Kevbo

In answer to the original post, I would just say that an undefined God is possible but not necessary. Anyone can give a "reason" for evolution, but must agree on the mechanism which is observed. We can determine how the process of organic evolution works, but beyond that ascribing any reason to the process is speculative and anyone's guess.

Apikorus

CJD, I enthusiastically approve of your attempts to rescue the Bible from fundamentalism. But it cannot be rescued from its own plain sense. When you say that "the Scriptures portray God as sustaining the cosmos, not 'interfering' with it," I wonder how you must interpret the story of Joshua at Gibeon, when Joshua requests that Yahweh arrest the movements of the sun and moon until his army could overwhelm the Amorites.

You remarked that "I am not sure that the bible is 'provably incorrect' on anything." Would you say the same of The Iliad, the Mahabharata, the Qur'an, the Bundahisn, etc.? What about Herodotus?

An example: while I myself am favorably inclined toward a literary reading of Genesis 1 (Gen 1-11 contains a great deal of mythic aetiology), according to Gen 1, the sun and moon were both created on the fourth day. The notion that the sun and moon were created on the same day, and in particular that the sun was created after the earth began to sprout grass and trees, is of course ludicrous from a scientific point of view, and it seems inconceivable that "another Pasteur" will arise to reconcile this bit of scripture with astrophysics. (Of course, it is quite unreasonable to presume that the P author, writing ~2500 years ago, would know anything about modern physics.)

You also commented on how the gospels, the exodus, and the flood narrative read "like historical narratives". The same could be said for the Homeric epics. Indeed we know that there really was a Troy (Schliemann rediscovered it). But what historical value do you assign to The Iliad?

It seems quite likely to me, from a reading of the Hebrew Bible, that the biblical authors did indeed think that their world was flat, that the sun moved around the earth in a herky-jerky motion (see Qohelet 1), and various other things we now know to be irrefutably incorrect. Why should this be a surprise?

Regarding the morality of the scriptures, certainly the Hebrew Bible and New Testament contain moral instruction which many recognize as valuable even today. But such instruction was hardly unique to the HB and NT; similar - even identical - sentiments can be found in other ancient near eastern literature, and in many examples predating the HB. Furthermore, there are some rather troubling passages from the Bible to wrestle with, particularly in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Numbers 31, Yahweh commands Moses to avenge the Israelites of the Midianites. When the war party initially returns victorious, Moses chides them for having left alive the women and children, and specifically instructs them to go back and kill all the male children and the women who are not virgins. Indeed even among the Israelites, Yahweh's justice (in the preexilic texts) was exceedingly harsh. E.g. in the Achan pericope in Joshua 7, or in the Levite/Reubenite revolt in the (conflate) Numbers 16, children are killed for the sins of their fathers or grandfathers. The facile, knee-jerk apologetic response that those were "bad people" just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

At any rate, it seems to me that if there were a God, and if he were concerned with the affairs of humans and wanted to tell them about the creation of the Universe (for whatever reason), then we should expect that this God would be forced to communicate with us on terms we could understand. If a child asks his mother where babies come from, she might respond with a story which is in part technically incorrect (e.g. saying that babies live in "mommy's tummy" or even "mommy's stomach" before they are born), but still serves to communicate some essential facts. This might be the case even if mommy is an embryologist -- she isn't obligated to tell the whole story, or even to be unswervingly truthful. So it seems silly that non-fundamentalist defenders of the Bible would deny that not every bit of scripture is scientifically or even historically correct.

The crucial difference between God and the scientist mother is that the child learns how to interpret his mother's meaning through continued interaction. We have no continued scriptural interaction with the notional biblical God. Believers often profess to experience a direct connection to this God, but the biblical canon itself is closed. We have no more objective documentation of what is claimed to be God's message to mankind. The only thing which gives the Bible continuing life in the "faith community" is its association with various traditions - Orthodox Jewish, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc.

Bede

Apikorus,

I would agree with your analysis but we need to be careful about judgements about what was and was not believed or what was and was not intended literally. The creation stories are sufficiently poetic to allow a non-literal interpretation or else that they be considered in the way Plato saw his Timaeus - as a best guess based on accepted truths. I am not sure the biblical writer was attempting to be dogmatic but rather he set up a framework within which readers can admire God's handy work. You mention thinking the Hebrew writers probably thought the earth was flat. This may be true but we must remember that Luke almost certainly knew the earth was a sphere but is happy to tell the story of Jesus seeing the earth laid out like a carpet before him. The spherical earth has been a non-contentious point for nearly all Christians at all times and I am not at all sure that the bible provides enough material to argue with. Certainly, all such arguments have been treated with contempt by even the earliest Christian thinkers.

While Hawking Fan's points are not really worth bothering with, it is interesting to note that the 'scientific' content of the bible has always been matter of discussion. As long ago as the 12th century William of Conches could describe a literal reading of Genesis 1 as absurd and commentaries on this text that attempt to explain it with reference to Aristotle almost always side with the philosopher over the bible on physical reality (except for the point on the eternity of the earth where they had Plato on their side). There are extremely subtle and learned ancient and medieval analyses of the biblical text that insist on theological truth while always allowing for the text being a product of every day language. I think CJD is on stronger methodological foundations than you give him credit for.

It is ironic that some of the least nuanced readings of the bible are also the most recent. More ironic that they are often championed by athiests.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Hawkingfan

You don't know if it was intended literally or not. I don't find the creation stories "poetic" at all. You are purposely labelling them "poetic" in order to excuse yourself from debating about the scientific absurdities. You are unnecessarily equating "poetic" with "non-literal". Even if the intentions were poetic, the writer could have, and should have been scientifically accurate. Since this is "god-breathed" scripture, that would have been very easy to do. Otherwise, you need to show how and why each and every scientific absurdity could not have been said any other way because it would have detracted from the poetic quality of the account. I think the account would just have been as poetic in at least the correct chronological order.
Please give the scripture reference for that statement.
Why aren't my points worth bothering with?
"The scientific content of the bible has always been matter of discussion"? No shit? Really? You're kidding.
On the contrary, saying that there are no contradictions in the bible because the bible is "poetically written" or "written from a theological standpoint" is cliche.

Apikorus

Bede, what I object to is the contention that the Bible presciently contains knowledge of modern science, in either explicit or encoded form. As a scientist and an enthusiast of ancient near eastern history and literature, I find nothing particularly noteworthy about the Bible in this regard. Apologists, fettered by confessional stance, are uneasy about drawing such conclusions. To them, the Bible must somehow be special since it is, or contains, the "word of God".

My challenge to anyone who believes that 21st century science is alluded to in the pages of the Bible is this: If the Bible does contain prescient references to 21st century science, then it should also contain prescient references to 24th century science. Please identify these passages!

Regarding the shape of the earth, Aristarchus of Samos, in the third century BCE, not only knew the earth was spherical, he measured its diameter relative to other cosmic distances such as the solar diameter and the earth-moon separation (he was a good geometer, but his measurements were imprecise). Aristarchus also held in a heliocentric solar system.

Why do you think Luke conceived of the earth as a sphere?

Bede

Apikorus,

Actually, I agree and see your point. Essentially commentators are doing theology which is, understandably, not so much the subject that interests you. Still, I am not sure CJD was claiming we can find 21st century science in the bible but rather assuming that when the bible conflicts with this it must be allegorical in intent. That is not a sound critical methodology.

On the spherical earth, it was held by Plato and Aristotle and everyone else after them - well before Aristarchus. Whether he actually believed in the heliocentric hypothesis he suggested is unknown - the surviving treatise you refer to uses a geocentric system. Luke was an educated Greek so would have almost certainly have believed the earth a sphere. It was not controversial or even up for discussion at the time. There were a couple of nut balls who believed in a flat earth but apparently there still are today.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

CJD

In brief, I'd like to respond to the methodological questions.

I do not think that modern sciences are alluded to in the Scriptures. That is why I harped so much on the fundamentalist hermeneutic to begin with. I believe science and theology meet, as it were, at the top, by speaking about the same things differently. They are complimentary, not in harmony. The former allows the bible to speak about what it solely purports to speak about--theology. The latter, however, presupposes that wherever an author in Scripture says anything about the realm of phenomena, then that must be smashed into modern science, as if theology and science are saying the same things about the same things. You will see in my view little concern for that relatively recent concept of "inerrancy," while my identity is wrapped-up in the notion that the Scriptures are "infallible."

Let's apply this to what I have written previously in the thread. If the creation account in Genesis 1 is indeed recounted in a literary framework, then 1) the obvious chronological absurdities are relieved, which 2) enable just about any scientific "discoveries" to compliment my theological worldview (as opposed to contradict). This is not as willy-nilly as, "Oops, there's a conflict with science in this passage, I guess it's allegorical." I would rather think it is a bit more studious than that. I actually have yet to start from the scientific problem, usually having my hands full with the supposed internal inconsistencies, not to mention the difficulty of Hebrew-English equivalence.

It also seems to me that the ones who believe that the bible contains prescient references to 21st century science are largely of the fundamentalist stock. And I agree with Bede that it "is ironic that some of the least nuanced readings of the bible are also the most recent. More ironic that they are often championed by athiests." But our chronological snobbery cannot look past its nose on this one.

By the way, Apikorus, thanks for responding to me (as opposed to some preconceived antipathy); some others in this thread should take note.

Regards,

Hawkingfan

I think that that is his position as well. But it is an established fact that the creation account is scientifically incorrect. It is not an established fact that it is allegorical. That is only an assertion. I think he still has to prove exactly how non-chronological=theologically correct and chronological=theologically incorrect. He has to prove that non-chronological=poetic and chronological=non-poetic. He cannot just make those assertions. There is no necessity for the poetry. Because of the poetry, many people do not believe the account. There is no evidence that the writer of Gen 1 knew that what he was writting was scientifically incorrect.
Another unproved assertion, but it was Matthew who implied that the earth was flat anyway. And John, Isaiah, and Job, too.

Hawkingfan

This is a generalized statement. How differently? Just because theology mentions the earth, or the sun, or the moon, etc..., doesn't mean it "meets" with science. Unless, what do you mean by "meets"?
I don't see how it's complimentary at all. Science does not credit god with making anything. The bible does (either poetically or non-poetically). That allegorical and theological standpoint is anything but complimentary. Again, just mentioning objects studied in science does not make it compliment science.
Where exactly does the bible say that "it purports to speak about theology"? Is saying that birds walk on all fours and insects have four legs theological? Is saying that a rabbit chews its cud theological?
You mean "excused". And no they aren't. What law says that anyway? I think that is nonsense. literary=chronological absurdities are ok?
You can claim that all you want and believe it to be very, very "scholarly", but you have yet to prove it without biased assertions based on opinions.
You keep saying that, but it's not.
Well thank God for theological snobbery, then! Whew!

Apikorus

CJD, thank you for your reply. I'm still curious as to what lies behind your statement that "I'm not sure the Bible is 'provably incorrect' on anything." Again, would you say the same of the Mahabharata, the Qur'an, the Bundahisn, or the Book of Mormon? What about the Iliad? Thucydides?

Another point was your statement that the gospels, exodus, and flood narratives read "like historical narratives". Again, the same could be said of the Homeric epics, and indeed there may well be some remote historical core to Homer. Most archaeologists, as you surely know, consider the exodus to be of dubious historicity. There may have been some historical core to it, but the scale of events reported in the Pentateuch seems impossible to reconcile with the material record.

Could you also please expound on the distinction between "inerrant" and "infallible"?

It seems to me that Bede's observation regarding unnuanced atheist readings of the Bible is a gigantic straw man. My own (atheist's) interpretive lens is informed by the work of scholars like Jacob Milgrom, Jeffrey Tigay, John Collins, Moshe Weinfeld, Jack Sasson, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Robert Alter, Baruch Levine, P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Claus Westermann, Alexander Rofe, Walter Zimmerli, and dozens of others. Which of these is guilty of unnuanced readings? I suspect Bede was referring to internet pablum like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. But why is that relevant?

You mentioned struggles with Hebrew-English equivalence. Ata yodea likro ivrit?