I’ve said it many times before: creationism is just wrong, and one group that should be fighting it hardest is Christians. They are letting a vocal minority usurp their religion, and if they don’t speak up they run the risk of letting those people speak for them.
Some Christians are doing something about it: they’re celebrating Darwin Day, specifically to marginalize goofy creationists.
Yay!
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
February 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
No- the creationists are the ones who believe in their religion.
These Christians are trying to make a compromise between the Bible and modern science, which will ultimately fail, because the Bible is essentially at odds with the theory of evolution. None of us should pretend otherwise.
Darwin Day is a great idea- but it needs to be a secular event- not a reason for so-called moderate Christians to feel good about themselves.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
christian:
i am a christian and an evolutionist and do not see the two at odds with each other. i am also a pastor and theologian and love astronomy. i don’t know why you would think that i’m making a compromise when actually it fits fine in my worldview. furthermore, it’s a shame you’d be exclusive enough to not allow me to share commonality in your world when in fact there are many interests that we undoubtedly share : including enjoying BA!
February 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Christianity isn’t about literal truth in a Book, nor is Islam or any belief system.
Most Christians realise this, but there are a vocal minority of Ignorant Nutbags who refuse anything they cannot understand.
Also, you don’t have to be Christian to enjoy the stories of Compassion contained in the New Testament; you don’t have to be Islamic to enjoy the poetry in the Quran; you don’t have to be a child to learn about life through the Fables of Aesop.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Stu,
Maybe I was a little harsh- but the cosmology of the Bible just cannot be reconciled with modern science.
I’m not at all exclusive. The more people who take an interest in science the merrier. I just don’t think science should be promoted from a semi-religious perspective- however well-intended.
Dan,
You’re wrong. The Bible is intended to be read as literal truth. I agree that others can enjoy parts of it as philosophy or good story-telling- but that’s got nothing to do with its religious aspects.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
christian:
i appreciate your comments. and i’ve had to discard the cosmology but not the truth that underpins the myth which is an entirely different thing altogether, that’s something that provides a deep sustenance for me, and oftentimes in combination with science.
i’m not sure what you mean though by semi-religious?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Stu:
‘Semi-religious’, because it’s not clear to me how much of Evolution Sunday is motivated by faith and belief (i.e. religious motivations) and how much is motivated by scientific evidence. It wasn’t meant as a slur.
Oh, and if you’re calling the cosmology found in the Bible a myth- then why did you choose to be a Christian pastor?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
There are a lot of parts of the Bible that even fundies don’t interpret strictly literally. The parables of Jesus, for one. I am a Christian, and I believe fully that the Bible is divinely inspired and thus infallable. However, when the reality staring you in the face is at odds with your interpretation of the Bible, the solution is not to deny reality but to rather change your interpretation. That’s what the majority of Christians have done. It’s just a small sect of American Protestants that continue to believe the young-earth, literal six-day nonsense.
Some of the greatest scientists in history were deeply religious men. Look at Mendel, for one. The idea that religion itself is somehow opposed to rationality simply isn’t born out by the historical facts. (Though I do freely admit that religious belief itself is not something that can be rationally justified. It’s a matter of personal conviction.) I believe that science is the study of the universe as God created it, and I think that modern science has revealed a universe more beautiful than even the most fanciful man-made stories could speak of. I’m not making some “watchmaker” argument, though. They’ll never be scientific “proof” of God, and that’s fine with me.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
arcraig,
You are trying to have it both ways.
Either the Bible is infallible and modern cosmology is 99% wrong- or modern cosmology has got it mostly right and the Bible is at best a fairy tale.
Your solution seems to be to read the Bible as a parable, in which you can pick and choose which bits to believe in. That’s fine- but is there such a thing as an infallibly true parable, which by definition is a ’story’- not the actual truth?
February 10th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“Either the Bible is infallible and modern cosmology is 99% wrong- or modern cosmology has got it mostly right and the Bible is at best a fairy tale.”
False dichotomy. The bible is infallible, but it is intended to convey spiritual and theological truths, not scientific ones.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
christian:
thanks for clearing up ’semi-religious’ for me. but it you are separating faith and belief from science, which is not what i do. but that’s where our worldviews will collide i guess.
in your response to arcraig, i think your dichotomy is false simply because truth in myth is quite different from true things in ’scientific fact’. to confuse the two isn’t helpful to the philosophers and poets…
February 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Stu: There is indeed a poetic truth to the Bible. But equally- there are poetic truths to Harry Potter or Battlestar Galactica.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
The Catholic Chruch, the largest demoniation of Christianity and arguably the standard-barer (if only because its the most organized and structured one, where as many others are not a contiguous organization) has said that evolution is not counter to the belief system. Pope John Paul has cited it. And some theologians have said that it is an example of God’s elegant and beautiful universe.
I personally do not subscribe to the religion and do not buy into their belief system, but I think they they (for once) deserve some credit. It has been said that the Bible is subject to your own interpretation and that some of it may be parable or example, that it is the core message which is important.
In the spectrum of religion, I tend to find this one a bit more sane than the Evangelicals who go around saying “5 days means 5 24 hour days, and you have no right to question my interpretation because that will send you to hell. You dare disagree with the most literal translation? I shall see you burn!”
February 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Christian,
How can a book which was first written in Aramaic (and other mid-eastern languages and dialects), translated into Greek, translated into Latin, translated into German and finally into English be considered to be “literal truth”? Anybody who has tried translating from one language to another, even two languages as closely related as Greek and Latin or German and English, knows that EXACT transliteration, even ONCE is IMPOSSIBLE!
February 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Drbuzz0
Believing in evolution because the Pope says it’s ok is just as irrational as believing in creationism because your preacher tells you it’s the truth.
I don’t think Catholics deserve any respect for their ‘belief’ in evolution. I’d prefer they decided for themselves based on available evidence.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Kaptain K:
That’s not my problem, because I’m not religious.
I do know that a physics book is just as true/false when translated into Gailic or any other language.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Christian I’m an agnostic former and Mormon myself. while I much prefer the skeptical and scientific view of the world I don’t see what the problem with people of faith allowing science into their lives. lashing out at others because they have faith is pointless and frankly a bit elitist. don’t forget that to be an atheist means that you need faith that there is no higher power, just at christians have faith that there is a god.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Nathan,
Nope- I don’t have any ‘faith’ that there isn’t a god. I just have chosen not to spend my time worshipping an entity for who there’s no evidence.
As the late Linda Smith said, ‘if God had meant us to believe in him- he’d have existed.’
BTW, what kind of God would let the British humorist and humanist Linda Smith die of cancer in middle age?
There’s no problem in Christians learning about science- and I welcome it! But- I do have a problem if the only reason Christians accept some scientific facts is because their pastor/preacher/imam told them to. That’s just as bad as being a creationist.
That’s why I’m uneasy about Evolution Sunday. It’s essentially promoting the idea that religious leaders should instruct their flock that they should believe or have faith in evolution.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Though I’m not a Christian, one of my best friends is. He’s actually a director of music at a local church. His take on Evolution and Christianity, after I told him of a conversation I had with a Christian girl who refuses to take Evolution as any form of truth because she feels that humans couldn’t have “come from slime” is this: “If God decided to make us from slime, then he made us from slime.”
February 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Christian
you are lashing out at people who have faith in something more and their willingness to embrace evolution as a truth, my problem with your post is that you’re putting down their willingness to believe in something more than what science teaches us while taking in the truths that have been discovered through the scientific method.
many people die of cancer and other ailments or injuries using the death of one specific person as proof there is no god is like saying that the world is to complex to not have been designed. it’s an argument meant to evoke an emotional response, not one based on logic.
I don’t know if there is or is not a higher power until I see genuine proof of either then I’ll remain on the fence, until then I will rely on what my own senses tell me and what has been scientifically proven. I will not however begrudge anyone their faith as long as that faith does not interfere with my choice not to believe.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Yes God could have made us from whatever, but the question is what did he say that he did.
This is a contrary train of thought that it is the theory of evolution that does not fit with the evidence, and some Christians may not be aware of this view point.
The pure naturalistic origins has a number of issues to address such as:
Abiogenesis – Never shown to occur
Multicellular Gap – We have single cell annimals and then multicel animals, why no 2 or 5 celled animals?
Reliance on genetic mutations to drive it forward, yet mutations are by definiton mistakes in copying, with not a single documented “good” mutation in nature. (Bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is a different mechanism invoving plasmids)
Transitional Fossils – Name one?
Decent of man – “If mankind has evolved from the fossilrecord then he has doneso without leaving a trace in the fossil record” – Dr Stanley Zukerman “Beyond The Ivory Tower”
As for these Christians celebrating Darwin’s day, will they also celebrate how his teachings were used by some to justify some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Sheesh. Don’t you creationists ever come up with claims that haven’t already been refuted, repeatedly? It’s really getting old.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Sticks
Are you trying to say that Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust? Obviously he can’t be, he didn’t leave instructions for the Nazis to go nuts and start killing people that was just pure hatred and intolerance at work without any outside help.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Nathan,
Enough with the personal criticism.
Have fun sitting on the fence- but I prefer chairs.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Sticks:
You disappoint me!
Try reading a book- just about any book about evolution by a half-decent science writer. It’s really not too hard to find answers to most of your questions.
You’ll have a hard time attacking evolution (especially here) if you don’t know anything about it!
Implicating Darwin in 20th century genocides is particularly foolish.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:43 am
And Nathan,
It strikes me that your problem with me is that I don’t see faith as a virtue.
There is nothing virtuous about devoting your life to a religion without evidence. It makes one a fool and a danger to others.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Sticks, you are correct that evolution has a few issues to resolve. However, just becuase it is incomplete does not mean that it is incorrect. Evolution was formulated for the purpose of fitting the data, it started with the works of Darwin and Mendel and was improved as new data was found. So you are incorrect in saying that it does not fit the evidence.
You claimed that man has not left a fossil reecord, but what do you call Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, or Homo Ergaster? You also claim a lack of transistional fossils, yet there have been many examples found, one of the most famous is Archeopteryx. There is also your statement that not one documented genetic mutation has been beneficial. Consider the time period which we have been accurately determining alterations in genetic makeup as compared to the billions of years that life has been in existence. Most mutations are bound to be detrimental, but evolution counts on the minute fraction of beneficial mutations, which may take thousands of years for even one to occur. You also speak of a lack of trasition from single cell to multicellular life. However, sponges only consist of 4 different types of cells. It has been postulated that early on, different types of single celled life grouped together and formed complex dependencies and created the basis for multicellular life (even in humans, mitochondria are a symbiotic life form which we are totally depentent on and vice versa). It may not have been beneficial for only 2 or 3 to work together. And finally, there is the statement of a lock of modern abiogenesis. The simple explanation of this is that the chemical makeup of the Earth today is not conducive to the random generation of life. It has been 4.5 + billion years since the first creation of life. Since then, the Earth has changed dramatically. For example, even as short as 150 million years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere was composed of nearly 50% Oxygen, double what it is today. At that saturation, it was able to sustain extremely large insects and arachnids, which would not be able to get the proper Oxygen today and would die off in less than a generation.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:59 am
XQs me in advance for this being so long………….. but this “woman of faith as well as science” and self-professed heretic – I’m about as liberal as one can be and still be considered a Christian by anyone’s definition, and if you push me hard enough, I’ll admit to being a semi-agnostic in technical terms – just has to pick up this gauntlet!
Christian Burnham says: “The Bible is intended to be read as literal truth.”
Not where this Preacher’s Kid comes from! Christian, you’ve been talking to too many Fundamentalists. (Scary thought, that………..)
There are way too many contradictions and inconsistencies. In the liberal/progressive church I grew up in, we weren’t afraid to talk about those inconsistencies – or to say in so many words that the Bible is not a science book, nor was it ever intended to be.
I’ve known ever since I first learned what a Bible was that it’s flat-out impossible to take the whole thing literally! When was the last time you attended an animal sacrifice? Went to see the local priest because you had a skin rash? Sent a runaway slave back to his owner? Saw anyone get stoned to death? (Actually, there is a lunatic fringe group that wants to go back to stoning people. They’re one sca-a-a-a-a-a-a-ary bunch of weirdos.)
The Bible isn’t one book, but a whole string of them, written over at least a thousand-year span. There are at least 4 main identifiable narrative strands in the Hebrew Scriptures representing different ancient traditions, and about as many in the Gospels. The Bible as we have it today was most definitely cobbled together!
Everyone – and I do mean everyone – picks and chooses, and it’s always been so, even if almost no one wants to admit it. In fact, just about every knockdown-dragout that’s ever happened in church history has been directly due to someone’s mistaken attempt to squash “the whole Bible” into a neat little box, running head-on into someone else’s equally mistaken attempt.
The degree of literalism with which the Bible has been taken (and which parts) has varied all over the map from the very beginning. The brand of hyper-literalism “modern” Fundamentalists go for is a relatively recent and quintessentially “Amurrican” anomaly, and a particularly terrifying one in an otherwise “educated” society.
Jewish tradition divides the scriptures into three parts: the Torah (law and history), the Prophets (history), and the “Writings” (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ruth, etc.) and treats each part differently. Over the millennia, interpretation has been piled on top of interpretation until a “complete” set of the Talmud is enough to fill a respectable-sized library. Take it literally? Which 14 volumes? And which commentator takes precedence? (Hillel is always a safe bet.)
Apropos of the literal creation bull shirt: Genesis includes not one but two accounts of creation, one right after the other. In the second version, God creates Adam, then the plants and animals before getting around to Eve, so Fundamentalists think they have an excuse to bully women. The first account is written in a well-attested poetic form. Nearly all scholars these days take the entire story as allegorical, citing parallels in other mythologies from the region.
The early Christians relied on traveling missionaries and letters to spread the message, and considering the number of writers, the slowness of travel and communication in those days, and the cultural conflict between “Jewish” and “Greek” Christians in a brand-new movement, it’s no wonder there’s so much contradiction in those writings.
There’s a lot of straightforward advice in the Epistles, but even Paul contradicts himself dozens of times, and most reputable scholars these days go so far as to say that Paul didn’t write a lot of the stuff that has his name on it (Hebrews and the Timothy epistles, for instance). The Gospels weren’t written until late in the first century, and they’re not consistent either. Funny how everyone seems to have disagreed on the facts even where Jesus was concerned.
The Christian canon of scripture didn’t gel until the fourth century, after some very nasty wrangling (including a few mutual excommunications) over the hundreds of scriptures then in use (including some pretty freaky gnostic ones) and their interpretation. Revelation (every bloodthirsty Fundamentalist’s favorite!) almost didn’t make it into the compilation at all.
The Catholic Church was strong enough to be able to squash nearly all the controversy, set itself up as the one True Church, dictate scriptural interpretation and even, eventually, to forbid the laity to read the Bible at all. All anyone knew was what the Church told them, and the stuff the Church said to take literally (supposedly based on the Bible) included a lot of pretty strange stuff!
Biblical interpretation took another wild turn with the Reformation, when the emphasis moved to the individual believer’s interpreting the scriptures (with the new Protestant gang throwing out a few books in the process) and salvation by faith as opposed to the Catholic emphasis on good works and the Church’s primacy. Suddenly, what one believed became all-important.
After that, things got pretty wonky. All sorts of churches sprang up all over the place, founded by people for whom “their literalism was better than their neighbors’ literalism.” The various Pietists in particular took such things a bit overboard. Around this time you got the Puritans, Separatists, Presbyterians, and German Pietist groups – Mennonites, Amish, Moravians, etc.
So many of these Pietist groups came to America that our culture was pretty well “loaded” for Pietistic-type religion. All their literalisms were different, and eventually an awful lot of them became as hidebound as the Catholics’ – or more so.
Revivalism (confess your sins, get saved, and be prepared to meet your Maker at any time) is a characteristically American phenomenon that grew out of Pietism and hit its stride in the early-to-mid-1700s. (There were Revivalists in Europe, but not nearly as many. Technically, we got it from an English immigrant preacher, but we were the ones that took and ran with it.)
Mainstream American Christianity took a mildly liberal turn after that, shifting much of its emphasis to charity and social issues (slavery, child labor, public health, etc.) and de-emphasizing inner piety.
Fundamentalism per se – which is rooted in Revivalism – is only a little over a century old, and its offshoot, Pentecostalism (speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor, faith healing, etc.), dates back to a couple of weeks after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 (and may well have been triggered partly by that event; fear is known to be one of the major factors leading to the rise of Fundamentalist movements).
What makes “modern” Fundamentalism different and alarming is that not only does it pick and choose some of the ugliest stuff in the whole Bible to take literally, it insists on extending its hyper-literalism to include science to an unprecedented and incomprehensible degree for an otherwise well-educated society. Some scientific literalism has always been hanging around, but at least among the educated populace it started going by the boards during the Renaissance/Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution. (In fact, some of the most important scientific discoveries of that era were made by clergy members for whom science was a respectable hobby.)
As I said before, everyone – even the most extreme “literalist” – picks and chooses what to take literally. To tell the truth, even I’m a literalist where some things in the Bible are concerned, things like the Golden Rule, the Greatest Commandment (love God, and love your neighbor as yourself), the Sermon on the Mount, the admonition to care for “the least of these,” and some Old Testament goodies like “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God” and “let justice run down like waters….” My rule of thumb is, “If you have to choose, err on the side of compassion and tolerance.”
Now, if only I had half a clue as to why my brother who’s a year younger than me turned out to be a Fundy Mental Case……………
February 11th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Christian
There is a difference between personal criticism and opposing viewpoints.
Telling somebody what they should and shouldn’t believe is wrong, these people are looking to expand their horizons.
It doesn’t matter who you are if your beliefs are different from anothers it does not mean what they have to say or do counts for nothing. if they want to believe in god then let them they’re just trying to maintain faith and science at the same time. at least they’re trying to be open about it instead of the closed minded ID activists out there.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:24 am
anomalous4
The Bible is intended as the word of God. It’s hard to believe that it’s not meant to be taken literally. I’m not religious, so maybe I should bow to your expertise- but what you say seems to go against common-sense. Does the Bible give any indication that it claims anything but the literal truth?
The golden rule predates Christianity. You don’t have to be a Christian to follow that one. In fact- most of what you like about the Bible I also like.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Nathan, it looks like you’re saying Christian should respect the beliefs of religious people, he should be more open-minded and not so mean. Is this right?
[If I messed up those tags, aren't I going to look silly!]
February 11th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Looking at the liberal Christians in my close vicinity, I believe they’re in it more for the social structure than for the scientific content of the Bible. You can pay lip service to the “good book” by calling it infallible, but if that means you have to reinterpret it radically in the face of scientific knowledge, then this infallibility is worthless in practice.
Moreover, as Dawkins pointed out in The God Delusion, the average Christian does not get his moral philosophy from the Bible either. In particular, they pick and choose those stories that seem appropriate, and discard other rules as symbolic, or not applicable. Well, then you have another non-biblical moral compass which determines your choice!
So where does that leave the Bible? Scientifically worthless and morally ambiguous.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Both Christian (ironic name there!) and PK are expressing ideas that were explored in the book “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. Well worth a read, no matter what side of the fence you live on.
Perhaps the most controversial stance in Harris’ book is his indictment of “mainstream” Christians along with the more irational kind. His critique is much like that which PK ascribed to Dawkins (I haven’t read that book). Harris goes on to criticise the more liberal Christians as “enablers” for the Fundamentalists, because the former’s compromised beliefs prevent a more clear-cut denunciation of the latter’s.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:10 am
How Darwinism was used as a philosophy by the Nazis is discussed in This PDF article which runs to 16 pages.
Michael, I did manage to get one citation wrong, about fossil man, it was from Lord Soley Zukerman, who spent 20 years working on the austrolopithicines. some have said that Homo Erectus is so close to modern humans, that they could be moved up iinto the same species. It has been a while since I last looked into this. I did hear that there was some speculation that the Neantherthals (Homo Ergaster?) may have interbred with homo sapien and that their genes still exist today. If that is correct, then that would mean that they were the same species.
With regards to Archaeopteryx, here is a recent article that might be of interest on that one
With regards to abiogenesis, there has been constant speculation of what the early atmosphere could have contained, and experiments based on those speculations like the Urea and Miller experiment in the 1950’s and these have failed to get anything approaching a living organism. Maybe some amino acids, but that is still quite far of from an organism. In addition, that experiment collected the samples in a trap so they would not be destroyed, whilst nature is an open system. The other fly in the oinment is there has been speculation of a possible presence of oxygen, which would be the show stopper as compounds prefer to combine with it, than each other, so you end up getting simpler oxides, rather than the complex organc molecules on which life depends.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:14 am
“…the Greatest Commandment (love God, and love your neighbor as yourself)…”
As a psychiatrist once told me, there is an unwritten commandment in there: Love yourself, because, if you don’t love yourself (and many don’t) you cannot love anybody else!
February 11th, 2007 at 7:58 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinus#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
Saint Augustine … was one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity
Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fountainheads of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace. He is also considered a saint by the Orthodox Churches.
Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:31 am
The simplest statement about god is this: the ONLY way to know the truth of god,,,is to die.
Now, just try to spread that acquired knowledge around,,,
Good luck!
Gary 7
February 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am
“Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.”
Which is what the rabbi’s generally teach…and since the Jews wrote the thing in the first place, perhaps Christians should pay more attention to what they say about it.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:47 am
“Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.â€
So what the Bible says is true unless it is false. At least the logic is impeccable…
February 11th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Hi Guys
Without revealing whether I’m a creationist or evolutionist….it seems to me those two ‘camps’ are happy to rant and yell, but seldom listen to each other.
Interestingly, I think the main problem is that creationists use the Bible as some kind of science handbook (and it isn’t, its religious text of why things are!), and some evolutionists use their science text books as religious text and forget that evolution is a theory – the best thing they accept until the next best thingn comes along.
Seems to me: religion tells us why and science how! I’d not expect to use a microscope to look at distant galaxies, nor a telescope to check my blood cells – different tools for different jobs. Both creationists and evolutionists seem to forget that.
GBY (and yours genetically) Brother Tadhg
February 11th, 2007 at 9:06 am
@PK
True? False? How do you apply such concepts to for example poetry?
It says literally, not true or false.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Within the “how” is the “why.”
February 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Brother Tadhg – I think you need to get a better understanding of the scientific word “Theory.” Also, science is constantly changing and under scrutiny from everyone in the science field, unlike *most* religious beliefs.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
“Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.â€
If only life were that simple, then this could have been put to bed long ago
Unfortunately, the Genesis account is alluded to and supported by other parts of the cannon. Plus the style of Genesis is literal. God could have used the evolutionary scenario given by most here, that is not disputed, but the reason it is said to have been done, according to the YEC interpretation is given in Exodus 20, with the introduction of the Sabbath regulation. The six days of creation and the seventh day of rest was done to set the pattern for the working week.
Well I hope that satisfies my monthly quota for creationism
February 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
@Sticks
Which one of the two mutually excluding creation stories in genesis is the one to meant to be taken literally?
February 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Sticks:
From what I’ve been reading, Darwinism is not the same thing as evolution. It’s also been my experience that people who use the former term in place of the latter tend to be Christian apologists attempting to construct the same old strawperson arguments that scientists have demolished time and again.
Speaking of which … Hitler and the Nazis appropriated Darwin’s theories to support their own predetermined conclusions. That’s hardly Darwin’s fault (who, for his time, was remarkably progressive in his attitudes on the subject of race) and has nothing to do with the field of evolutionary biology as it stands today.
And, speaking of propaganda: I suspect that Evolution Sunday is really nothing more than another misguided attempt to make it seem that there is something scientifically legitimate to (cough, snort, gag) Intelligent Design. “Jesus! Darwin! Flagellum! Yay us!” A real Evolution Sunday would mean that the various religious-folk would stay home and actually READ “On the Origin of Species,” or “What Evolution Is,” or something else on the subject.
Which is, in fact, what I intend to do.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Why does the main post, with the agreement of many comments here, state that only a “vocal minority” of Christians are creationists? Poll after poll says that 40 to 45% of Americans believe in young-earth creationism. Another 45% believe in theistic evolution, with only 10-15% believing in neo-Darwinism (or whatever you want to call it). (Some small but growing percentage believes in old-earth creationism.) Certainly this means that somewhere around half of all American christians are creationists. This is very far from a “vocal minority.”
If someone is so sloppy with such a simple fact, how accurate are his other statements?
February 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am
‘Certainly this means that somewhere around half of all American christians are creationists. This is very far from a “vocal minority.‒
Roy, that’s a bloody scary ‘minority’!
I live in a secular country– thank god! 
Most people over here only enter a church for occasions relating to the hatched, matched and dispatched, and only about 10 – 12% attend church on a regular basis. I suspect that most of them put more credence in testable science than a book written thousands of years ago, and which has since been interpreted, translated, edited, added to, re-interpreted and mistranslated.
That some people truly believe that it’s the literal ‘Word of God,’ I find incredibly scary. 8-(
–
February 11th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Anomalous4: Thanks for the well written post and the history lesson.
Interestingly enough regarding “being a semi-agnostic in technical terms”, I have heard both Dawkins and Dennett acknowledge being “agnostic” in a technical sense, in that they agreed that they could not disprove the existence of God.
Victor Stenger has a new book, “God, the failed hypothesis” in which he states that he proves God (the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god) does not exist. It is an interesting read so far but he will certainly not convince believers (that is, believers in God). One of his basic premises is that since there is no need for “God” to explain our observations of nature, the possibility of his existence is nil. Even more basic is that there really no beginning to the universe (net zero energy or at least no change in total energy at the big bang) and therefore no place for God to be.
I, as others above, am a little put off by “Darwin Day” being connected to churches. As ID folks and other creationists are wont to claim that evolutionism is a “religion”, I think these connections seem to be be getting too close to confirming that claim.
Francis Collin’s recent book presents a good case for Christians to accept evolution. A good read in many places for us atheists, too.
The term “Darwinism” is probably most often used now-a-days in a disparaging manner simply to put a personality out in front so that the science is hidden in some way. This is certainly historically how the term was used.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Perhaps we could a rest a moment and read this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/dino-flatulence/
wherein a Republican representative from California posits that maybe dinosaur flatulence caused climate changes in the past.
One has to wonder where he got THAT idea? The Creation Science Museum, perhaps?
February 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
rash, read that quote again: “Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.”
To take a proposition literal means to assert truth values to it according to the conventional semantic rules. That is exactly what I did, with hilarious consequences.
And apropos, taking poetry literally is exactly how not to approach it.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am
@Aesmael
by telling people that their faith is wrong because it cannot be confirmed or denied experimentally is just as bad as having a faith forced on you whether you believe or not. Faith by it’s own cannot be proven or disproven and the insistence of a few individuals that to have faith makes a person a fool or a moron is wrong.
Again I am an agnostic so I don’t believe or disbelieve I wait to see proof. What I do like seeing is mature debate not insults being thrown back and forth between differing ideologies. Atheists also need to remember that they rely just as much on faith as any religious person since they also cannot provide proof of their own belief in a lack of a higher power.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am
The “two versions” are an over view and an indepth view of the same event, from how I read it.
I have a 1902 version of Origins of Species. I tried reading one, but found victorian English hard to penetrate. I may try again to read it.
As for ID, I have mentioned before it is theologically flawed as well.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
You try to play the game of sounding reasonable by criticizing both sides, but you end up spouting nonsense. Using “their science text books as religious text?” What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Scientists hold evidence in the highest regard, and are perfectly willing to change their minds when sufficient evidence presents itself. How is that even remotely religious?
And the “evolution is a theory” comment is the same ridiculous trope the creationists repeatedly trot out. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what ‘theory’ means in science.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
@PK
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aliteral&btnG=Search
No, saying that a text is not to be taken literally is not the same thing as saying that it is false.
If you agree that poems should not be subjected to analysis of true or false then why subject for example Genesis which is written in a poetic style(in it’s original language) to that?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174b.htm
Literature demands a special study; and Hebrew literature, because it is sacred, all the more, inasmuch as the outcome of misunderstandings in regard to it has ever been disaster. No one can read attentively the poorest version of the Old Testament without feeling how strong a vein of poetry runs through its pages.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I was trying to stay out of this particular discussion, but huh? Can you not see the vast difference between criticizing someone’s belief, and forcing someone into a certain belief? I’ll spell it out for you — the latter is clearly an infringement on the rights of the individual. The former is not an infringement on anyone’s rights, and is a perfectly legitimate endeavor.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Christian:
You’re only demonstrating what Phil is talking about. You have an image of what Christianity even means in the first place, which comes from the same types of Christians who promote YEC. These are the biblical literalists; and yes, they define Christianity in certain terms. In truth, however, Christians define Chrisitanity. The first Christians did not even have a bible!
You may think it ironic to see a person profess Christianity who does not believe the bible to be the literal word of God, but I think it’s more ironic to see a non-Christian who is a biblical literalist.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Another interesting debate on this topic! It sounds like both (or should I say all) sides are getting better versed.
I think it’s sad that people take an end-all position that there can be no God because current religions have faults. Just because nobody has yet gotten it right doesn’t mean that it can’t be.
Also, to base the opinion on ancient texts is also fallacy. What texts from only a century or two ago can be taken on face value with no revisions? Even the Almighty would have to vary his “word” depending on the intelligence and culture of the audience.
Another interesting read is “The God Theory” by Bernard Haisch.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I think you’re misunderstanding atheism. Not believing in god is completely orthogonal to believing that any particular religion is positive or negative.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I think it’s sad that people take an end-all position that there can be no God because current religions have faults.
All of the current major religions do have one major flaw- They all believe that there is a magical being watching over us without providing any proof.
And I believe you are mistaking an end-all position for people thinking logically.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
All religious beliefs are equally invalid when it comes to describing reality. This is a nitpicking session on consistancy within a specific belief system. Even the majority those who claim that the Bible should be taken literally do not shout the government to impose the death penalty on adultery, or misbehaving children. The Old Testament is not only at odds with itself, but also with the New Testament. There is NO way to be totally consistant within the Christian belief. Most folks simply try to find their own take on the ’spirit of the word’ (kind of a double entendre but I mean that in a secular sense).
Those who believe that the Bible is literally true and those who claim it isn’t still hold equally false views of the universe and its nature. The Hindu beliefs are just as unlikely as the Christian belief system. So why qubble with literal and liberal interpretation?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Oh, boy, such fun! And here, I wasn’t going to reply at all…
Drbuzz0: The Catholic Chruch, the largest demoniation of Christianity…
I feel sure you mean “denomination” in there, but I have to admit, it’s a funny place for that mistake.
Christian Burnham: I do know that a physics book is just as true/false when translated into Gailic or any other language.
You’re correct, but physics books are not written with tortured metaphors, and paraphrasing is allowed. The problems with translating scriptures is that the actual meaning is, very frequently, up for grabs.
Sticks: This is a contrary train of thought that it is the theory of evolution that does not fit with the evidence, and some Christians may not be aware of this view point.
The pure naturalistic origins has a number of issues to address such as:
Careful, you’re forwarding a common logic malfunction. Evolution does indeed fit with the evidence. Not having an explanation for everything you care to name is not a contradiction, which is a theory-killer. Some things remained to be discovered. The discovery may in itself contradict and destroy the theory, but simply not knowing is not a failure. I don’t know what my greatx7 grandmother’s name was, either, but it’s safe to say she existed.
Sticks Abiogenesis – Never shown to occur
Which puts it even-up with every last item within the bible, I can’t help observing. I can tell you right now, no one will ever prove how life started, so you can be happy about that if it helps. But the experiments done within speculative conditions of the very-distant past did indeed yield some positive results, as you mentioned. Don’t make the mistake that a laboratory experiment that failed to produce a replicating cell effectively mimics an entire planet’s ecosystem. I, myself, find it fascinating that duplicating guessed-at conditions of our young planet actually produced exactly the key building block that would be required. That’s astounding evidence! But I’m sorry, no one is going to send you to the moon to see the lunar landers, or back in time a few billion years to watch the cells divide.
Sticks: Transitional Fossils – Name one?
All of them. You’re making the common mistake that a “species” is something more than a convenient demarcation for human communication. Evolution is a gradual process, and does not take place in steps. Nor half-steps, as you seem to be asking.
As for the rest, see the index, which will give you some detailed reading sources.
Sticks: Decent of man – [Zukerman's quote]
Sigh. “Anyone that can look at the details of the fossil record and deny the distinctive path, through the time frames and development of traits leading progressively to existing species, has their head jammed well and truly up their ass.” – Me.
So much for quote mining. And I can’t find any mention of Lord Soley Zukerman anyway. Does it matter? How many quotes does it take to make a fact? Um, well, none. Please don’t get started on that utter nonsense here.
Sticks: How Darwinism was used as a philosophy by the Nazis is discussed in This PDF article which runs to 16 pages.
16 pages, impressive. That’s about one-tenth the number of books written on the Salem witch trials alone. Keep going.
Hitler also used the catholic church, and with some rather compelling evidence of the complicity of pope Pius XI. Strike two.
Strike three is, none of it has the least little bearing on whether natural selection exists or not. Natural selection makes no claims to social structure in any way, it’s strictly biological, so actions of individuals don’t really apply. Entire species can die out according to evolution, so warfare is actually pretty small on the scale anyway. And if you really want to use the theory in an incorrect socio-philosophical manner, you can argue that the Holocaust was a distinctive tool for the survival of the human race, by demonstrating the excesses of stupidity that we are still capable of, and thus promoting restraint and consideration in our actions and evaluations of our leaders.
anomalous4: After that, things got pretty wonky.
This line, coming right in the middle of it all, had me giggling uncontrollably.
Thanks for a great post from one of the few people I have seen, ever, that has more than a passing knowledge of biblical history. It’s refreshing to see someone that knows the checkered past and doesn’t try to hide from it.
Christian Burnham: The Bible is intended as the word of God. It’s hard to believe that it’s not meant to be taken literally.
Um, be careful about your statements. The bible only says it is intended as the word of god, by the mere human beings who wrote it. Nothing more than that can be established in any way. How others choose to interpret this does not in any way confer further properties on it.
Rory Daulton: Why does the main post, with the agreement of many comments here, state that only a “vocal minority†of Christians are creationists? Poll after poll says that 40 to 45% of Americans believe in young-earth creationism. Another 45% believe in theistic evolution, with only 10-15% believing in neo-Darwinism (or whatever you want to call it).
The clue is in your own words. Much as some may want to believe it, not all christians are Americans
. Most of the other developed countries don’t have the fundies the US does.
And by the way, the only way I’ve seen “neo-Darwinism” used is disparagingly- I think it’s one of those terms created to make evolution sound like a religious cult.
Nathan Hinman: Atheists also need to remember that they rely just as much on faith as any religious person since they also cannot provide proof of their own belief in a lack of a higher power.
Okay, that’s a rather tortured sentence (”proof of belief”?), but I suspect I know what you’re getting at. The gist is, atheists typically do not have “faith in nothing” or try to prove there is no god, anymore than anyone tries to prove there is no Great Green Widget from Arcturus. Quite simply, they just won’t waste any time with entertaining a concept that has no factual support, and don’t like it when others attempt to force them to. Many, like myself, hate to see the depths humankind can sink to when encouraged to do so by a belief system – any belief system. And far too many people cower behind their belief system rather than simply using their own minds to decide if something is useful or not.
Hey, who put that soapbox down here? A guy could fall off it and hurt himself…
February 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
My bad.
People start quoting Dawkins and I jump to conclusions.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Shawn S:
You’re missing the point. Let’s explore this–we both know Christianity is wrong. Okay, so what do we do about it? Do we do anything? Do we create a web page proving it? Do we ban churches? Some things make sense to do; others do not. Banning churches would definitely be wrong. But why? Because being a Christian in itself doesn’t really hurt anything.
So, let’s take a step back and look at this. What really matters here? Well, YEC’s are interfering with our sciences, because they are holding to a belief not merely without evidence, but in spite of it, and because they take it further and try to suppress science that suggests otherwise. So the YEC’s are actually causing a real problem. In addition, they just make themselves look silly to anyone who has a clue–and some of the more irrational people confuse YEC biblical literalists with Christianity because they buy into the theological claims of the same groups.
The problem being discussed here is this one–YEC’s are making Christians look bad. The reason they make Christians look bad is because nonbelievers see these bunch of yahoos, and have to fight against them to prevent them from limiting human potential. So some of the nonbelievers confuse Christianity with fundamentalist biblical literalism.
So what does this all mean? It means that the ones who are quibbling are the ones who are trying to make this a debate over whether or not there is a god, or whether or not Christianity is true. Quite the opposite–the ones who are focusing on the effect Christianity has on our culture, the things Christians are doing wrong, and why, are the ones who are NOT quibbling.
Yes, it matters whether or not a Christian is a YEC or not; it matters whether or not people limit our sciences. It does not matter so much whether or not someone thinks he’ll go to a shiny place after he dies.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
A while ago, Christian asked:
That’s a sticky question. A lot of it hinges on your definition of “truth.” We moderns (and =horrors!= PoMos) have more than one meaning for the word, as have educated minds at least as far back as the Greeks.
First, there’s the quick and dirty definition of “truth” as fact. 2+2=4, regardless of what the Party said in 1984. If you drop a bowling ball on your bare foot, it hurts. Stuff like that. That tends to be the average person’s casual definition.
Truth with a capital T is a lot more subtle and complex. Ultimately, in every religious tradition, God him/her/their/itself – not anything we can say or write – is Truth. The Truth is generally understood as the “ultimate power,” if you will, that undergirds the universe and gives rise to it.
Truth, whether you call it God, the Tao, or Brahman, is too immense to be taken in all at once by us little carbon-based units, and we have to approximate it as best we can based on what we take in. In this respect, we all interpret, like the six blind men had to do when they met the elephant.
That was so even waybackinthewayback. “Literalism” in any modern sense bases itself on a self-contained, concrete reality, and the very idea of a concrete, physical world separated from the spiritual realm didn’t exist before the Greeks. There were spirits in everything.
Ordinary people’s religion reflected the blending of the two worlds, and often led to ambiguities incomprehensible to most modern minds. People would pray to idols and personal gods for favors – rain, healing, victory in war – and when it didn’t happen they’d stop making offerings, turn the idols to face the wall, curse them, break them and throw them in the street, etc. Then they’d replace them, or maybe try different ones, and the next time they needed something, they’d start praying again.
The Greek philosophers are famous for arguing the abstract idea of Truth to death, of course, but they were an anomaly. (The rabbis of the day were arguing just as much – hence the Talmud – but they were arguing points of law, not abstract ideas. Kabbalah as we think we know it today came much later – it’s basically a Medieval tradition, and has always been a marginal phenomenon.)
In the wider arena, rituals (designed mainly to keep people in awe and bind them together – religio – under priestly and governmental control, not to teach them anything about God) and mystery religions represented the larger Truth to the common people. Forget the whodunnits we call “mysteries”; the word mysterion originally meant something that the uninitiated could never have the slightest clue about but could be understood completely (in theory, at least) by the initiated.
That “too immense to comprehend” quality, coupled with the fact that we little critters always want to comprehend, means that all religions are by nature idiosyncratic, syncretic – we can’t help picking up ideas, even contradictory ones, from those around us, any more than a preschooler can help picking up germs from other ankle-biters – and constantly evolving as a result.
OMG, the dreaded EVOLUTION! It’s everywhere, even in my religion! =HORRORS!!!=
People react to that in several different ways.
Some people – we usually lump them together under the common but not-quite-accurate term Fundamentalists – are so insecure in the face of that constant shifting that they try to make the incomprehensible comprehensible by equating Truth with fact. That way they (think they) have something sure and solid to hang their hats (and all too often their brains) on.
Fundamentalism isn’t based so much on faith as on fear. Fundamentalists avoid like the plague the dangerous irony that fear isn’t a sign of faith, but a sign of failure of faith. Fear of damnation, fear of expulsion from the community, fear of being struck by lightning……….
Others, following the Greeks’ lead, go completely intellectual and argue over the concept of Truth until they’re blue in the face. Philosophers and theologians will still be getting into knockdown-dragouts about it when the Sun goes nova. Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of them are trying to convince themselves as much as each other, but that’s just one woman’s opinion. They can go at it all they want as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.
Still others (myself included) take 99% of it as metaphor. We don’t “believe” so much as we embrace and stand in awe of the ineffable and go about our earthly business according to the ethical teachings of our faith.
I consider myself a heretic – a Zen Baptist Existentialist Christian Agnostic Heretic. I don’t “believe in Christ” so much as I try to follow the teachings and life example of Jesus. At this stage in my life, “belief” is almost irrelevant, although I still “talk the talk” at times – especially when I’m dealing with Fundamentalist idiocies. (My Fundy Mental bro and I have an unspoken agreement never to talk about religion.)
Granted, Christianity is my native culture and I tend to think in Christian terms, but that’s not all there is to it. Like that preschooler, I’ve picked up a lot of “germs” from other faiths, but wotthebleep, it works for me.
Ultimately we all come to our own accommodation with the universe. Whether it’s based on conventional religious doctrine, rational thought, or otherwise, there are as many ways as there are travelers, and arguing about whose inner beliefs per se are right or wrong is a waste of oxygen.
What should matter to all of us is how we live as a result.
If I’m stupid enough to remain a person of faith after 50+ years, that’s my issue, not yours. (And sometimes I do wonder if I’m stupid in that regard – but having more important things to do, I choose not to dwell on it.) If you think privately that I’m stupid, that’s your issue, not mine. The issue only involves both of us when one of us publicly calls the other stupid or allows that judgment to influence our actions toward each other.
All I ask is that the “stupidity” of having faith not be equated in anyone’s mind with stupidity about everything (or anything) else. I may entertain the notion that God said BANG!!!!! (note that I did not say I “believe” it, that’s a whole ‘nother amminal), but that’s not a scientific idea, and in the scientific arena it’s just plain irrelevant.
I’m as disgusted and angry as anyone else here about the stupidities of Fundamentalism. Along with other fear-driven crap like the Inquisition and the Crusades, Fundamentalism gives Christianity a really bad name, and it sucks worse than a black hole that like its infamous predecessors, it’s screaming so loud these days that it’s drowning everything else out. (Dear God: Save me from your followers! =grin=) I’d much rather hang out with atheists and agnostics than with most of my fellow “Christians,” because you guys generally don’t check your brains at the door. As far as science and practical matters in general are concerned, I’m squarely in your corner.
I know, that’s an awful lot of blather, but (like every question in religion and philosophy) the question is a complicated one in spite of its few words, and the “answer” is equally tangled.
Oh well.
To sum up: Like every other scripture, the Bible itself never claims in any “literal” sense to be “the Truth,” only a pointer in Truth’s direction.
As always, YMMV and AWYSB (and make sure you make the kids go to the bathroom before you hit the road)…………..
February 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
P. Z. Myers over on the Pharyngula blog puts it well
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/evolution_sunday.php
“I’m sorry, but when I see people in chains shuffle a few steps at the behest of their jailer, my heart isn’t in to shouting, “Hooray! You’re free!” You have a choice. You can go to church today, and among the hymns and prayers and magic rituals and chants to nonexistent beings, you can hear a few words in support of science; or you can refuse to support the whole rotten edifice of religion and stay home and read a good book. Which alternative do you think I would support?”
February 11th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
If you believe that God created the universe, then you exalt religion above God by denying reality in favor of the Bible.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
rash: “No, saying that a text is not to be taken literally is not the same thing as saying that it is false.”
I did not say that. I said that if you are taking a text literally, then you have to assign a truth value to it.
rash: “If you agree that poems should not be subjected to analysis of true or false then why subject for example Genesis which is written in a poetic style(in it’s original language) to that?”
Because creationists do! They assert literal truth to Genesis, and we have to waste time debunking it.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Nathan Hinman: As >Davis says, just so.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“I’m sorry, but when I see people in chains shuffle a few steps at the behest of their jailer, my heart isn’t in to shouting, “Hooray! You’re free!†You have a choice. You can go to church today, and among the hymns and prayers and magic rituals and chants to nonexistent beings, you can hear a few words in support of science; or you can refuse to support the whole rotten edifice of religion and stay home and read a good book. Which alternative do you think I would support?â€
What a spectacularly myopic, elitist, patronising and small minded rant.
The jailor, himself a prisoner of the system, disgusted by the misbehavior of some of his colleagues, decides to distribute keys to the prisoners under his protection. And outside a freeman sneers with disgust that they do not set fire to the only shelter they have ever known.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
In reply to more of Christian’s remarks above:
The “word” is as sticky a concept as “Truth.” Our literate society has overwhelming (and unique) respect for the perceived accuracy and authority of the written word (with a small w), but we forget too easily that almost no ancient religion had a written Bible or equivalent at its outset. The Hindu scriptures are the oldest known written ones in current use, but they too come from a much older oral tradition. Essentially all the common scriptures came down to their writers after centuries – even millennia – of an enormous game of Telephone, and in the case of the Bible, from them to us via a series of translations made in vastly differing cultural contexts.
(The Qur’an, dictated to one man in the seventh century, is the one notable exception. It’s the only major body of scripture whose origins and history we can be certain of. It’s also the only one we have in its original form and language.)
The Word with a capital W was originally a spoken word, revealed either directly through prayer and encounters with the “divine” or indirectly through a priestly/prophetic/oracular intermediary, and handed down via oral tradition.
The Hebrew d’var and the Greek logos both encompass that dynamic immediacy, and when they refer to God, an important aspect of this Word is its power to call things into being simply by naming them.
(Nota bene: There’s absolutely nothing in that statement about the actual mechanism of how those things come to be. By me, evolution is a pretty cool way to do it.)
The written word, of course, is static, and at best it can only point to the dynamic Word. It’s a snapshot of a moving subject, or maybe more like a police sketch, where the person who does the drawing has to rely on the one who did the seeing.
As with truth/Truth, this knowledge is nothing new. But it’s been almost exclusively the province of scholars and theologians, who have either thought it too dangerous for the average Jack and Jill in the pew (meaning too dangerous for themselves if the average J&J in the pew ever found out about it) and therefore deliberately hidden it, or – beginning in the late 19th century – tried (and mostly failed) to communicate it.
I’m a very weird bird (and proud of it) in that respect. I spent my pre-teen years living on a seminary campus, hearing stuff like this as a matter of course, having free access to any of Dad’s books that he wasn’t using for a class, and sneaking in the back door of the seminary library when I could get away with it. =grin= There were also plenty of students (besides my dad, with whom I had some pretty good 6-hour bull sessions) willing to discuss such matters seriously with a too-smart-for-her-own-good 12-year-old.
In that environment, I was thoroughly corrupted by exposure to Tillich, Kierkegaard (my favorite; maybe it’s because his constant fight against despair resonates with my chronic depression), Barth, et al. and the Greek and Hebrew lexicons at an age when most kids are just starting to try to figure out what they really believe (or don’t believe). I don’t “believe” it – and I’m not at all sure I’ve ever “believed” it in any ordinary sense of the word – so much as I’m marinated to the bone in it.
(Maybe that’s a major reason why my bro turned out to be a Fundy Mental. He isn’t a reader and has never been inclined to get into bull sessions, so he didn’t really get the same exposure. Then too, he’s always had a contrary streak and would run like hell away from anything I was interested in. And he was two years behind me in school, so the chronological age difference is a bit misleading.)
Good to know we’ve got at least some semblance of common ground. =grin=
As always, YMMV, AWYSB…………..
February 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Oops, I screwed up the blockquotes. Sorry. The middle one, of course, is mine.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
JustAl
For the record, those in the YEC seldom recognise papal authority as being scriptural anyway.
Another reference to human evolution evidence I read in The Radio Times, when it was trailing a programme on this subject, pointed out that the amount of actual fossils rather than reconstructions would fit in the boot / trunk of a small car.
Make what you will of that
The earlier Quote from the book the Water People was along the lines of the evidence fitting in a coffin with room to spare.
Propbably not conclusive proof for either side Creation / Evolution but kind of interesting how we base a theory on so little evidence, but then we only have a few Tyranosaurus Rex’s so probably is just a so what here
February 12th, 2007 at 12:51 am
It seems you have a habit of interpreting statements so that they coincide with your worldview — even if every statement in your post in true (which, without at least some links, I have my doubts about), that is absolutely not evidence in support of your position, nor is it evidence against evolution (there’s an interesting point — even if there were evidence contradicting evolutionary theory, that wouldn’t be evidence in support of creationism!). Fossils require very specific conditions to form, so it should not be surprising that we don’t find fossils of every single living thing that’s ever lived on the face of the earth.
You’re clearly playing from the standard creationist handbook, which is a sign that either (a) you’re uninformed, or (b) you’re dishonest (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and going with the former). I would recommend against making any claim that’s already been thoroughly addressed in the index of creationist claims — it makes it sound as though you haven’t done your homework.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Unfortunately I heard a lot of this stuff in the 1980’s well before the World Wide Web, and when I posted my last post I was pressed for time. Sorry about that.
The Radio Times is a listing magazine for television, and radio. Somewhere in my archives I have the exact quote, but I suspect it was never on the website of the Radio times
Sorry, I was conceding this point, that the amount of actual fossil finds may be irrelevant to the debate, hence my mentioning that we have actually only ever found about 5 T-Rexs but we don’t question the build or make up of the T-Rex. The Radio times did mention about the amount of evidence when it was plugging a programme about human evolution, and it was not exactly a creationist source, and I did try and keep it in context. Since the evolutionists, through the programme, were open about it I kind of figured that this point, brought to my attention in 1986 might not have as much weight as I initially attributed to it.
The point made by creationists was that a lot of what is seen in the textbooks was made on proposed reconstructions and extrapolations on the actual fossils. I remember them showing the results obtained when Dr Richard Leaky took the same fossil skull to more than one artist, and got several different results. Is this more an argument about how this is presented by the media?
I was not aware there was one, apart from Genesis. I get most of my material from Apologetics Press which is more affiliated with our church grouping and I try to avoid ICR, although for some reason I ended up on their mailing list. The guys at AP seem to be quite knowledgable and have on occasion revisited “creationist” arguments and shown why they could no longer be sustained.
I did dig out my 1902 copy of Darwin, to see if I can read Victorian English.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Sticks:
Apologetics press appears to be some kind of creationist Christian organization that sees evolution as a direct attack on Christianity.
Might not be the best place to get an unbiased look at evolutionary science.
Try reading a modern book on evolution. I suggest the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins- but there are plenty more to choose from.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:45 am
The problem with Dawkins is that he is millitant, the other way
I really need to have another attempt at Darwin himself and possibly dig out my Colin Patterson.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:46 am
[...] Riposte: Christians for Sanity I’ve said it many times before: creationism is just wrong, and one group that should be fighting it hardest is Christians. They are letting a vocal minority usurp their religion, and if they don’t speak up they run the risk of letting those people speak for them. (Source: Bad Astronomy Blog) [...]
February 12th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Sticks said: For the record, those in the YEC seldom recognise papal authority as being scriptural anyway.
That wasn’t the point. The point was the refutation that Hitler (or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or whoever becomes the next target) was driven/caused by Darwin’s theory. This is even less true than putting the blame for abortion clinic bombings on the bible. My own approach is to encourage critical thought, which pretty much takes care of all of them. Remember, not one of the nutbag leaders throughout history acted alone.
Sticks: Another reference to human evolution evidence I read in The Radio Times, when it was trailing a programme on this subject, pointed out that the amount of actual fossils rather than reconstructions would fit in the boot / trunk of a small car.
Make what you will of that
Well, if you feel like a field trip sometime, I can take you to a place where you could fill your trunk all by yourself within a day. I have half a shoebox from about 90 minutes of poing around without tools of any kind. Trilobites, plants, buttloads of shells, and some funky unidentified things, from what would appear to be the Silurian/Devonian period.
You could also just go to a flea market or rock show and find tables of them. Some are so common they have little actual value.
Folklore is one thing, but try repeating that little chestnut to anyone working in the field – just be ready for laughter. I think any decent museum has a good roomful, and the pissant little museum in my old hometown had their own nine foot long mastodon tusk. Most museums have back rooms stuffed with things that never go out for display.
The tidbit you heard may have been referring to proto-human remains, which are limited – and I doubt even that is accurate, and might even have been a quote taken out of context. It’s true that specimens like Lucy are more incomplete than complete, and reconstruction is necessary. And all of the paleontologists realize that the reconstructions are speculative, but forensics is more precise than you might think – the size, angle, and density of just a femoral head can tell leg shape and length, body weight, sex, and lots of other details.
If you want to form an accurate opinion, compare the reconstructive illustrations of “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) from the 80s with the much more complete skeleton of the Dikika baby discovered much later. That particular issue of National Geographic illustrates the recent find well, and older illustrations are available if you look for them – Lucy was a popular discovery.
And now, I say this in all politeness, but rather than repeating what you’ve heard, go look into the fields yourself. There are lots of things that are repeated because they fit with an agenda, or simply because they make a good sound bite (Great Wall of China from space, for instance). Religious pamphlets are especially prone to this, but they are not the only source by far. However, I heartily recommend taking the time to see if the sound bite actually has any teeth.
And I agree with you about Dawkins, without having read any more than a few selected quotes – he sounds pretty fierce on religion, and I don’t think I agree with him on his stance. You may want to try Michael Shermer, or Carl Sagan – “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” takes a very objective look at evidence while being as inoffensive as I think it’s possible. It addresses UFOs a little more than religion, but the overall message works for any philosophy or discipline.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Hi Rash
“Which one of the two mutually excluding creation stories in genesis is the one to meant to be taken literally? ”
This sort of comment only shows how little some people actully know the Bible. There are NOT “two mutually excluding creation stories in genesis”. They are complimentary discussions of the same event, with one going into more detail than the other. This type of writing is very common in the Bible as any competent Bible student would know.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:26 am
I just read the offending verses: Genesis 1:1-2:3, 2:4-25. They most certainly do contradict each other. But I invite anyone here to read them and make their own decision. I also recommend Psalm 137:9 where God encourages murdering babies.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
His science books not so much, aside from the occasional remark (which can be easily ignored). The Ancestor’s Tale gives a good overview of evolution, and The Selfish Gene is a classic, and a rather interesting gene’s-eye view of evolution.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hi Daffy
“I just read the offending verses: Genesis 1:1-2:3, 2:4-25. They most certainly do contradict each other.”
Please state how you think they contradict each other.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:53 am
@JustAl
The quote about quantity of fossil remains was specifically about the actual fossils upon human evolution is based, and I have met an evolutionist that had said the actual amount would fit on a coffee table. I do conceede that there are enormous quantities of fossils of other creatures. Sorry if I caused confusion. I also conceded that the issue of quantity of fossil man evidence may not be relevant, it is what is done with it that counts
@Davis
I was going by Dawkins rants on TV, and assumed it was the same with his books. I have dug out my Darwin, honest and hope to try again. Last time I found his writing inpenetrable. and assumed it was because he was from a different century to me.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Happy Darwin Day, dudes and dudesses!
February 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
@Ozprof
This just only shows? Nice insult…
Genesis 1:24-27 vs Genesis 2:18-19
Animals were created before or after man?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The Bad Astronomer Posted:
Oh no, now look what you’ve gone and done. Another “Religion vs Atheism” thread created by missing your point. Perhaps you should spell things out a little better.
One HUGE problem is the term “Creationism”. There simply is too much confusion over what you mean by that word. A look in Wikipedia is a good sample of how some people read that word to mean “Believers in God”, and get offended, when you’re not.
I am repeatedly trying to call attention to the distinction in hopes of diffusing the tension a bit. Explicitly: there are two issues bound up in the word “Creationism”, because of creation. One is the essence that it was “Created by God”. The other is the mechanism of how life originated and diversified. TheScience question is the Second. It addresses the mechanism. When Phil uses that word, he is speaking to the mechanism.
Christian Burnham, I read PZ’s column and I understand the sentiment. But I do not agree. If we complain when religious leaders and organizations do poorly, then we should praise them for positive steps – even when the positive steps are baby steps and not giant leaps. Sure, it’s fair to be concerned about advocating Evolution as belief, “believe in it because God says it’s okay”. But I think it a positive thing when religious leaders inform their congregations that it’s okay to accept Evolution, that religion should be interpreted. Because if they’re never taught that, how will they ever learn it? Sure, some may come to the conclusion on their own, but others are too steeped in the tradition and need a little guiding hand. I know for myself one thing that really put me on the road was being asked by my brother how I could really be a believer if I never doubted. How could I be a reasoned believer and not just a follower of whatever I’m told?
Again, just because you’re a Christian does not make you a Creationist.
Nathan Hinman said:
> don’t forget that to be an atheist means that you need faith that there is no higher power, just at christians have faith that there is a god.
> Again I am an agnostic so I don’t believe or disbelieve I wait to see proof. What I do like seeing is mature debate not insults being thrown back and forth between differing ideologies. Atheists also need to remember that they rely just as much on faith as any religious person since they also cannot provide proof of their own belief in a lack of a higher power.
Repeating the assertion does not make it true. Faith is not a part of most atheists’ rationale. We no more have faith in the non-existence of God than we have faith in the non-existence of The Great Pumpkin. We simply are unconvinced by the evidence, so withhold belief in the existence of said being.
Part of the confusion is terminology. Common parlance divides religious belief on one line: Theism — Agnosticism — Atheism. One end is belief in existence, the other end is belief in non-existence, and in the middle is undecided. This is an inaccurate representation. Agnosticism is not an aswer to the same question as Theism/Atheism. Theism/Atheism answers the question of belief in God/gods. Agnosticism addresses the question about “knowability” – what can be known about God/gods.
In the mathematical analogy, it is not one line, but two orthogonal axes. Agnosticism is the expression that the existence and nature of God is unknowable, inscrutable, not fully comprehendable. The opposing position to Agnosticism is Gnosticism, from the Greek word gnosis, or knowledge. Gnosticism holds that the existence and nature of God is wholy knowable and understandable.
An Agnostic is not someone who has not reached a decision yet. An Agnostic can be a Theist or an Atheist, depending upon what they choose to believe. They live with the position that the issue has inherent uncertainty, but then choose belief on the evidence available – either as laid-back Christians/Deists, or as laid-back Atheists, depending on whether they find the evidence personally convincing or not.
The determining line to an Agnostic can be evaluated pragmatically: Do you go to Church? Do you pray? Do you act as if God could be real, so just in case? If so, you are a Theist. If you don’t until convincing evidence is shown, you are an Atheist. Agnosticism is just a measure of your surety of your position.
If you wish to call yourself “Undecided” rather than “Atheist”, knock yourself out. It’s not like we can find terminology everyone is happy with.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Also sprach Sticks:
The Illustrated Origin of Species, edited by anthropologist Richard E. Leakey (third generation, I think, of those Leakeys) is a good “Reader’s Digest version” (IMO, anyway). You might want to pick that one up for a general overview in Darwin’s own words. I found the original much easier going after reading this one.
David Quammen, author of The Reluctant Mr. Darwin (a concise, readable new book about Darwin himself, his life and scientific career post-Beagle, and his inner conflicts – so severe as to be a possible factor in his chronic ill health, according to some biographers – over whether to publish Origin; I highly recommend it), recommends going back to the original 1859 edition, in facsimile, if possible. Darwin never really stopped writing the book, and the later editions got, shall we say, a bit unwieldy?
Darwin Online includes all six editions of Origin and his notebooks (fascinating all by themselves) (not to mention everything else he ever wrote, or links to it at least, except maybe his laundry lists).
Good for you, going back for another crack at Origin. I think you’ll be surprised by how different the man’s own ideas and words are from what his commentators attributed to him.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sticks said:
> Abiogenesis – Never shown to occur
Strictly speaking, Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection wasn’t meant to address Abiogenesis anyway. If “Creationism” is meant in the traditional form (the form used by Darwin), it is about staticicity of kinds, the “God made all creatures in their current form” argument. A different use of the term would be to imply ultimate Creation, with change occurring afterwards. This is the more modern version, such as ID. Either way, Abiogenesis is an ongoing element of research into scientific explanations of how it occurred. Whether God did it or not is not a scientific question – that explanation could be the way God did it.
> Multicellular Gap – We have single cell annimals and then multicel animals, why no 2 or 5 celled animals?
Already answered. There are intermediate things – sponges, slime molds, etc. Also, Evolution explains it very handily. Most of the intermediates were outperformed by either the unicellular forms (faster, fewer resource needs) or multicellular forms (more collective action and specialization outperformed the simpler ones). Yes, that does sound contradictory, but it’s not. Darwin explains it in Origin, though not explicitly talking about cellular structure, but rather how speciation occurs. The two extremes of the population cluster have different advantages against each other, so the middle ground gets outperformed by the specialists at both ends.
> Reliance on genetic mutations to drive it forward, yet mutations are by definiton mistakes in copying, with not a single documented “good†mutation in nature. (Bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is a different mechanism invoving plasmids)
There is a form of genetic mutation that causes duplication of the genome. This duplication provides secondary copies of material to be winnowed down by the other processes of genetic change, running change processes in parallel. Duplicate copies of the same protein encoding segments can diverge to do different jobs.
> Transitional Fossils – Name one?
Tiktaalik roseae
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
The larger problem here is terminology. What exactly is a “Transitional fossil”? What is it that you think is missing?
Creationists play the definitions game – they define fossils to fit the categories they want so that the “Gaps” are larger and transitions don’t exist. You show an excellent example of that “logic” when discussing human origins. “Homo erectus and Neanderthal are really the same species as modern humans, so the gap between modern humans and human links to apes is big.” That’s a nomenclature shell game.
Tell me what it is that makes something a transition. Having features of two different categories? Clearly Tiktaalik qualifies. It has some traits of fish, some traits of amphibians, and some traits that are ambiguously between the two. The same thing can be done with fossils transitioning from reptiles to mammals.
Biologists are in the habit of classification. It is useful for them to draw lines, even if sometimes the lines are arbitrary. So they may take something with lots of ambiguous features and define it to one group or another, based upon comparison of all the features and clumping it as an “early amphibian” or “late fish”. But reality is not neat lines.
Another misconception is highlighted by JustAl, our concept of “species” does not jive with how nature works. Our mindset is to classify organisms into “types” or “forms”. And we typically have a model in our heads, a representation of that item. We can describe a species by some general terms – a chicken is a stubby bird that barely flies, has a certain physical appearance (within some characteristic range of colors, sizes, etc), etc. Evolution tells us that a chicken today is not the same thing as a chicken 10,000 years ago, much less 100,000 years ago. In fact, a chicken 100,000 years ago might look fairly similar to today’s chicken and not interbreed fertily. Yet all the points in between are connected.
This is modeled also geographically rather than temporally, in a concept called “ring species”. There are numerous known examples, whereby a “species” of animals stretches along some dispersed geography, such as the coast of an ocean. Along the coast there will be pockets of the species with variations in the traits. Each variation fully interbreeds with all neighboring variations, such that there is a continuous interbreeding stock from one end to the other. However, individuals from each end will not be able to interbreed, because the variation is significant enough to preclude it. They are both the same species because they have continuous breeding connections, but they can’t be the same species because they can’t interbreed. That self-contradiction is fully explainable by understanding the concept of “species” is misleading. And the process is fully consistent with and explainable by Evolution.
And none of your reservations about Evolution provide positive justification for “Creationism”, either use of the word.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Ya-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay Irishman! You go, guy!
I too think PZ overstates his case. In his own way, he’s taking things to as great an extreme as some FMCs do. (As a lifelong sort-of-insider in both domains, I find both extremes equally baffling.) AFAIK, he’s on the outside looking in where faith is concerned, just as the FMCs are regarding science. His position may be said to be not so much atheist as anti-theist. Waste of energy, and an actively counterproductive one IMO; it only puts the other side even more on the defensive.
It seems to me that we supporters of the scientific worldview are sufficiently outnumbered as to need all the help we can get, whether from theists, nontheists, athests, agnostics, deists, and every other kind of ists and ics.
I also think that we “people of both faith and science” must come out and join the debate. As speakers of both languages, we’re the only ones with a snowball’s chance of being able to translate what each side is yelling at the other. Otherwise, the two extremes will just keep on flinging rocks, water balloons, bowling balls, poo, bombs, dead cats, Volkswagens, etc. (I could go so far as to say that we’re the real key players here, but I’m not quite that conceited. =grin=)
February 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Stick says:
Got milk? Lactose tolerance is certainly a good thing for people who live in parts of the world where animal herding is a major source of food. We adult milk-drinkers are definitely in the minority – and even among milk-drinking populations, a sizeable number of people have some degree of lactose intolerance.
Some people have a genetic marker that confers higher resistence to disease. Not long ago a TV program on the Discovery Channel looked at a village in England that had had an unusually low death rate from the plague and found one such marker concentrated there. They found two copies of the same marker in a man in California who seems to be holding his own against HIV without meds, and a few people in Africa apparently have a similar resistance.
The population of at least one village in Italy is largely made up of people who are highly resistant to cardiovascular disease. It’s been reported (true or not, I don’t know) that they’ve had more than a few requests from women in other parts of Europe for sperm donations.
Eaten any corn lately? All traditional animal and plant breeding is nothing more than deliberately taking advantage of natural mutations.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad. Two copies of the sickle cell gene will give you the disease; one will make you resistant to malaria. Light skin is a goodie in northern latitudes, because it allows higher vitamin D production. Not in the tropics though; you’ll sunburn to a crisp and maybe end up with skin cancer. In spite of the danger, those “good-bad” genes are sufficiently beneficial to have persisted.
Mutations, every one of ‘em. Any questions?
February 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Ozprof: “Please state how you think they contradict each other.”
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image.”
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”
No doubt you will try to make excuses for the contradictory time-line, but the issue then becomes one of wondering why the omnipotent, omniscient God cannot write any more clearly than a first year creative writing student. I mean, if misunderstanding what He said is going to sentence one to eternal torment I should think He would write a bit more clearly. Unless he is a prankster…
Oh, wait, according to the story of Job that is exactly what He is.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
rash Says:
Interesting how the Bible starts out with an allegory. Actually two of them. That ought to tell you something right there. =grin=
The way it was explained to me, two theological points are being made here.
The first account says in effect that humankind is God’s latest, greatest work, the final, crowning glory of all creation. The second account, in which everything else on earth was created “after” man, is saying that everything else on earth was created for man.
(Way too many people think that includes woman, I’m sorry to say. Now why can’t we take that second story to mean that not man but woman is the final, crowning glory of creation? Woiks fuh me! =another grin=)
The basic theology is considered valid by pretty much all varieties of Judaism and Christianity (although its importance varies – that frackin’ interpretation again!!!!!!!! – and some groups are actually enlightened enough to understand that the latter view of woman’s creation is the right one =cheeks aching from so much grinning=). But to take both accounts literally would require a time machine.
[cue Rocky Horror soundtrack] “Let’s do the Time Warp again……………….”
February 12th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
@anomalous4
Seams like one way to get it to work.
I just take it to mean that the two stories where written by two different groups of people separately and was united into one text many many years after they were written. That the minute details of the story are irrelevant and that it’s meaning can change depending on who reads it and when.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
rash says:
That’s what most scholars say. It goes back to the multiple proposed narrative strands I mentioned earlier. The two represented here were the first to be proposed, and are identifiable by the names used for God.
If I remember right, the first story comes from the E (”Elohim,” a hybrid word for a sort of hybrid “council” of one-yet-many God(s)) strand and the second from the J (the name “YHVH” or, in its older transliteration, “JHVH,” that’s too holy to pronounce outside the Temple, reconstructed by many Christians as “Jahweh/Yahweh” and represented in many Jewish translations outside the Bible as “G-d”) strand.
Both of those contribute a lot to the historical narrative, while the other two, P (Priestly) and D (Deuteronomic), deal more with matters of law and ritual.
The third principal name of God, “Adonai,” is usually translated “Lord.” Many Orthodox Jews won’t even say that one outside of synagogue; they use “Adomai” instead, or more frequently “ha-Shem” (literally “the Name”) or “the Almighty.” “Jehovah” is a misconstruction that superimposes the vowels of “Adonai” on the sacred name YHVH.
The four hypothetical sources are distinguished by correspondences between the name(s) they use for God and the definite (and frequently subtle) theological differences among them. Judgment balanced with mercy, closer-than-breathing intimacy balanced with ineffable mystery, awesome majesty balanced with tender parental love, etc. Complicated, huh?
The same sort of thing applies to the Gospels. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.
Oh ma-a-a-a-a-a-a-an, she’s off on her hobby again; I love the whole religious history and biblical criticism (in the sense of analysis of translations and theologies, not of fault-finding) thang. But yeah, I know, 99.99% of the people here don’t give a flying fish in a hurricane about this kind of exhaustive (and exhausting) detail. So ’nuff said. Seminary’s over for now. Time for frisbee on the quad and a cold beer or two.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Pardon me, but this is what you quoted:
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.â€
And you’re claiming this is mutually exclusive with the first creation story, due to the fact that in this one, animals come after man. Does this about sum it up?
Most who want to interpret the bible literally would simply say that the second story doesn’t imply animals were created after man. Careful analysis gives them an out–the “And” doesn’t necessarily reflect a time progression, but could represent, instead, calling attention to a specific fact. This gives them a nice out.
But this is so twisting the words. I mean, there they are, in plain English!
Only problem is, that. This wasn’t written in plain English. And the literalist recognizes this. What an out! Only problem is, it’s a perfectly valid out.
Anyone who professes intellectual honesty will admit as such. I don’t see why you have to focus on this anyway–the very fact that all of the animals were brought together for Adam to name in itself creates a huge problem for the literalist, without having to deal with fictitious inconsistencies.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I, for one, would have trouble worshipping a deity who has trouble forming simple, easily understood, declarative sentences. Maybe He drinks.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
yy2bggggs says:
Oh, they’re real enough, all right. And they’re precisely the point. Creationists want to deny that evolution happened in the first place, and they can’t escape the fact that they have two stories (including their chronologies, which – trust me – hard-core FMCs really would like to take as literally as the 7 days) to cobble together by way of argument against it.
You don’t even have to get as far as the farfetched idea of God lining up all the animals and running them by Adam to get their names. It’s the very existence of those conflicting chronologies that gets literalists into deep trouble right off the bat. The instant they start saying “But……. but……. but…….,” they’re cooked.
Daffy says:
One of the biggest problems I have with FMCs is that they don’t seem to even recognize a simple, declarative sentence when they see one. They don’t know what’s literal and what’s metaphorical, and they generally get it overwhelmingly bass ackwards.
How anyone can claim the book of Revelation is not only literal but the most important thing in the entire Bible, live mainly for the end of the world, and in extreme cases even pray for WWIII (I’m not making this up), while overlooking the straightforward statements of Jesus about how we’re supposed to deal with our fellow human beings here and now (i.e. fairly, generously, and without passing judgment on their supposed sins – in short, as we’d like to be treated ourselves) that not only can but should be taken literally, is beyond all comprehension.
In any event, deities have always been really good at covering their tracks and obfuscating their messages. Add to that the limits of human language as you just touched on, and……….. well………
OTOH, sometimes God does try the declarative sentence thing, but the prophets who have to carry that message don’t fare very well. They have an awful tendency to arrive at the Pearly Gates suffering from multiple blunt-force trauma, decapitation, and other messy and uncomfortable conditons.
BTW, you’d be surprised by the number of people who think the Bible in English is 100% inerrant, or even that English is its original language. King James was the Man! (I’m going to tell on myself here. When I was just learning to read, I saw King James’s name and “1611″ on the title page and thought that’s who wrote it and when. But I got over it. =whew!=) A lot of people, not just the Fundamentalists, were so attached to their King Jim that they fought like hell against giving it up in favor of the far more accurate Revised Standard (NT in 1946 and OT in 1952). King Jim was the “real” Bible!
A lot of Fundamentalists these days are backing away from that “inerrancy in English” POV, saying instead that the original sources of the Bible, in the original languages, are inerrant. That gives ‘em a little wiggle room to make funky interpretations and choose their emphases just like the rest of us, but paradoxically, if they don’t have the original sources, how can they even know what “literal” is? The refusal to say, “Since we don’t have the original sources, we don’t really know for sure, so just like everyone else, we have to interpret,” not the fact of interpretation, is what sets FMCs apart from everyone else.
But……. but……. but…….
Oh, and I’m not sure whether God drinks or not, but at the very least, there’d better be chardonnay, Riesling, pinot grigio, cabernet sauvignon, and champagne in heaven, or I’m going to be really hacked off! “What? I behaved myself (mostly) for [______number yet to be determined] years, and all we’ve got up here is Welch’s?”
February 12th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
anomalous4, I just wanted to say that post was a very good read. Well done!
February 12th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Daffy — Thanks =blush=
If I may, I’d like to congratulate all of us on keeping this discussion so courteous and level-headed. Nobody’s flung any poo, water balloons, dead cats, etc. at anyone else. Well done, folks – and I hope I haven’t just jinxed everything!
February 12th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
So the consensus from the Christians (creationists excluded) seems to be
The Bible is the word of God- except when it isn’t…
The Bible is inerrant- except when it makes mistakes
The Bible is factually true- except when it’s only poetically or metaphorically true
Christians should live their lives by the Bible- except for the bits they disagree with
I stand by my initial post. So called ‘moderate’ Christians have no business teaching science or rationalism to others. Religion is anti-rational and can’t be somehow twisted into coexisting with modern science.
A church must be the worst possible place you could teach people about Darwin. P. Z. had it right- if you really want to learn then stay at home and read a book.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
@anomalous4
The thing is though, is there another translation that has the order of creation in a different way?
The swedish version atleast is the same as the english.
@Christian
I proclaim all poetry ever written to be the inerrant factually true word of the FSM!
February 13th, 2007 at 1:21 am
February 13th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Oops, once again I screwed up the blockquotes. Sheesh. (Well, I did say it’s 4 am.) Sorry! The first sentence is Christian’s, and the rest is mine. Hey, Phil, how about a preview option?
February 13th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I am a Christian who is a creationist but not a literalist, in so far as I don’t believe in the literal understanding of Genesis. I beleive in the truth that God created the universe, the world and us – in his own way and in his own time. Genesis relates that truth in a mythlogical genre. However, I don’t think we should blindly accept Darwinism as a truth that can’t be open to critical analysis, either.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:30 am
OK anomalous4
I take that back.
Christians can be trusted sometimes to teach science- but not in a quasi religious setting and especially not in a church.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:54 am
However, I don’t think we should blindly accept Darwinism as a truth that can’t be open to critical analysis, either.
There is no scientific theory called Darwinism. That is a term only used by opponents of evolution. Scientists don’t blindly accept evolution, it is based on years and years of research and testing. It is open to critical analysis as well, so I’m not sure what your problem is.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:26 am
It never ceases to amaze me that the words ‘nazi’ or ‘hitler’ or ‘fascist’ will always make an appearance in any thread with a dozen or more posts. Regardless of the topic. It could be about, say, children’s teddy bears, but someone somewhere will suggest that Teddy Roosevelt was a proto-fascist and thus teddy bears bear the guilt of the father. As for Christians and Darwin, all the more power to ‘em. Too many people are nasty pieces of work even when propped up by Jesus – God only knows what they’d be like without Him.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Hi Daffy,
As yy2bggggs has written:
“Most who want to interpret the bible literally would simply say that the second story doesn’t imply animals were created after man. Careful analysis gives them an out–the “And†doesn’t necessarily reflect a time progression, but could represent, instead, calling attention to a specific fact.”
This is quite correct. As some have pointed out, the Bible was not written in English nor by westerners. This kind of usage of “and” is quite comon in the Bible and reflects the ancient eastern concept of connecting themes instead of chronology.
As I said before, anyone who has really studied the Bible would recognise this and know that these passages are NOT contradictory, except to those who are trying to invent contradictions.
To anomalous4
Your diatribe is interesting in that it shows how much you actually know about Christians. Your attempt to broard-brush all Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God is ludicrus in the extreme. You make numerous pronouncements with not the slightest shred of evidence to support them. Your comments about Revelation being one of the best examples. Almost all of the Bible-believing (fundamentalists in your jargon) Christians I know realise that the Book of Revelation, along with its OT companion book Daniel, is written in a style of literature known as apocalyptic. In this style of writing, symbols are used to represent events, powers, time periods, etc. As such, it cannot be understood literally, unless the context demands it. So your claim that “FMCs…….don’t know what’s literal and what’s metaphorical, and they generally get it overwhelmingly bass ackwards” is entirely without foundation and simply illustrates your own ignorance and bigotry.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:36 am
@anomalous4
Depending on how things go after work, I may wander over to the book shop to see if that book is in stock and if I can afford it. I have been making better headway into chapter one of the original origins, the chapter about domestication. Maybe I have got used to the style because a couple of years back I went through some Charled Dickens and last year I did “The Prince”. The problem I have now is that Darwin makes references to works of other named persons I had not heard of and my 1902 copy does not have any helpful footnotes.
BTW the use of corn for an example of good mutations is not really a good one. It may be useful to man, but is it useful to the plant if man were not there. A lot of domesticated animals now need man to help them survive predation and safely reproduce..
@Daffy, re the two accounts, the key to the second account is tense. The word formed is from the verb to form and is rendered in the past perfect.
A better rendering of the would be
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.â€
Adding the word “had” clarrifies things better and shows there is not a chronological inconsistancy between the two accounts. It might be an idea to look at more than one English translation to check this out though, but that is my take on the apparent anomolly.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Christian Burnham said: So the consensus from the Christians (creationists excluded) seems to be
The Bible is the word of God- except when it isn’t…
The Bible is inerrant- except when it makes mistakes
The Bible is factually true- except when it’s only poetically or metaphorically true
Christians should live their lives by the Bible- except for the bits they disagree with
No real argument with what you’ve said, but what it attempts to do is over-generalize many types of people into a category called “christians.” And by doing so, this highlights the contradictions. Many people that call themselves “christian” or “religious” don’t hold the contradictions at all, or not all of them, or attempt to recognize what is parable and what is “history.” And many have a serious problem with the approaches of others who still call themselves by the same names.
Those who interpret the bible literally obviously have a lot to answer for, but aren’t actually enclosed by your statements above – only the first halves.
But yes, it does seem like a distinct game of choosing reasons to justify the path, rather than the other way around (as most would insist that they’re actually doing).
Christian Burnham: I stand by my initial post. So called ‘moderate’ Christians have no business teaching science or rationalism to others. Religion is anti-rational and can’t be somehow twisted into coexisting with modern science.
What’s tricky about this is the amount of irrational thinking that does not relate to religion at all, that we engage in every day. What about if someone is a bad driver? Shouldn’t that be included as evidence against teaching because of irrationality? Drinking, smoking, eating sugary breakfast cereals (ahem)?
The path chosen instead, by most teaching administrations, is “Stick with teaching the stuff in the lesson plan,” which usually works quite well. And many religious people (I’d even dare to say “most”) separate their religious beliefs from their duties – it’s not an agenda or a worldview, but simply what they’re comfortable with. In many cases some kind of bias slips through, but that’s happened with every teacher I’ve ever known, and not usually related to religion. Unless the student is in the habit of idolizing an instructor, little usually comes of it.
There are those that actually do have a fundamentalist worldview/agenda, and it’s almost always blindingly obvious. Not many get to teach – that’s what basement churches are for
Now, teaching rational thought in schools? Hell yeah, I’m all for it, and here’s some more money for it. In the US, it’d be a hard thing to pass, since both the churches and the political system have too much to lose. But I’d love to see the arguments against it, all the same…
February 13th, 2007 at 8:28 am
anomolous4:
“Oh, they’re real enough, all right. And they’re precisely the point.”
You’re not reading what I wrote, and are talking to yourself. The evidence is that you’re speaking of “they”, but there’s no they in the discussion–there’s only an “it”. There is one and only one alleged inconsistency I am talking about, and it is NOT a real one. Don’t go off fighting windmills.
Christian:
“So the consensus from the Christians (creationists excluded) seems to be
The Bible is the word of God- except when it isn’t…
The Bible is inerrant- except when it makes mistakes”
No. Each of these things are only necessary properties of Christians in your head. The consensus among Christians is simply “Jesus was a nice guy”, whoever Jesus happened to have been. As I said, the biggest irony here is that you as a nonbeliever are a biblical literalist. You believe biblical literalism is the only possible Christianity, or is the One True Christianity. A biblical literalist can be forgiven for believing this–a nonbeliever, however, should know better; the fact that he doesn’t betray’s that the nonbeliever is only irrationally reacting to biblical literalists, and is painting Christians with too big a brush.
And I’m not sure if you’re lumping me in with the Christians or not, but it should be obvious that I’m not a Christian–look at my nick for Christ’s sake! [pun intended]
February 13th, 2007 at 9:17 am
anomalous4 said: It seems to me that your own assertion that faith and science can’t coexist is the irrational one – there’s too much evidence to the contrary. (In fact, the “atheist scientist†is a thoroughly modern phenomenon.) IMO, simply saying “it can’t be†is about as as non-rational as a FMC simply saying evolution “can’t be.†Maybe more so, because the latter doesn’t lay any explicit claim to rationality.
I’m not sure if Christian is saying that they “can’t coexist,” or that they “shouldn’t coexist,” or that they’re incompatible fields. And each one has different implications.
To address them in reverse order, the concept of “faith” runs against scientific process, which requires evidence and testability. Faith is a socio-philosophical concept, not a scientific one. While coexistence is possible, basically by operating in non-intersecting circles, neither one can accommodate the other within itself.
As for “shouldn’t coexist,” that’s a matter of opinion, as long as it recognizes the factors above. It may pay to be more specific when talking about such a scenario, such as defining where and when either will be taught, and making sure there are clear definitions of both. One of my favorite religious fallacies is the idea of showing where some facet of the bible has some kind of scientific basis, such as whether a supernova was visible at the time of jesus’ birth or where the Red Sea may have gone dry for a spell, but otherwise ignoring science when it makes geocentrism, or the flood, or genesis, a load of total bull hockey. That’s playing both sides of the fence – common, but dishonest.
“Can’t coexist”? Well, they are right now, though there’s a definite amount of friction. As noted, however, neither can incorporate the other, with the exception of science considering religion a facet of human behavior (the philosophical angle again). As history, however, it fails.
Within all this are the questions, “Is there a need for religion?” and “Why do people believe in the first place?” Many people, including you yourself as indicated above, decide on the side of the unprovable negative, where they cannot be shown that a deity does not exist or an afterlife is a nonsense concept. Others look at it from the provable side, and demand evidence. Again, a matter of opinion.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:48 am
anomalous4 said:
> It seems to me that we supporters of the scientific worldview are sufficiently outnumbered as to need all the help we can get, whether from theists, nontheists, athests, agnostics, deists, and every other kind of ists and ics.
> I also think that we “people of both faith and science†must come out and join the debate.
Bolding added. I think my post was misleading. At the time I was a believer. Currently I’m as atheist as PZ Myers. I just have a bit different perspective.
But you’ve had some good things to say in this thread.
anomalous4 said:
> I’ve also already addressed the “parts of the Bible†question. Everyone chooses and interprets. That doesn’t apply only to religion. Everyone interprets his or her philosophy and builds his or her own ethical/moral system based on experience, and just as in religion, adherents of every philosophy may focus on a particular aspect of that philosophy and choose to err on the side of rigidity or of tolerance.
I think the difference that Christian Burnham is stressing is that Christians claim the morality and “truth” comes from God, but then pick and choose the parts of the Bible to support that claim, rather than reading what the Bible says and basing their judgment of God on the Bible. It’s the whole non-falsifiable thing. “If it’s good, it must be true, but if it’s bad, then it’s human error or Satan’s misdirection or ineffebility.” Right. By definition, God doesn’t screw up, humans do. So all error is ours, and God is still perfect. Any evil done by God is a misunderstanding. Yeah, right – excuses, excuses.
Richard R said:
> I am a Christian who is a creationist but not a literalist, in so far as I don’t believe in the literal understanding of Genesis. I beleive in the truth that God created the universe, the world and us – in his own way and in his own time. Genesis relates that truth in a mythlogical genre.
And that’s an out a lot of people use – how much do you take as metaphor and allegory, and how much do you take as somehow the underlying truth?
My question for liberal believers: everyone else got it wrong somehow – the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Native Americans, the Aborigines, the Norse, the Babylonians and Sumerians, etc ad nauseum. Suppose for a moment that there is a creator, a god of some sort. What makes you think that the Hebrews got it any better than any of those other folks?
Sticks said:
>A better rendering of the would be
> “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.â€
> Adding the word “had†clarrifies things better and shows there is not a chronological inconsistancy between the two accounts. It might be an idea to look at more than one English translation to check this out though, but that is my take on the apparent anomolly.
Sorry, doesn’t work. The logical progression of that passage has God thinking about Adam being lonely. It then states God will make a “help meet”. The idea that he would parade the already existing animals past Adam is inconsistent with the statement that he is going to make a help meet for Adam. Also, the symbolic interpretation is that the animals were made to serve Man. That symbolism is falsified if the animals were made first and Adam second.
I’m fine taking both passages as poetic allegory. But relying on them as any sort of factual basis, as some sort of “basically accurate description”, is faulty.
yy2bggggs said:
>> anomolous4: “Oh, they’re real enough, all right. And they’re precisely the point.â€
> You’re not reading what I wrote, and are talking to yourself. The evidence is that you’re speaking of “theyâ€, but there’s no they in the discussion–there’s only an “itâ€. There is one and only one alleged inconsistency I am talking about, and it is NOT a real one. Don’t go off fighting windmills.
Sorry, but you’re the one who said “fictitious inconsisten[b]cies[/b]“, not “[i]a[/i] fictitious inconsistenc[i]cy[/i]“. [i]You[/i] not reading what you wrote.
> but it should be obvious that I’m not a Christian–look at my nick for Christ’s sake!
Sorry, but [b]yy2bggggs[/b] is indecipherable to me.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:53 am
coding bungle. Take two:
Sorry, but you’re the one who said “fictitious inconsistenciesâ€, not “a fictitious inconsistenccyâ€. You are not reading what you wrote.
> but it should be obvious that I’m not a Christian–look at my nick for Christ’s sake!
Sorry, but yy2bggggs is indecipherable to me.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Richard R says:
There isn’t any such thing in science as Darwin”ism,” any more than there’s Einstein”ism” or Newton”ism.” There are only facts and theories.
If by Darwin”ism” you mean the theory of evolution, it gets critically analyzed every day by scientists all over the world. That’s what scientistsdo. Nothing – and I do mean nothing – gets a free pass.
The fact of evolution is well-established. Darwin was hardly the first to notice that when engineers dug tunnels, canals, rock cuts for railroads, etc., the fossils changed radically depending on location and depth, and that living species had analogs – possibly ancestors – among the fossils. Beginning in the late 18th century, a number of scientists, including Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, wrote about the phenomenon.
What Darwin did was propose a mechanism, based on decades of observation and study and drawing on the expertise of the best minds among his colleagues, for that phenomenon. So far it’s held up, because it fits the facts.
Darwin wasn’t the only one to come up with the idea, either. He beat Alfred Russel Wallace to publication by a matter of months, if I remember right.
Christian Burnham says:
Apology accepted, my friend.
You’ll get no argument out of me on that one. Sunday school isn’t for science classes, any more than regular school is for religious education.
yy2bggggs says:
Obviously we’re both talking across each other. If you’ll elaborate a bit, maybe we can hash this out amicably.
Ozprof says:
Can you say “ad hominem“? (Actually it’s ad feminem in my case.)
If you’ve read my posts, you know something about my background. I hardly think I’m ignorant, if I may say so myself.
I’m going to stick my neck out here. What I haven’t said is that I spent a couple of my college years in the Fundamentalist camp, so I’ve known that from the inside as well. It was OK for a while, but I found there was no room for my questions. (At one point, a group leader said to me in so many words, “God doesn’t need thinkers!”) It wasn’t long before I started feeling as if a large and important part of me was being suffocated. At times it became a physical sensation. (I can feel it again as I type this.) Finally I fell into a depression severe enough that for the first and only time in my life, I considered suicide. Literally, I got out to save my own life.
Angry? Still squirming? Yes. Ignorant? Bigoted? Hardly. Been there, done that, got the scars. (OTOH, Fundamentalism seems to work very well for my brother. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.)
If you have a specific quibble, present it in a rational way. Tell me what you think is wrong with my analysis, and give me something solid to back up your reasoning. But don’t just tell me I’m ignorant and bigoted, or simply quote “the Bible says” or doctrine at me.
For my part, I’ll try to be less snarky. I hereby officially swear off the use of the term “FMC.” I don’t want to get into a fight. But I stand by everything I’ve written regarding history, language, interpretation, and what I know from experience about the range of “Christianities.”
JustAl says:
No argument there. All those implications are important. Maybe Christian can elaborate a bit. Christian?
Irishman says:
Seeing the two clips juxtaposed, I think maybe my post was misleading. Different “we.” Sorry, my bad for not making it clear which hat I was wearing at the moment. I still agree with you.
Sticks says:
I did a bunch of digging and found a set of parallel translations of several ancient sources of the passage in question. I didn’t find any “had” constructs, but I did find an instance or two of “so” and “then” in place of the more common “and.” But now we’re getting into hairsplitting, which is really only interesting to weird birds like me….. OK, she said to herself, take a deep breath………..
Irishman says:
“2 Y’s 2 B 4 G’s S.” “Too wise to be for Jesus.” =ROFL= That’s really ingenious – I like it in spite of myself!
February 14th, 2007 at 6:45 am
anomalous4:
Much thanks for being civil about this. Irishman points out that I said inconsistencies–yes, that’s correct, and changes nothing I’ve said. I’m against the use of any fictitious inconsistencies, and I see a lot of them come up from detractor’s. That’s not to say there are no real inconsistencies–there’s just a number of fictitious ones. Furthermore, in this case, as I’ve pointed out, there are enough problems just bringing all of the land animals to Adam to name in the first place (i.e., there’s already an absurdity).
Still, there was only one specific inconsistency I was bringing up–hence, one “alleged inconsistency” (hate quoting myself, but feel it’s required here). As Irishman no doubt discovered, the record’s pretty much indelible here, so you could just scroll up and look at it.
My point with you was that you were talking about some “they” of inconsistencies that are real. What they could you be talking about? There’s this particular alleged inconsistency, which is really an anachronistic view of the language and not an inconsistency, and the general idea of other fictitious inconsistencies. The latter is pretty much fictitious by definition, so it seems odd to me to defend false alleged inconsistencies (defending THAT there are inconsistencies is different, but there’s really nothing in what I’ve said so far that says the bible is consistent); the former was just addressed, but is only singular.
I’ve felt my comments were simply not being read, because the only reasonable way I could be saying the bible is always consistent would be if I were a biblical literalist; but in the same sentence where I point out that there are fictitious inconsistencies we don’t need to deal with, I pointed out that there’s enough problems with what the text actually says–something a literalist probably wouldn’t say.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
yy2bggggs:
OK, let me see if I grok what you’re really saying.
Am I right that what you mean by “fictitious inconsistencies,” you mean that readers are deliberately looking for and setting up “inconsistencies” based on incomplete, erroneous, selective, or prejudiced reading – straw men, I believe the rhetorical term is – just so they can be knocked down?
Or is it that some readers are looking only at the surface, “seeing” things that aren’t there, and assuming that’s all there is?
Or is it that they’re just nitpicking?
Or is it a combination of ingredients, or something else entirely?
Language is so bleeping slippery! (I love it though. Sometimes I think that if I had it to do all over again, I’d go into language and linguistics as a career. Saints Lakoff and Chomsky, have mercy on my soul! =grin=)
Maybe I got my wires crossed at your initial use of the plural. What I read – and now I’m pretty sure it’s not what you meant – wasn’t that you were only pointing out only one inconsistency, but that you were saying it was the only inconsistency here.
The chronological inconsistency (see the reference I cited above) is real, and it’s the primary one scholars and theologians have focused on. (I grew up swimming in this stuff, remember?) But I understand that it wasn’t the one you were talking about, and the one you were talking about is just as absurd. (I always get a mental picture of “the animals went in two by two…” – followed immediately by a second picture, of the population of China lining up by fours and walking by in a procession that would never end because of the continual population increase.)
Poor Adam would have died of old age quite a few times – and he’s said to have lived to the ripe old age of 130 – long before he got through the invertebrates. He’d have gone nuckin’futs over the beetles! =horrors!= (I wonder if he’s spinning in his proverbial grave over all the previously unknown species we keep finding by the hundreds. More likely he’s heaving a tremendous sigh of relief that it’s not his problem any more. =another grin=)
How am I doing so far?
Scholars have been busting their brains over the problem of linguistic anachronism ever since linguistics was invented. A major goal of biblical scholarship is to get away from linguistic anachronism through study not only of biblical sources, but also of other ancient texts and what we’ve managed to learn about their constantly evolving cultural contexts. (That’s why Hebrew and Greek lexicons – not to mention Aramaic, Syriac, Chaldean, and others – run to multiple three-inch-thick volumes.)
It’s a can of worms even for people who spend their whole lives working on it. According to one estimate, there are over 30,000 variants and flat-out contradictions in the ancient sources, thousands of words that have multiple meanings, and a slew of words whose meanings are still uncertain – a particular problem in Hebrew.
Hebrew. Oy vay. In the Hebrew sources, only the consonants are original, and the vowel markings, or lack of them, can drive even a linguist nuckin’futs. The Masoretic text, the oldest known completely “vowelized” source, dates back only to about 700 c.e. Scholars of the Hebrew scriptures also have to deal with sources in Aramaic, a related language that was the lingua franca of much of Israel, particularly in the north (it was most likely the native language of Jesus, a northerner).
Then there are the foreign words and new ideas that crept in during the Babylonian exile, when Judaism had to learn to survive without the Temple. (The Talmud and Rabbinic Judaism arose in response to that displacement.) On top of all that, the Hebrew scriptures are inordinately fond of wordplay – often involving multiple languages.
………and then…………
What to do with the Greek Septuagint – a rabbinic translation in widespread use 2000 years ago, made for the non-Hebrew-speaking Jews who outnumbered the Hebrew speakers – or the fourth-century Latin Vulgate that’s been the basis of so much Christian theology via the Catholic Church?
Koiné (biblical) Greek versus classical Greek? The originally Greek John, Luke, and epistles versus the originally Aramaic Mark and Matthew?
And verily I say unto thee, Oy vay. Make that a barrel of worms. (I leave it the Gentle Reader to decide whether Adam got around to naming them all.)
Linguistic anachronisms arise mainly at the opposite end, from taking the words of a translation in their modern sense and/or without consideration for shades of meaning even in modern usage, or taking one or two sources as definitive, or relying on outdated scholarship.
Blast it, woman, shut the bleep up! =grin #3=
Ultimately we may have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff, but I think we all owe it to each other to try to understand where everyone is coming from and what we mean by our words themselves. No one learns anything from flinging all those bowling balls, dead cats, and Volkswagens (and definitely not from the poo!) I mentioned earlier.
I figure, light is always better than heat – although I could sure use a bit more heat in my apartment right now. (I get chilled easily – last night I was wearing my hoodie with the hood up.) But it goes without saying that yelling at each other online won’t do anything for that, and besides, it’s a waste of time and energy.
Peace, my friend.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Erratum………
Waybackinthewayback, I identified the two creation narratives as E and J, in that order.
My bad. The first is J (earlier and more “mythological” in form) and the second is P (later and more intentionally “theological”).
Big fat hairy deal, but I do like to be accurate.
I’ll upshut now.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
yy2bggggs, I fail to see how the inconsistency is fictitious. The specific one we are discussing is the one about the two descriptions being inconsistent based upon event sequence. Your argument is (1) the word “and” is ambiguous and rather than meaning a temporal descriptor it is an emphasisor; (2) the English version is a multiple generation translation from whatever original source, so we can’t trust the English wording or verb choices.
To (1), I think the point is irrelevant. It’s incorporated in point (2), so let’s address it. Genesis 1 has animals created in verses 20 – 25 (on both the fifth and sixth days), then Man and Woman created together in verse 27 (at the end of the sixth day). Genesis 2 has Man created, right after the rivers flow out of the ground, and before animals and plants. Then after the trees grow and Adam is lonely, God forms the animals (birds and land) past Adam, and when none are sufficient, then he creates Eve. There are lots of tense variation games to try to justify the differences in the sequence. The variations read like a post hoc attempt to cobble two completely different stories into one compatible flow without changing the inherent structure of each independent story. Oh, wait, that’s what they are.
Daffy was wrong with the description as “first year creative writing student” – Genesis 2 reads like a high school assignment for class – “Write a creation story off the top of your head, due by the end of class.” No effort is put into logical sequence or timeline. The writer wrote whatever came to mind in the order he thought of it. The random juggling of tense and “had done this”’s is required because the writer didn’t edit after creating the ideas. That just makes no sense for a story crafted over time, expressed in oral tradition for decades or centuries before being written down. The oral tradition would craft the story to flow, in order to make it easier to remember and easier to follow. But tenses would be scrambled to death when combining two existing stories into one text and trying to make them consistent where they are not, without changing the existing flow of each story.
You argue that the original wasn’t English, so we can’t speak to the particular verb choice. But it’s not about that. It’s about the logical flow of the story. Take Genesis 2: if we maintain the story order and assign verb tenses to make the story work with Gen 1, it just doesn’t make sense. To paraphrase the story:
God made man, then remember that garden he made before? God placed man there, and then made all sorts of food trees grow…. Then God noticed Adam was lonely, and decided to make a suitable helper. So God remembered all the animals he had already created, and being lazy, decided to see if any of them would work. But they didn’t, so God make a wholly new being out of Adam’s rib, and called her Eve.
It’s bad writing (and not just my version). “Oh yeah, I forgot to mention…†shows up way too many times in the story. But take the story in isolation, and assign verb tenses that logically fit with the progression. Now you have God creating Man, then creating a garden for Man, and creating food. Then creating animals to try out as helpers, before finally determining the best helper would be similar and equal to Man, but female. The logical progression is much smoother, much more coherent. The sequence inconsistency with Gen 1 just can’t be dismissed so easily.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
To sum this argument up, there is no way to reconcile the literal Bible with evidence discovered by the scientific process. You can’t even reconcile the literal Bible with itself.
So either you take the whole Bible as myth; you pick and choose which passages you are going to designate as literal and which passages are myths (keeping in mind there is no physical guide from God as to which is which); or, you pretend the Bible is literal and ignore all the inconsistencies as tests of faith and/or as something God knows but your puny human mind can’t comprehend and/or [fill in your own rationale].
For a list of and link to all the 384 contradictions in the King James version of the Bible, the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” is a great web resource.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Highlights:
Injustice
Absurdity
Cruelty and Violence
Intolerance
Contradictions
Family Values
Women
Science and History
Interpretation
Good Stuff
Prophecy
Sex
Language
Homosexuality
You can find the same information on the Book of Mormon and the Quran from the same site.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Irishman:
Your post is 90% fluff
It is not “just an argument” that this wasn’t written in English. This wasn’t written in English! We both know this. Do you appreciate how different a language can be?
Consider Japanese–a non-Romantic language. There’s no future tense, at all. Whereas in English, we speak of time as if it were a river, “flowing” from past to future, in Japanese, the future tends to be downhill, and the past uphill. So you do strange things to talk about the future, and you need context. Contrast this with another extreme–Latin, which has a verb tense for “to be going to have been being x”.
Now, note something interesting about Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1, there’s a progression of time during the creation week–but each progression is very explicitely labeled with an exact count, relating to an ordinal day. Then you have Genesis 2.
Note something else. Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1, but chapters are really post hoc subdivisions. None of the text of the bible was written with chapters. So, really, Genesis 2 is just a convenient marker we have for a piece of text following Genesis 1. The content of the text itself had no such divisions at the time of writing; therefore, meaning cannot be inferred from the division.
Now, given this, consider the text of Genesis. Genesis 1 is chronologically ordered, but don’t you think something else is strange about it? There’s a continual mention of days next to everything, and not only this, there’s a specific ordinal attached to each day. Poetic license I could buy into, but it’s VERY realistic for me to determine that this language probably isn’t necessarily chronological.
Okay, so READ it. first day, second day, etc. Man and woman created sixth day, seventh day, and everything is complete. Not just complete, but explicitely stating it’s complete. A few more versus–contextual distance–and man is being created. Woman isn’t there yet. Remember, the text is just going along–there’s no new paragraph (paragraphs were invented later). Oh, and this is using the “and” construct, followed by a chronological text (with suspiciously spelled out ordering), with a jump back in time.
Inconsistency? That’s what you claim, but this seems entirely consistent to me with a language that doesn’t by default flow chronologically, and a contextual story jump back to the past to explain creation in more detail. There seems to be two discussions, but that’s all I can really gather from the text.
So, my points here?
* This was not written in English
* There are MODERN languages that differ significantly from our own in chronological structure
* The text is a continuous flow. Genesis 2 is right after Genesis 1. This is not a “next paragraph”
* There’s already jumping around in time to pick up context, in just going to the second account.
* The explicitness, and ordinal numbering, of the days seem consistent with a contextually ordered language.
* Any notions of chronological flow not explictly contextual should be held with suspicion
I’m open to this being an inconsistency, but all arguments so far are wrong, because they are using “obvious” rules which obviously do not apply.
It’s valid to think that a language could jump around in time to bring up details. There’s jumping around just to get to the second account! Furthermore, if this were two books, or two writings, you’d have more of a case–that it’s a single writing suggests that these things are a feature of the language itself.
skeptigirl:
I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I am aware that the original text does not make the paragraphing and numbering that we do now. I am aware that the source material is one text. What you seem to be overlooking is that this wasn’t written down during the origin of the stories, like a writer sitting down and putting it together for a modern novel. It is a compilation of oral teachings and lore, compiled from multiple sources and then edited by multiple parties to make the one textual document that is the earliest version of the Torah.
The writing construction between the two is very different. The first is explicitly chronological and precisely sequenced. In that version, the fish and birds come on day five, and the rest of the animals come early day six, and then Man and Woman come together at the end of day six. It seems inconsistent for something so chronologically consistent and explicit to turn around and change the sequence for the details, which is precisely what Gen. 2 does if you include it as a continuation of Gen 1. Gen 2 declares Man, then animals, then Woman. Gen 2 does not delineate or refer to the days referenced in Gen 1, which would make sense and be easy and logical for someone continuing the same story.
Gen. 2 is inherently a jump back in time only if you assume it is a retelling of the same event. In other words, you assume it is a continuation of the story, rather than an independent creation later appended to the Gen 1 story to meld two (or more) cultural traditions into one group.
skeptigirl, I think for the purposes of this conversation yy2bggggs is discussing this one particular case. Any other inconsistencies are not germane.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
More simply put: In Genesis 1: 27, God made humans and he made them male and female. He made them at the same time.
In Genesis 2, God makes Man, then does all this other stuff (placing him in the Garden, making food trees, commanding him what he can and cannot eat, then decides Man shouldn’t be alone, parades all the animals past to be named), and then makes Woman.
Whether or not the animals were created in between or merely paraded past in between (and I’m not conceding the intent of the passage), there is still an inconsistency. It takes mental gymnastics to excuse the inconsistencies. That advocates can come up with the gymnastics does not eliminate that the gymnastics are required.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
yy2bggggs Says:
skeptigirl:
I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.
So you are basically saying, “or, you ignore [some of] the inconsistencies as [errors in translation].
In the discussion with Irishman you have presented your case for one major inconsistency in the Bible. I’m not convinced. So it becomes your interpretation of the day. Irishman has another interpretation.
Have you made any effort to investigate the original text and/or are their Biblical scholars that support your interpretation or are you merely hypothesizing that explanation and claiming your hypothesis is evidence, “There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community”..
I wouldn’t be surprised if some number of the 384 inconsistencies are explainable in some way. However, interpretations of the Bible are continually changed to fit the realities (the Earth isn’t flat, it must be a metaphor), or the social/political climate (homosexuality is an abomination but we no longer execute kids who mouth off to their parents), of the day. If you can ignore all the internal and external inconsistencies in the Bible at will, what does that say about the Judeo-Christian religion that is supposed to be based on the Bible? It says that religion is based on shifting sand and the claim the Bible proves this or that or says we should do this or that or believe this or that is an unsupportable claim. It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]’s interpretation of the Bible today. One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
skeptigirl:
I just did exactly that, and the results did kind of surprise me. It basically revealed that I had a better picture of what was going on than I thought.
Ancient Hebrew, apparantly, has only two verb tenses–perfect and imperfect. Perfect indicates an action that has been completed; imperfect indicates an action that has not yet been completed. (There are multiple other verb forms, but these are the only tenses).
Genesis, as well as a larger portion of the text of the old testament, is a form of poetry. In Ancient Hebrew poetry, a poetic device that is commonly used is a parallelism. A parallelism involves retelling the same event in different ways, or telling multiple stories, and–as the name suggests–making a parallel with the stories just written. The “and” construct is part of the form of the poetry–it links these blocks of stories together.
Not only did I find this out, but something else new arises for me. Even in Genesis 1, before Genesis 2, there are multiple blocks–so there’s not just two accounts, but several. This was something that never really made sense to me before, because of the text before the “first day” part of Genesis.
To avoid possibly being put into a “could be spam bucket” until Phil wakes up, I won’t post my source explicitly, but I got this from www ancient dash hebrew dot org. In full disclosure, the person/people running that site sound like crazy fundies, but I still have to believe they understand ancient hebrew.
As for “I ignore [some of] the inconsistencies as [errors in translation]“, yes, that about sums it up, and I think it’s fair as well. When I talk about what the bible means, being an atheist, there’s no context for me to discuss “what God wants me to know”, so the only other valid context I know of to meaningfully discuss it is “what the author meant”. The authors of old testament writings, of course, were very ancient, and in a fairly alien culture, and I never forget that they used different words, or that absolutely zero of them were Christian. So I tend to have pretty high standards when it comes to a claim that such and such is a “logical contradiction”–there are things that show up in translation that are obviously such, and things that may not be–the latter I think needs a bit more weight…
…but when the same book, within the short space of what would be a single conversation, has seeming contradictions, that makes me even more suspicious that they are just being misunderstood, so it counts as requiring further analysis. The way I figure it, odds are a lot higher that inconsistencies like this are merely you not knowing what they are saying (hell, native speakers here had problems understanding me in this thread, using MODERN English! And that’s not a strike against anyone–such is obviously prominent anyway)
Multiple authors from different sources? Not so much–just a reasonable understanding of “was this really what they meant” is enough–odds that there’s a conflict will be high enough in such cases.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
skeptgirl:
Okay, reading your post more carefully, it seems I have something else to comment on–the last paragraph. As for “earth being flat”, I think there’s a lot of myth that people used to believe this anyway, before say Columbus (the modern myth being that Columbus proved the world round–but people knew it was round before that). However, when going further back and to the specific culture of Hebrews, I’m not quite sure. So on this I’d be open. As for things like Levitical law, those can get pretty harsh, and many literalists do indeed excuse the half away they don’t like with “we’re not living under the law” and pick the other half they do like up and beat people over the head with it, and such is indeed illogical. So for you’re general point, I’m completely with you.
As for this:
“It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]’s interpretation of the Bible today.”
…I agree–that lines up fairly well with what I’ve seen. But as for this:
“One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.”
…I disagree. There is a correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the one the original author would have had. So someone seeking this interpretation and using reasonable steps to get it would in fact have a more valid interpretation than someone who does not. Oh, and if it’s old testament, he wasn’t a Christian–that’s for sure–so any “Judeo-Christian” perspective put into the interpretation would be warped.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
yy2bggggs Says:
“One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.â€
…I disagree. There is a correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the one the original author would have had. So someone seeking this interpretation and using reasonable steps to get it would in fact have a more valid interpretation than someone who does not. Oh, and if it’s old testament, he wasn’t a Christian–that’s for sure–so any “Judeo-Christian†perspective put into the interpretation would be warped.
I find this an overly idealistic point of view. And are you forgetting that the Bible has more than one author so contradictions are not surprising?
When I speak of the interpretation of one’s choosing I am not speaking of literal translation. That would be even worse. Are we to stone children to death who disobey their parents? And if not then who decides homosexuality is an abominable sin but disobedient children will be tolerated? Should we send people with lesions away from the city and have the priest re-examine them every week until it’s deemed OK for them to enter? (Handwashing would have been a more intelligent command to prevent disease, BTW.)
You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be done.
It seems you would use ‘mistranslations’ as the magic rationalization. Even if that were the case, it makes my case. How would such a book with so many mistranslations be the least bit useful?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
skeptigirl:
I found your post quite confusing at first, until I realized what was going on. I said this:
“when the same book, within the short space of what would be a single conversation, has seeming contradictions, that makes me even more suspicious that they are just being misunderstood, so it counts as requiring further analysis. … Multiple authors from different sources? Not so much–just a reasonable understanding of “was this really what they meant†is enough–odds that there’s a conflict will be high enough in such cases.”
Apparantly, somehow, you got from that that I have it in my mind that the bible was written by a single author. This is not the case; still, there are texts in the bible written from the same author. What I’m getting at is that you have to keep these things in mind when judging what is contradictory and what is not.
Furthermore, the specific meaning you get when you interpret text has nothing to do with whether or not you interpret it correctly. The only relevant factor in “valid translation” is whether or not what you think it means matches what the author meant to write. Perhaps you’re forgetting I’m not a Christian–I’m not bound to anything the bible says. Your point about whether or not we should stone disobedient children, then, is lost. The question was never, should we stone disobedient children. Definitely we should not! The question is more, is it a valid translation that we should stone disobedient children? My point is that the criteria for validity is what the author meant, so the question becomes–did the author mean that we should stone disobedient children?
Then we have this:
“You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be done.”
Surely, though, as you felt the need to remind me, you are aware of the fact that the Bible was written by different authors! What exactly is the bible? It’s a collection of books, written over a vast period of time. There’s another common anachronism some people make here, which is the concept that the authors of these books were writing the bible.
This is definitely incorrect–they were not writing the bible. They were merely writing books. “The bible” exists as a collection of these books–a cannon. It’s more like a small library. The actual collection of the books constituting the bible was performed very recently, relatively speaking.
My point is this. You merely have a number of books written over time. In order for what you just said to be true, therefore, one of the following has to hold:
* The books that happened to have been collected into the cannon we now call “the bible”, are special for some reason; in particular, they require a different set of criteria to judge what they mean
* Or alternately, what you’re saying isn’t particularly applicable to the bible, but to all books
I certainly do not believe the books making up the bible are particularly special in this regard–that leaves the latter. But then, the implications of that quote are grander, aren’t they? They lead to something like this:
“You just cannot reasonably interpret a book in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is done.”
The first part, I disagree with. Of course you can reasonably interpret text written in a book without cherry picking/rationalizing. It may be harder to do in some cases, but it’s definitely possible.
The second part is true–there’s no guide to how this is done. But this is also true of almost everything of importance. How are we going to test string theory? How are we going to fit dark matter into the standard model? There’s no guide to how this is done–you’re supposed to use your brain; and sometimes, it’s very hard, and it requires a lot of discipline. Those who pretend knowledge is common sense, easy, obvious, and follows straightforward from simple rules, are just fooling themselves.
Once again, I’m probably being mistaken for a Christian, because there’s something here that’s supposed to be an inconsistency, and I don’t buy it. But I’m not–and even if I were, it shouldn’t matter. Are we trying to be correct, or fight Christians?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I think the problem I am having with this discussion is the underlying premise. That premise is the Bible is supposed to be a text which describes a set of beliefs and rules, and, those beliefs and rules are supposed to be consistent with a god’s message and instructions.
You are merely evaluating single passages and books and claiming there really aren’t 384 contradictions, we have some technicalities wrong, translations wrong, etc. Who cares unless the text is supposed to describe beliefs and rules? A literary scholar? Sure…. Me? Why would I? It isn’t even interesting reading except in the context of the religion that has formed around it.
You claim you are not defending the Bible as “the word of God”. Could you then perhaps restate your point? Are you saying there are less than 384 contradictions? I wouldn’t bother to argue or check, it isn’t relevant.
Are you saying there are NO contradictions? And your rationale is you weren’t talking about contradictions from author to author or within the Bible as a complete book. You were only talking about contradictions within a single writer’s work. And only the author could confirm actual meaning. Again, I wouldn’t bother to argue or check, it isn’t relevant.
Are you saying every believer in the Bible today has it wrong and at some point in the past, or, if we had the “true” works which should be in the Bible there wouldn’t be any contradictions? To that I say there is no evidence and that implies you think there is an underlying ‘real’ god with a ‘real’ message and rules.
In other words, as single works typical modern Biblical analyses don’t apply. Who cares? As a Bible, that is supposed to be the basis of a religion, the Bible is full of flaws, contradictions, etc. My comment, “You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be doneâ€, only applies in the context of the Bible as a whole, and as it is claimed to be by believers. In any other context, who cares? I certainly don’t.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
skeptigirl:
Sure–I’d be happy to restate my point.
First, I’ll ask a rhetorical question. There’s this list of 384 biblical contradictions on the web that you have cited here. What is the purpose of this list? What is the point in maintaining it?
The collection we refer to as “the bible” is a Christian creation, for sure. There are Christians of all types–some Christians recognize that the bible was written by men, and use it as a guide. There’s various views about the old testament, and its implications. There were Christians before the bible was written. Tell any of these people that such and such text in the bible contradicts with this other text in the bible, and they may simply say, so what?
Then there’s a particular class of Christians who cause a lot of problems. They do exactly as you prescribe–they pick and choose from the bible, interpret text over here as metaphorical, assemble text from various places in various contexts and come up with these new doctrines, etc. These are the Christians who resist science, tugging back at the progress of humanity. They are the biblical literalists.
It’s for the sake of these people that such listings exist. As idiotic as you may claim these people are, they are not, in fact, stupid. They are the way they are due to aspects of human psychology. Rationalize is a very good term for what they do–they take inconsistencies and try to figure out a way in which they are not really inconsistent. But we both know this isn’t true–the bible is full of inconsistencies!
So we have a list of inconsistencies. When these literalists start causing problems, we drag out the ammo. We pick up a few of these things and slam it towards them. This should cause discomfort to them–cognitive dissonance at least–by being exposed to the fact that it’s impossible to even have a consistent interpretation of the bible in the first place.
Now, there’s a problem with the list. This same human psychology that causes people to become biblical literalists interferes with the detractor’s ability to recognize real inconsistencies. So they make mistakes. They add things to this list that are not genuinely inconsistent–they are, instead, based on misunderstandings.
When those inconsistencies are used as ammo to attack biblical literalists, there’s a problem! Why? Because these people aren’t really stupid; because their lives revolve around the bible, ironically, they become better experts on the bible than the detractors. And, due to the way they think, they tend to want to demonize detractors–if there are 384 things in a list, and 40 of them are fake, they’ll pull out 40 things “at random” that they know aren’t real, argue against them, and point out how much this is evidence that you require the spirit of God inside you to guide you to interpret the bible.
Pretty ineffective, huh? These Christians may explain away the rest of the inconsistencies as well, pulling out other psychological stunts, reinterpretations, games of telephone with translations, whatever. But they are bothered when they do so. If you have a false inconsistency in the list, however, they can and do focus on those, and they wind up having a psychological “out”.
So, if you are a detractor, and you use this list for ammo, you need to have pretty high standards for what constitutes an inconsistency, and you had better be right, else you’re just going to make yourself look bad. The temptation to put more on the list, defend inconsistencies that “seem right”, etc, works against you.
My side point is how some detractors borrow the arguments from biblical literalists to show that the bible is literally true, when they try to debunk non-literalist Christians. This is just poor thinking, however–just as you don’t have a reason to buy that the bible is literally true, the non-biblical literalist has no reason as well. But this particular point bothers me a bit less, since non-literalists don’t tend to be as much of a drag on human progress.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
yy2bggggs Says: What is the purpose of this list?…
There are Christians of all types–some Christians recognize that the bible was written by men, and use it as a guide.
Then there’s a particular class of Christians who cause a lot of problems. They do exactly as you prescribe–they pick and choose from the bible,…These are the Christians who resist science
As idiotic as you may claim these people are, they are not, in fact, stupid.
…interferes with the detractor’s ability to recognize real inconsistencies. So they make mistakes When those inconsistencies are used as ammo to attack biblical literalists, there’s a problem!…
…debunk non-literalist Christians.
These are the points I picked out of your post and hopefully I’m addressing all the points you made.
First, I hope I didn’t call any believers idiots. Though from my perspective believing in the Biblical religions appears as foolish as believing in Zeus. To Christians and other similarly faithful, they would most likely think the same about Zeus believers yet can’t see their religion is no different. Being intelligent and educated doesn’t preclude being indoctrinated at some point in one’s life. Unfortunately, once indoctrinated, change is unlikely if the degree of indoctrination has passed the individual’s threshold for permanency.
As to the list of contradictions, it is but a single piece of evidence that the Bible is not qualitatively different from other collections of stories people have developed over the centuries and believed in as evidence of or as a record of the evidence for gods. Christians and the rest of the believers in whichever version of the Bible, Torah or Quran one claims is the correct version view all religions not their own as collections of mythical stories, yet elevate their own collection to a unique status. Objectively none are unique.
I don’t view the various lists on the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible as ammunition to argue with anyone, nor do I expect any person truly indoctrinated to ever face the reality of the evidence. If they haven’t seen the obvious in their entire lifetime, they are highly unlikely to see it just because I point it out.
There are times when a skeptic or a scientist wouldn’t want to leave opportunities for criticism of the criticism. But I can’t think of a single instance when such an opportunity would have any impact in arguing with a theist. They are by nature arguing irrationally.
That leaves your last premise which I find may be a clue to your own particular version of theism which you think is the superior version and which you think is somehow different from all the myths and other versions of the Biblical religions. I said “clue” so if I have judged wrong and you are an atheist, I’ll be surprised but I wouldn’t argue. It is unusual for an atheist to voice concern over the distinction between 384 contradictions and ‘x’ contradictions. It is also unusual for an atheist to be concerned about making an error arguing with a theist which would give the theist an edge. I think most of us have come to expect theists to ignore evidence and facts.
The premise I don’t accept is that one can use the Bible as a “guide” without all the cherry picking. It goes with the secondary premise that the problem with the Christian religion is only with the believers who reject science.
So tell me this, what does it mean, “there are Christians who use [the Bible] as a guide”? How does that differ in terms of picking and choosing from those that pick and choose the literal parts? How can a book with any contradictions, and with so many inconsistencies guide anyone unless that one picks and chooses whatever is convenient to be guided by out of the book (or collection of books)?
There is a continuum of Bible believers from strict literalists to those you describe as using the Bible as a guide. There is no point on that continuum where you can say, from this perspective the contradictions and inconsistencies all fall into place and make sense. There is no place on that continuum where the Bible looks any different from the myriad of other religious texts and collections of stories people all over the world developed as their explanations of the Universe.
There is no theme running throughout all the texts which indicates they are all versions of the same “guide” and represent a human interpretation of real gods. There is a theme, however, running through all the texts that these were human attempts to explain the Universe before humans developed or discovered the scientific process of observation. I observe no evidence of gods in the Universe and the evidence I do observe, (which the flaws are only one tiny piece of), supports the simplest explanation for the Bible which is that men wrote it and no real gods inspired it.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
skeptgirl:
Most of our discussion on this forum (between you and I specifically) was, in my mind, simply an elaboration of what I meant in prior posts. I think this comment in itself covers the first few paragraphs of your response–in particular, I don’t think you’ve called Christians idiots, or “pulled out the ammo”. My specific concern was this specific “contradiction” which I believe to be false; my general concern is more about why I think it’s important not to be wrong (though I would think this should be important anyway, but too many fall into the trap of “this is obviously wrong, therefore, it is wrong”, and trip over something subtle, due to the fact that what’s “obvious” really isn’t all that obvious–that covers my beef with Irishman for example).
As for how using the bible “as a guide” differs from cherry picking, that’s quite easy. The viewpoint of what the bible is is simply flipped around from the literalist view. Instead of it being something brought down by God and handed to man, you simply view it as being written by men who were inspired by this god; all such men are viewed as fallable, but the text in itself is just deemed to somehow be inspirational (what exactly “somehow” means depends on the person).
For what it’s worth, I don’t tend to place a lot of importance on “theism versus atheism”, but nonetheless, I am an atheist. You say that it’s unusual for atheists to be concerned about which contradictions are real and which aren’t; that’s possibly true. If so, I’m probably unusual. But I would have you consider this: most of the atheists I know, I know are atheists, because they told me they are atheists. I’m fairly sure this set isn’t a good representative of atheists in general, because atheists that make themselves known as atheists tend to include a disproportionate number who place some particular importance on atheism.
I’m aware that I come off as a theist though when getting involved in such discussions, because I have strange mannerisms (such as capitalizing the word “god” when it refers to a (pseudo?)monotheistic entity and is used as a name). As such, I think it’s pretty interesting that you even entertained it as a possibility if not a likelihood, and I think that’s a testament that you’re being rational about this. Now rationality I place importance on!
February 21st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Capitalizing the word God doesn’t designate theism. I capitalize it when I’m specifically referring to the Christian God and I don’t when I’m discussing gods in general.
I don’t find, “but the text in itself is just deemed to somehow be inspirational (what exactly “somehow†means depends on the person)”, to be much of an argument supporting your categorizing of ‘inspirational guide’ as not cherry picking and ‘literal belief’ as cherry picking. ‘Somehow’ ‘the person’ cherry picks the inspiration.
My gripe with the inconsistencies isn’t how many there are or the fact there actually are any. My problem is when I hear the claim, “God is love” and all the versions and related themes. That isn’t what the Bible says unless you cherry pick. There are all sorts of horrible things the god in the Bible directs its followers to do. There are some passages that support the usual claims of love thy brother, and a whole bunch of passages that don’t. In my opinion, people claim their religion involves whatever they deem and they claim the Bible says so. It only says so if you cherry pick out of it.
And typically the vast majority of believers don’t actually practice what they portray their beliefs to be either. It’s more image than substance.
As such, it’s not very important to me to fuss over whether or not there are 384 inconsistencies or 10. It wouldn’t even matter if there were none. Because the Christian religion and the Bible are far from the loving image that is claimed, inconsistencies or not.
Injustice in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book they wish to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice! — Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods, (1872)
Cruelty and violence in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible–books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Quran pales in comparison. — Sam Harris, Beliefnet inverview
Intolerance in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
And then there is the tired Christian claim that everything cruel, violent and intolerant is from the Old Testament. Jesus came and changed all that. No he didn’t. There is no passage in the New Testament that has Jesus saying, “forget everything you’ve learned until now” or any other words to that effect.
And here are the same three categories with only the New Testament searched.
Injustice in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/nt.html
Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
Intolerance in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt.html
February 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
skeptgirl:
This could be terminology. I don’t consider it to be “cherry picking” unless someone specifically is supporting a grander notion and picking out the things that make it look good; this seems to agree with what other sources describe as the meaning of “cherry picking” as well. IF someone believes the entire bible is true in some fashion, you may have standing. IF they believe the entire bible is a potential source of inspirtation, you may have standing. But if a person is Christian, and is not a literalist, they are not necessarily in either category.
A good example would be:
“My problem is when I hear the claim, “God is love†and all the versions and related themes. That isn’t what the Bible says unless you cherry pick.”
So, let’s say someone is a Christian. Let’s say they make the claim, “God is love”. And let’s say you identify a particular section of the bible that suggests otherwise. If that Christian is a literalist, he has some explaining to do. That’s fine.
Now, what if the Christian is not a literalist? Non-literalist Christianity does not center on the bible, so should you point out something in the bible that says otherwise, what exactly would be the issue?
You may could find issues with the belief systems of such people, but you don’t really have a basis to use what the bible says against them, unless there’s some means by which you can first establish this basis. Such would only occur, however, on a case by case basis. But why would such people use the bible at all? Well, why not?
I propose a sanity check. Every time you say “Christian”, I would propose you imagine and include an illiterate follower of the teachings of Jesus, based on hearsay, before the first canon.
“And typically the vast majority of believers don’t actually practice what they portray their beliefs to be either. It’s more image than substance.”
I’m confused. This could possibly be true, but let’s just say that it is. Why would it matter? Are you trying to judge Christians in general? Or the average Christian?
“As such, it’s not very important to me to fuss over whether or not there are 384 inconsistencies or 10.”
It still seems to be a discussion of how many though. My point isn’t about how many, it’s about which. And my point isn’t about reducing quantity either–it’s about being correct. I can very easily see that should you chase down the real meanings (and I still say, there’s a criteria to judge that), you may actually wind up with more than 384 of them. Or less. Or quite possibly, by odd coincidence, exactly that many. I don’t really care.
Personally, I think the larger inconsistencies are stronger than the technical ones. You could ALWAYS explain away such and such as not quite meaning so and so, and you’re not really understanding this and that because you’re not spiritual, etc. But when you dig out what the people profess strongly, even if they are literalists, and expose them to what’s inconsistent THERE, it’s pretty hard to dodge. It would seem to me that the types of problems you are having are in this category, so I would ask you–why even bother with the 384 inconsistencies in the first place? Why even point to a listing? “The problem of evil” can be argued quite effectively without a single possible reference to the bible.
The rest of the links don’t really mean much to me. I’ve seen atrocity and absurdity lists before as well, and I’m not sure they are immune to anything they may apply to with regards to my comments. As for the particulars, they don’t really seem to apply to me anyway; it’s kind of hard to have issues with your Christian doctrines when you have none.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
yy2bggggs Says:
skeptigirl:
I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.
This was where this discussion began. You then noted
As for this:
“It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]’s interpretation of the Bible today.â€
…I agree–that lines up fairly well with what I’ve seen. But as for this:
“One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.â€
…I disagree. There is a correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the one the original author would have had. So someone seeking this interpretation and using reasonable steps to get it would in fact have a more valid interpretation than someone who does not.
and
The first part, I disagree with. Of course you can reasonably interpret text written in a book without cherry picking/rationalizing. It may be harder to do in some cases, but it’s definitely possible.
IE There is a correct interpretation.
But the discussion began with 2 versions of Genesis that I believe you were saying could be reconciled if properly seen in the original language.
And I said, who cares, you can’t reconcile everything no matter how close you come to the author’s intended meaning.
To which I thought you said it mattered to be correct if telling some theist they were full of it because the Bible didn’t say what was being claimed. If not correct the theist would say, here’s evidence you are wrong.
And I said there was no way any theist could use the Bible to justify their beliefs. There is no interpretation ‘correct or not’ which can be made to correlate with theist claims about what is supposed to be in the Bible without cherry picking.
Now I don’t know what esoteric direction you’ve taken off on here.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
skeptgirl:
You’re leaving out something very important in the discussion. You are asking me questions, and I’m responding.
Also, note your choice of terms:
“To which I thought you said it mattered to be correct if telling some theist they were full of it because the Bible didn’t say what was being claimed.”
“If not correct the theist would say, here’s evidence you are wrong.”
“And I said there was no way any theist could use the Bible to justify their beliefs.”
“There is no interpretation ‘correct or not’ which can be made to correlate with theist claims about what is supposed to be in the Bible without cherry picking.”
In all four of these sentences, you use the term “theists”. None of your points are about theists–they are only about biblical literalists. This is muddled thinking. The same muddled thinking applies to your confusion between Christianity and biblical literalism.
Muddled thinking is just plain invalid. Surely you would not want to defend it, right? Surely it matters, doesn’t it?
Am I wrong about theism not being equivolent to Christianity? Am I wrong about Christianity not being equivolent to biblical literalism? Am I wrong that you’re justifying the use of lists of inconsistencies, atrocities, and/or absurdities against Christianity? Am I wrong that they only legitimately apply to biblical literalists?