cryptic utterances and is pretty straighforward about which sides he comes down on.
Actually, he does make some interesting points, and I have heard about his book, which I intend to read when I can get hold of it.
In any case, my view is that for any kind of meaningful debate, discussion, or interaction on issues like this, everyone should be clear and explicit as to where he is coming from. I, for example, am a theist (Catholic, specifically) who has scientific and mathematical training, on the basis of which I'm skeptical of ID as presented by most of its proponents. I am certainly not a young-Earther or literalist creationist. I oppose metaphysical materialism but give methodological materialims more weight that Monton seems to. I think there is no ultimate conflict between science and religion, though the extremes on each side would vigorously diagree on that. Finally, I don't think science knows (or ever will know) everything, but I think it's one of the best tools we have for finding out about the universe around us. So, no secrets about where I'm coming from.
Do you think PJ Meyers would have spoken as much truth as he did for the Expelled movie had he thought that Behe or Dembski were filming him?
99% of the time, I'd agree with you Turmarion, about being clear where one is coming from. But in ev/cr debates, the opposite seems to work better.
Getting back to the issue of Biblical literalism and its naivety, I am curious if David Klinghoffer has found himself in a compromising situation.
Here is why:
1. Stephen C. Meyer is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, along with David Klinghoffer
www.discovery.org
2. The curriculum vitae for Stephen C. Meyers notes that he recently served as a university professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:vRD_mA1X3r4J:www.stephencmeyer.org/curriculum-vitae.php+Stephen+C+Meyer+vitae&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
3. To become a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, the requirements are stated:
http://www.pba.edu/aboutpba/administrativeoffices/human-resources/faculty-positions.cfm
In which, one must affirm the guiding principles of Palm Beach Atlantic U.
These guiding principles are as follows:
"All those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God; that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; that He is the Son of God, our Lord and Savior; that He died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from the grave; that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in Him, by the grace of God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this college shall always be consistent with these principles."
4. Is Stephen C. Meyer, fellow at the Discovery Institute, therefore a naive Biblical literalist?
To answer your curiosity, Dan, I think that both Meyer and Klinghoffer would remind you what Klinghoffer wrote at the end of the above post: "But as for narratives where the historicity is not so clearly essential to theological coherence, 'Teach your tongue to say 'I do not know.'"
@Dan: "Speaking of education, for those who reside in the midwest, such as myself, the U of Chicago has some excellent educational talks this weekend."
Some ID folks give (at least preliminarily) their charitable reviews of this conference --
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/more_from_the_university_of_ch.html#more
and
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/lewontin_and_numbers_day_one_o.html#more
I could also provide a couple of links from pro-evolution websites, but that wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.