I have sympathy for this position. I have held it within the past 10 years. And while I no longer hold this position and in fact, I would use words like "false teaching" to describe it. I want to affirm that these are people with good intentions passionate about their faith and scripture.
Another group can be loosely described as the "It doesn't matter" group... This I think is approximately where my parents stand and where I was prior to my couple of years of fundamentalism. This group generally argues that creation "perspectives" are a non "salvation" issue and therefore not worthy of argument or broken relationship. The focus on "salvation" issues highlights our "salvation" priority that I pointed out and questioned in What is the Gospel? last week.
The third position I present is Evolutionary Creationists. This is the position of Dr. Paul Teel. This would be how I categorize myself. This is is the position that recently got a Regent professor uninvited from preaching at the church he pastored for 10 years...! This position takes science, the Bible and theology very seriously. It affirms variation in breeding, leading to advantageous mutations which are paid off in increased reproduction (natural selection), and that this process is continuous and ongoing... This position affirms the authority of the Bible and argues that Gen. 1-11 are not concrete history (a position already held by Augustine) but mythic theological presentation and reflection. Thus this position considers creation to by a dynamic community of beings upheld through space and time by the Triune God. Evolution does not interpret itself and does not require one to be an atheist.
Ok so these are three positions. There are a few more, which are nuances of these, but I am not going to address them.
I want to affirm that all truth is God's truth. I want to affirm science and scientist's pursuit of the truth and embrace with them their discoveries of the good creation God has created. I want to be aware of both the limits of science to speak to metaphysics and that the foundations of science rest on Christian theology. I want to be able to talk about faith and science without fear...
I have some friends who no longer identify as Christians. These same people are passionate seekers of truth and believe that evolutionary theory is true. While, like with everything, beliefs and conversions, either to or away from faith are complex, I wonder to myself would it have been as easy to walk away from a church deeply engaged with positive dialogue with science? Does the common Bible vs. Science binary, create a very strong sense that if one accepts science, one must reject faith? I think this perception is very common and unfortunately is unwittingly perpetuated by those who say, "it doesn't matter..." This group is very difficult to determine the size of because of their effective silence within the conversation. Usually this means that the YEC position gets the megaphone and the floor... From my perspective this is a problem on a number of levels. 1) it perpetuates poor literalististic/"first glance" Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis 2) Christian youth are either prepared by the church to be dogmatic fundamentalists or not prepared at all, and therefore liable to reject the church when they discover the church has largely rejected/not engaged "reality"... 3) Those outside the church most engaged in truth seeking are, not inaccurately, likely to be dismissive of a community that out of ignorance and misguided loyalty has rejected observed reality 4) Scientists inside the church are largely ostracised...
Therefore, the way we handle this issue in a very real way has consequences both in keeping and gaining community members... Of course taking a positive position towards evolution is liable to get you declared a heretic by someone, people might leave your church, if you are a pastor you might get fired, or you may be "uninvited" to speak at a church you previously pastored... I expect that someone will declare this post "heretical"... Given that Darwin was a Christian, and many early evangelicals such as Benjamin Warfield and Augustus Hopkins Strong were strong supporters of evolutionary theory... I think it is sad that we have subsequently allowed this issue to be divided and polarized in such an unfortunate way. So speak up next time it comes up and say, "I believe in evolution and I believe in God and I believe in the authority of the Bible."
If you are interested in further exploring the Evolutionary Creation position (for you doubters, yes this is actual science, I promise) check out:
BioLogos - founded by Dr. Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project)
The best would be if churches started having legitimate scientific symposiums with these guys...
Ok. My final comment is my dream of both Biologos and AnswersinGenesis being at Missionsfest Vancouver next year and engaging in a dance battle right in the middle of all the booths to some old school Hokus Pick or maybe DC Talk...
From my (limited, not exhaustive) observation the church, as a whole (there are always exceptions) doesn't have issues with science or scientists, in general. I think the line "4) Scientists inside the church are largely ostracised..." is overstating the case.
ReplyDeleteEvolution, specifically, on the other hand, has been a point of contention for a long time. I can't comment on the historical development of the positions, but certainly in North America, since the Scopes trials, christians and evolutionary scientists have been on two sides of an widening chasm.
And, unfortunately, I think this has as much to do with the scientists as it does with the Christians. The (loudest) christian camp stubbornly clings to literal interpretations of Genesis in the face of vast amounts of objective evidence to the contrary.
The scientific community likewise, on the whole, clings to a Godless evolution in the face of real and substantive problems in the theory. Science as it is currently constituted and (more importantly) funded cannot admit God as a possible factor. That simply is not scientific. And, for vast swaths of science, that is entirely the correct approach. Evolution, though, like history, cannot be subject to the same scrutiny of repeatable experiments. It must be judged by a different rules. Unfortunatly, again, the vast majority of evolution scientists will not or can not (politically) acknowledge the problems in their theory (because they only have one), that it *is* a theory (because they only have one) or dialog about the alternatives.
The even bigger problem is in dealing with the public at large who will raise this topic. They are sure that evolution is "true". They have no idea that the *gradual* evolution that Darwin originally proposed, for instance, is long dead and that there are real issues in the details of the current state of the theory. There is simply no reasonable way, in a normal conversation, with most secular people, to come to any nuanced discussion on the topic. Doing so would require vast amounts of research, probably by both parties, in the course of which everyone would get in way, way, way over their heads.
So, while I completely support christian scientists looking into alternatives, and I will defend secular scientists doing their research, I have found it singularly unproductive to attempt this debate with "the man on the street". So, yes, for me, w.r.t. most people, I am completely in the "it doesn't matter" camp. My position, or your position, or anybodies position on evolution, will not change anything. But the question "who is Jesus?", and the answer that someone comes to has profound consequences.
While I agree that it can be difficult to have nuanced conversation on this topic, especially given that it is dominated by the loud extremes... However, I think this is precisely part of the reason it is critical to create places of better dialogue within the church. I think that you are too charitable to actual church realities as well as the power of perceived realities... I think that my example of the Regent professor being uninvited to speak highlights the lack of charity in this area let alone serious engagement. I am aware of other significant (full on church conflict and people leaving) over this issue in the GVRD within the past 2 years. We are talking about what is happening in Canada not the USA!
Delete"Theory" in the scientific community is not mere guess work or random hypothesis it is an explanation that connects large swathes of information and is also able to make accurate predictions regarding other expected implications which can be verified... This is the case with evolutionary theory.
As I try and present, what is at stake is whether one engages and seeks truth with integrity or not, which I think has profound impact and consequences... I think it is naive to think that our lack of engagement on this subject does not profoundly impact particularly young people...
>I am aware of other significant (full on church conflict and people leaving) over this issue in the GVRD within the past 2 years.
DeleteI would still reiterate that "Scientists inside the church are largely ostracised" is overstating the case. Your counter examples are specific w.r.t. evolutionary science, for which I conceded at the outset there is indeed a lot of acrimony (on both sides).
> I think this is precisely part of the reason it is critical to create places of better dialogue within the church.
In the sense that the church, certainly as a whole, needs to do better at integrating current scientific thought on the topic, I agree.
>I think it is naive to think that our lack of engagement on this subject does not profoundly impact particularly young people...
And that point I will readily concede. I'm sure you have a much better estimate on such impacts than I do.
>I would still reiterate that "Scientists inside the church are largely ostracised" is overstating the case. Your counter examples are specific w.r.t. evolutionary science, for which I conceded at the outset there is indeed a lot of acrimony (on both sides).
DeleteOk. I will concede I am probably overstating things. I am making the assumption that scientists generally are aware of the scientific evidence for evolution... Further, I suggest that the church ostracises scientists, which implies intentionality. Rather I should have said that scientist commonly or at least not uncommonly feel ostracised within the church. Furthermore, the distinction that we are speaking of the "evangelical church" should be stipulated, given the catholic and orthodox church seem currently to be much more positive and integrative of science...
I feel compelled to point out what I feel is a rather important error in this entry: namely that Darwin was a Christian. Darwin renounced his faith in his later years, and died an agnostic - possibly even an atheist - but not a believer.
ReplyDeleteMy own studies of evolution and natural selection are what led to my questioning of a divine creator. I tried for years to reconcile my beliefs with the facts of evolution, and in the end, I failed. My question came down to trying to figure out where God "fit" if science could provide the answers to our existence. After all, if evolution and natural selection are a scientific fact (I dislike the word theory, as it carries an unwarranted assumption that it is unproven), then what was there for a creator to do?
If life (or even the universe for that matter) can spring forth without divine intervention - and science gives us reasons to believe that it did - then what need is there to bring a creator into the equation? And why assume that creator is YHWH? Why not any one of the multitude of gods posited by the creation myths of other faiths? In the end, I didn't feel that there was any more evidence that YHWH created the universe and all the things in it than there was that Allah or Brahma did it.
And if we presuppose that YHWH was the cause of the universe's existence and set evolution into motion, does that not raise the issue of what created YHWH? It brings us to an infinite regress - I know that Christian theology and the bible tell us that YHWH has always existed, but I do not find this notion to be very intellectually satisfactory, rather, it feels deeply unsatisfactory instead.
I found after a great deal of research and study that science provided the answers to our existence in a manner that did not require a creator to exist at all. I find those answers to be much more intellectually stimulating and well, honest, than those I believed when I was a Christian.
The church did not provide the setting I needed to find the answers I sought. Sermons on the topics of science - and in particular evolution - are exceptionally rare, and frequently heavily biased and misinformed. So I turned to scientists (who turned out to be primarily secular) to find the answers I was looking for. Now I find myself a non-believer and would describe myself as being in the unenviable position of being a church-attending-closet-atheist. I apologize for this rather long-winded treatise on my gradual (perhaps even evolutionary?) de-conversion from Christianity, and would like to thank you for providing me with an outlet for my thoughts.
Thank you for using the "outlet", and deeper gratitude to your honesty.
DeleteThank you for that clarification re: Darwin. I am not a Darwin expert. However, there is a prevalent opinion perpetuated by both Dawkins and CreationScience people that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. My point, though perhaps not well made, is that this is not historically accurate, nor is it an intellectual necessity.
DeleteI am glad that our blog has provided space for your confession... Your story, is in my estimation, not particularly uncommon. As per my post, the church has either avoided or been combative toward science, particularly evolutionary science for the 80 years or so...
the nuance of the word theory or fact is warranted and difficult as one attempts to translate scientific reality into common conversation. Needless to say I am aware that evolutionary theory is spectacularly robust in its ability to both explain and predict natural phenomena. I am willing to affirm the label fact regarding it validity. I am using theory in the scientific sense...
You ask wonderful and difficult questions... I do not claim to have answers. However, I would suggest that while evolution may have raised these questions for you it does not inherently raise these questions or at least not uniquely. This in no way negates the difficulty or validity of the questions such as what does God do? Who created YHWH? Why YHWH and not something/one else? But these question have been around since before evolution. Evolution is merely descriptive of material realities. We are required to interpret meaning and implications, of which there are many and none which can claim universal certainty.
You suggest that science provides answers to existence that do not require a creator. I am not sure this is entirely tenable since science is limited in its consideration to the material world. Therefore, science is unequipped to ask the question... In fact there is significant evidence that modern science is founded (was made possible) by the the Judaeo/Christian theological doctrine of creation specifically, which allowed for and validated the study of God's good creation as had never been tenable in Greek thought (foiled by mistrust of material, concern with essences and teleological causes), this was prominently put forward by Michael Foster (Foster thesis), who was not a Christian at the time.
Anyway, as I have said I am deeply saddened that the church is commonly not a place which allows or encourages truth seeking, questioning or study... something that I want to affirm and encourage in all people.
Thank you for your comment.
I don't know if this is what instigated this post for you Duncan, but this topic is top of the Christian Internet Debates right now. It is a world I try to avoid a lot of the time, but I was drawn into reading a few blogs.
ReplyDeleteThe recent instigator: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/02/07/reasons-to-believe-in-a-historical-adam/
and two responses: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/02/ten-really-bad-reasons-to-believe-in-a-historical-adam.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/02/thoughts-on-kevin-deyoungs-restless-comments-on-the-historical-adam/
K,
ReplyDeleteI hold to a literal 7 day creation a literal reading of Gen. but I don't hold to a young earth
So now that Ive made my bias clear for me this whole thing really comes down to our own motivation
I'd be willing to believe the God used evolution as the means if it can be proven our motivation in doing so isn't born out of own own insecurity or desire to look smart in the eyes of the world. Most of the time when I hear this kind of conversation I hear things like its irrational to believe that the earth was created in 7 days or it doesn't line up about what we know how nature works. Sometimes it sounds to me that we are trying too hard to look like we can be just as intelligeint, just as scienfic and just as "cool" as our peers who don't share our faith.
So for example, " There's no way I hold to a 7 day account because it goes against the way nature works"
Fair but then again we believe a 2,000 year old dead guy was beaten to a boldy pulp, whipped till his back was reduced to raw ground beef, hung on a tree and then rose again three days later. How is that any easier to believe scienfically then a 7 day creation? It seems like there is a little bit of a fallacy there. So when I hear arguments against a 7 day creation I question motivation. is it because we don't want to be riduculed for what we believe or is it because we actually think it happened that way.
I'd be willing to accept this view if our motivation in doing so is correct because if we have the wrong motivation - we could take all the supernatual events of the bible to be firgative including the reserection
Second where science is not empircally verfied my leaning is to hold to the biblical account the way it has held until proven otherwise. Our understanding in the sciences is ALWAYS changing evolution included. Our understanding of history is always changing to and I feel like if we always let the lastest theory intpret how we read the bible then we don't let the story speak what orginally meant. For example scholars used argue that the Bible could not be accurate because cities like Jericho and Niveeh didn't have any acheological evidence they existed. Decaded later they found what appeared the remains of city. So now at least in that specific passage the bible was true to history.
I feel like our understanding of evolution in relation to the Bible is simialar
For example a few decades ago they used think life was really fragile. But on the last appolo mission they went to retrive some of the equipment they left on the moon. When they returned they noticed there was frozen bacteria on some of the equipment. Someone had sneezed on the equiipment before it was lunched into space. So it was a assumed that because it had been in space so life it was remain dead, but as soon as it was back on earth again it came alive again. thus showing the durability of life in hostile conditions. Therofically life on this planet could have started from a planet millions and millions of light years away which is a far cry from Dawin's idea. My point is if we go this route we will always be changing what the narrative means because we don't fully know what could have happened and i think is dangerous and we'd be better off in saying the narrative was wrong in the first place because our understanding of evolution is always changing - what if an entirely new theory was submitted - would we be willing to change a agin
ReplyDeleteBecause of the ever constant changes of scienfic disciplines like history, evolution, and phycology and Im hesitant to make them the grib to which we intrpet the bible and would stick to a intrpreation that is more tradional
ReplyDeleteFor me there are two many variables two many questions and to put my weight fully on this view. I'd be more willing to say the whole Christianiity doesn't have any weight to before I said this because at least rationally is the is more likely for that to be accurate than trying to marry the two.
ReplyDeleteYou have so many loop holes Which branch of evolution doe you use to marry the creation narrative? Darwins? Genetic Material from another planet? String theory and people from another reality doing experments on a life less earth? You see in that sense it would become impossible to understand the metphaor because we don't have a firm grasp on a point of reference. Our understanding of the universe is always changing so the narrative and what the figurative metaphor means nows could be different than what it means 50 years from now when we have a better understanding of evolution
So until I feel like our motivation isn't made because we don't want to look stupid and we have ane evolutionary model that is a little more constant in terms on how it played out I would rather stick to a 7 day creation and be willing to look stupid for it.
Just one more thought.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about this some more. I started to wonder if ancient Jews you know back in Jesus' day and older read it literally or firguratilely. When I looked into it I found in modern day Judaism the same divercity we have in Christianity. But I also found that anciet Jews did read it literally.
Consider Paul James-Griffiths who has a B.A. in ancient history with classical studies from the University of Leicester, and a P.G.C.E. from the University of London. Consider his findings"
ReplyDeleteI turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.
In fact, in the preface it says, “Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.” Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal, imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological mysticism known as the Kabbala.
.
I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days.
In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hourof the creation of Adam on the sixth day! But here they delved way beyond the information in the text. The Talmud says, “In the first hour his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second it was kneaded into a shapeless mass; in the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into him . . .”. But on Day 6, God created all the animals and brought them to Adam to name, then created Eve (Genesis 2:18–24).
Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13
My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal.
My point in citing this isn't to "prove" creation rather its to show that at least in ancient Judaism there is enough historical evidence to support that a vast majority of them did in fact read it literally.
ReplyDeleteIf that in fact changing the gernre to be firgurative some 1,000 plus years later because we are enlightent in evolution doesn't change the fact that in history, before jesus, during Jesus and even a little bit after Jesus - people took it literally.
If ancient Judaism did infact read it literally than I think changing it to a firgrative nartive changes the intent and meaning about how ancient Judiam wanted furture genereations to read it.
So I think that places in an interesting spot. If the story was meant to read literally and we don't think it's literal i think we should say it never really happened instead of making it firgurative any ancient story should be read in the context of what meant to THEM. NOT US. I feel it would better hold the historical integrity to say they the ancients took it literally and were wrong because we now know creation happened through evolution than to say we can maryy them. I think the argument that the whole narrative was taken littealy is a farse is a little more rationally believeable than to say its firgative at least from anthopolical propective.
For me i would rather side would an athiesm view before a marry of the two just because its more rational ( I don't but the idea of marrying them kind of feels like there is not enough weight there to hold it as a third option)
Dan,
Deletepart of my post's point was to point out the danger of binary thinking in this area... So I am disappointed that you maintain rhetorically that it is more coherent to become an atheist than believe in evolution. I disagree. I have previously posted my some of my thoughts on Genesis here: http://smokemirrorsandcigarettes.blogspot.com/2011/08/cyoa-genesis-1-dupes-and-troglodytes.html and would continue to appeal to numerous Old Testament Biblical Scholars of a variety of theological persuasion that the these texts are not interested in answering scientific questions and that trying to use them to do so is literary abuse. Furthermore, to compare Gen. 1-11 and Gospels and in some fashion suggest that they depend on each other and either validate or invalidate each other is simply not good history. One is a record of events that stand within recorded history and were recorded in close proximity to to they events described. The other is according to tradition a revelation from Mt. Sinaia. In my opinion it is an origin myth in the tradition of other origin myths but with distinct theological difference and nuance. Either way it is totally different. The whole 7 days make sense culturally not scientifically or theologically, to confuse these is, in my opinion, a category error. I am not trying to be "cool" I am trying to be honest and engage the real world that God has given us, and allow and encourage others to do the same. "Faith seeking understanding." I think we need to be VERY CAREFUL about binaries and RHETORICAL bullying that argues if you believe this you must believe this or if you can't accept this you have to reject that... A) this is rarely the case B) it is surprisingly persuasive C) even if two thing are in tension that does not necessarily mean that it it intellectual appropriate or a demonstration of integrity to release or resolve the tension... Christianity loves paradox: faith/doubt, God/man, hope/fear, now/not yet... We all live in tensions and paradox both internally and externally all the time...
I am PRECISELY frustrated by the tendency in evangelicalism to push people to atheism when they disagree with them... THIS REALITY, which your comments highlights, is what I think is MOST problematic as well as unfaithful to both the larger Christian community both globally and historically.
Final note: I love the idea of days relating to sacrifices, since I understand Gen. 1 as temple construction... (I am not suggesting it means something other than day, just that its a theological myth).
a couple thoughts
ReplyDelete1) My comments weren't directed at you personally. I don't think you're trying to be "cool" However I do feel most people opt for this third view so they don't look stupid or to gain intellectual creditably with their peers. It's not just what we believe its why. so even if is the best view and we choose it for the wrong reason. its the wrong choice. we still going to look dumb to people because we believe sticks become snakes. axe head floats - people can be thrown into a furance and still live and final can rise from the dead.
you're right to say the bible doesn;t seek to talk about science I would totally agree with that. but how far do you take that. The issue is even if we believed the whole creation story was a myth based upon that guideline you'd have to assume that every other supernatual. My problem with this view is that its not developed enough to be an option. so to me it feels like a bail out. For example, people would say the creation story is a myth because the big bang teaches us that the earth took longer than 7 literal days to make therfore the creations account cannot be taken literally
Fine. I will agree with that. However Science also teaches us that people don't rise from the dead so do we discount that too? You see in this third option there is a question that has gone unanswered. What makes it go to disagree with science on something like the resurrection but we be in total agreement with something like evolution? Whats the critera for when affirm science in one area and bucking against it another. Listen Duncan, I'm trying to come at this from a critical point of view - a view that would state the whole Christian narrative from beginning to end is a myth.
Someone who looks at that wouldn't be impressed with this view or think we very intellegent because the fundamental flaw they point out is we are picking and choosing what laws of sciences we hold to and which are not. There needs to be well artiuclaed guidline as to why its okay to agree with science here but not here and its just not there
You could say that the creation was always meant to a myth but then the critical view would also buck at that because they would point out that 1 centurar Judaism did in fact read it has if those events happened literally just we believe the gospels happened. The issue is so much of the Christian narrative is built upon 1 centurday Judaism taking Gen 1 literally. So for example because we know most Jews took it literally as early as 70 AD and Romans was written within that generation is reasonable to assume that when Paul takes about death beginning in Adam he was writing for the view point that it was literal. If we now say its a myth the entire narrative changes again because Paul thought it was literally and he clearly mistaken - in which case where in the narrative did we experience spiritual death since adam, eve and the tree never really happened. Even if you could prove it was taken figuratively as some point maybe even hundreds of years before Jesus Jews took it literally and how story is based on their story. I don't like this view because out of all three of them it has to work the hardest to plug the most holes
So Duncan its not like I would be opposed this. In fact I really, really ,really want to hold to this and maybe I would, if it was more developed Here's what I would need to see happen inside this camp in order for me to back as part of the Christian narrative
ReplyDelete1) A willingness to look stupid - This shows to me we are trying to be rational but not insecure
2) A uniform and constant understanding of evolution and the big bang. Evolution today is vastly different Darwins theory even though current evolutionary models were based on his work. I would like to see a evolutionary model that hasn't changed in a few years. Just today for example ctv ran a news story on dark matter and how it has changed our understanding of how galaxies are formed
3) A clear thought out reason why its okay to affirm science in one area but not the other
4)A thought out exmplantion as to why 1st century Judaism took it literally and why its okay that we break with that tradition.
5) A new Christian narrative to explain the holes in the old story.
You talk a lot about black and white. and rhetoric. My questions aren't rhetorical they demand a thought out answer. Really, why is okay here but not here? And yes I would agree with that its not always black and white but for me in this case its a little more believable to state the the story was originally meant to be taken literally and they got it wrong. I don't think thats bullying I just think its more rational than marrying the two and living in the dualism that Christians are famous for that's all.
I think there are the least holes in this view. Although I admit it still leaves and creates questions, but I think they are better questions than in other perspectives.
DeleteI don't think a uniform or constant understanding of the science's throughout re:origins is important. Because Science can't touch the questions that Gen 1-11 answers: "who is God?" "why did God create?" "who are we?" and "why were we created?"
As I tried to articulate the boundary between Gen 1-11 and other Biblical accounts is literary. The New Testament gives clear and undeniable witness to a physical resurrection of Jesus. You can deny the resurrection but you cannot deny the text.
You argue from a post enlightenment that Jesus and Paul take all this literally... I am not convinced that this is as tenable as you assert but I will have to do some work on it. At minimum I think we have to acknowledge a different "sense" of "literal" simply based on a different sense of "history" no conception of modern science etc.
The best question here I think is that of a flat earth and the geocentric orbit of the sun which are also Biblical: Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Isaiah 11:12
He will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
There is lots more...
anyway, WHY do we happily say the earth is round and goes around the sun but was created in 7 literal days... One we can see photographs for I admit... but I think there is comparable scientific evidence assert and old earth and evolutionary process, fossil record, geology etc. Furthermore, even if there wasn't I would still assert that the text is not communicating concrete history or interested in scientific questions of origins but rather theological ones... Am I saying none of it happened? no... just that we understand as mythic oral tradition rather than concrete physical scientifically provable history and be more willing to dialogue with science.
Furthermore, Augustine, writing in the third century, already argued it cannot be "literal" because God all mighty would not require time to create and therefore the 7 days must be getting at something else...
Just because we do not currently think something is "rational" doesn't mean we have to be reductionistic ESPECIALLY when we are comparably uneducated on the subject (i.e. evolutionary science) and allow Richard Dawkins rather than our brothers and sisters at BioLogos to define our categories... Our personal ability to comprehend or synthesize should not define whether things are universally right, wrong or whatever... We must be willing to engage in non belligerent dialoge that avoids pushing people into categories and genuinely seeks mutual understanding and the meaning of the text... this requires openness and must necessarily avoid creating predetermined outcomes of faith and atheism related to particular readings.
Deletethat's fair. but I don't think you can apply that to every situation where the bible and science seem to be at impass. cleary people don't raise from the dead, yet we somehow suspend science for this but say it it applies everywhere we can't explain why the two don't match.
ReplyDeleteAlso I agree that relgion and science ask different questions. - but that doesn't really answer anything. Relgion asks purpose a who is God and Science asks how things work. I totally agree with you there. but its still puts you in the same place when they overlap. Its where the two diciplines overlap that we have the issue - not the overall purpose of the studies. So for example Jesus is the answer to who God is because he raised from the dead.(who is God?) Science - dead people don't come back to life after three days (How do Humans age? What is the typical life cycle of a human?) - you see its where the overlap occurs where the conflict arises. that's why I don't think the explanation of science and region asking different questions is good enough because they do overlap and sometimes they conflict even though they are asking different questions.