|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Certainty vs Tentativity; Wishful thinking vs Ugly reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1753 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Why must, according to fundamentalist notions, Teh Bible be considered one monolithic whole? The usual claims (regarding canonicity, inerrancy, and completeness) pop up time and time again in various arguments, often of the slippery-slope variety ("If there is the slightest mistake in Teh Bible, how can we trust any of it?"; "We shouldn't be picking and choosing!"; etc.). It's not just the fundamentalists; I put it that non-fundies often fall into that same mindset themselves, automatically rejecting Teh Bible and everything it contains based on the same limited reasoning: it must be considered as one cohesive bundle, standing or falling all-together.
Why do the fundies tend to ignore the formative history behind their own book? Because it may be a bit too sordid for them? Or they don't want to be reminded that somebody must have done some picking and choosing from out of the various extant and available writings of ancient times? Even Teh Bible mentions some of those writings that, for one reason or another, didn't quite make the cut. Does the idea of one unchangeable monolithic text figuratively written in stone by the Finger of God Himself lend the fundies comfort that they wouldn't otherwise have? On the other side of the street, science in general is sometimes presented by non-fundies in nearly the same terms; for example, truisms such as "There is only one scientific method", "All science is cut from one cloth", "It's a matter of Scientific Proof", etc. Granted that those could be desirable goals, but the reality itself may be a bit too sordid for some non-fundies to admit. Thus we get the mindset of Scientism: Science will always triumph(!). I put it that fundies often fall into that same mindset themselves, automatically rejecting entire scientific fields which do not accord with what they consider "True Science" (for quite obvious reasons, of course). I put it that, as practiced by us fallible humans, science itself is not one monolithic whole, as much as some would like it to be. I put it that anything and everything in science is subject to some level of revision, even (gasp!) the Scientific Method itself and/or its various philosophical underpinnings. After all, science didn't originate whole and perfect on Day One; and, for that matter, neither did Teh Bible itself. I put it that, unlike Teh Bible (when unthinkingly considered as a monolithic whole), tentavivity (the acknowledged fallibility and incompleteness of science) is science's greatest strength. Teh Bible is oft promoted by the fundies as a Living Text. Seriously now, what could be more dead than a text which never, ever changes? Even the Constitution of The United States, as important as it is for the foundation of American government, is not subject to that kind of absolute inertness. As some wiseacre once put it, "Finished products are for decadent minds." {Admins: please advise if the proposed subject matter is too broad; will trim on request. If promoted, I hereby leave it to the admins to decide on the appropriate subforum; not really sure myself.}DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Would you be willing to rework this a bit into a thread proposal I'd like to call "Inerrancy versus Tentativity"? If you're willing then post a rewrite to this thread. Please don't edit Message 1, I'd like to keep that around for reference for now.
If you're willing but are not sure what changes I'd like to see then let me know and I'll attempt the first rewrite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
I can help you also...private message me if you would like a sounding board.
We discuss the ongoing debate between Creationism and Evolution. Some of our moderators are creationists and some are strictly science minded, but we all have seen the many facets of this type of debate/discussion. We have some basic Forum Guidelines and we encourage the following: ********************************* ************************************ "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" AdminPhat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1753 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Why must, according to fundamentalist notions, "the Bible" be considered one monolithic whole? The usual claims (regarding canonicity, inerrancy, and completeness) pop up time and time again in various arguments, often of the slippery-slope variety ("If there is the slightest mistake in the Bible, how can we trust any of it?"; "We shouldn't be picking and choosing!"; etc.). It's not just the fundamentalists; I put it that non-fundies often fall into that same mindset themselves, automatically rejecting the Bible and everything it contains based on the same limited reasoning: it must be considered as one cohesive bundle, standing or falling all-together.
A case in point (from "A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture" Message 122):
Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR writes: The god of the OT supposedly ordered His people to commit genocide which is completely contradictory to the message of God as revealed by Jesus. I have a way of resolving that as I believe that one of the reasons God gave us Jesus in the first place was to bring understanding to the Scriptures. IMHO God abhors genocide. You have to come up with an answer that justifies genocide then but not now. How do you determine which is correct? No, I dont have to come up with a answer, that has already been provided before I read any passages from the Old Test or the New, about what God may or may not have done. You just keep ignoring, that precedence of scripture exists. Or as I suspect, you dont trust or have faith in it Its called heirarchy of spiritual standards. A. God exists. B. God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge, you are not. If I cannot trust what it says concerning his makeup and nature, who cares what the rest of the Bible has to say. Because if I cant trust that primary principle, I surely can trust nothing else, correct?
Here is the point, if I have to pick and choose out of the Old Testament, then there will be vitually nothing left Then of course I am now obligated to do the same with the NT, with things like Acts 5 and the topic of Hell Or we could just write our own Bible, like Thomas Jefferson and leave out all the miracles entirely Again whos method do I follow, your or Jeffersons. Since you said some miracles are legend, how do I decide which ones are not
You are the one that can't answer the difficult questions. It is easy to say that the world was created in 6 days or argue for a flood that destroyed all living creatures except for those marched on to a boat in spite of all evidence to the contrary, but moral issues are a different kettle of fish. You have to pick which specific Biblical book or verse that you choose to believe. If we both believe the Bible is the word of God, then the difficult questions are already answered, as I I have indicated above
The usual views behind the statement "the Bible is the word of God" is, of course, not absolute verbatim dictation of the entire contents of the Bible with the human writers acting as mindless secretaries; so we can eliminate that simplistic notion immediately. All we are left with, then, is some sort of nebulous influence called "inspiration", which, like a warm fuzzy blanket, covers over every potential nook and cranny of the given text. However, I am compelled to point out that the nooks and crannies themselves tell a much more interesting story than the comforting warmth and fuzziness of "inspiration". Why do the fundies tend to ignore the formative history behind their own book? Because, like a sausage factory, it may be a bit too sordid for them? Or they don't want to be reminded that somebody must have done some picking and choosing from out of the various extant and available writings of those ancient times and places? Even the Bible mentions some of those writings that, for one reason or another, didn't quite make the cut. Does the idea of rigid canonicity (i.e. one unchangeable monolithic text figuratively written in stone by the Finger of God Himself) lend the fundies comfort that they wouldn't otherwise have? Could this be one of the ulterior motives for inventing the nebulous concept of "inspiration" in the first place? The Bible is oft promoted by the fundies as a Living Text. Seriously now, what could be more dead than a text which never, ever changes? Even the Constitution of The United States, as important as it is for the foundation of American government, is not subject to that kind of absolute inertness. Science (especially science which fundies don't like) is often criticized by the fundies for its capacity to change. So what? Do they fear uncertainty that much? I put it that, unlike the Bible (when unthinkingly considered as an unchangeable monolithic whole), tentavivity (the acknowledged fallibility and incompleteness of science) is science's greatest strength. As some wiseacre once put it, "Finished products are for decadent minds." DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi DWIII,
We may be going in two different directions. I'd like to see a thread proposal that begins something like this:
Creationists claim Biblical inerrancy. Scientists posit tentativity. Which is a better method for understanding the world and universe around us, and even the Bible itself? It this isn't consistent with where you want to go then just let me know and I'll promote your original proposal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1753 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Admin writes:
We may be going in two different directions. I'd like to see a thread proposal that begins something like this:
Creationists claim Biblical inerrancy. Scientists posit tentativity. Which is a better method for understanding the world and universe around us, and even the Bible itself? It this isn't consistent with where you want to go then just let me know and I'll promote your original proposal.
I think we are very nearly in the same direction, although, in retrospect, I would prefer narrowing it to (and/or putting more emphasis on) the Biblical issues; along such lines as the following:
quote:* meaning, of course, "creation scientists". IMO, this would be entirely adequate as the opening line. Please feel free to trim down some of the excess verbiage of my 2nd draft, or let me know if you would prefer me to do that myself. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
one comment. Is there a difference between "Inerrancy" and Biblical completeness and certainty. To me, the issue boils down to whether a Creation Scientist could allow themselves to not be tentative on anything from the Bible.
Have you decided which forum you want this to be in? Is it basically a Faith argument?(I believe....) or a Science argument? In other words, do you wish to state a case in favor of tentativeness? Edited by AdminPhat, : meh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1753 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
AdminPhat writes:
one comment. Is there a difference between "Inerrancy" and Biblical completeness and certainty. To me, the issue boils down to whether a Creation Scientist could allow themselves to not be tentative on anything from the Bible.
Did you mean instead "could allow themselves to not be certain on anything from the Bible"? Either way, I suppose we could ask them.
Have you decided which forum you want this to be in? Is it basically a Faith argument?(I believe....) or a Science argument? In other words, do you wish to state a case in favor of tentativeness?
Perhaps it's more of a philosophical issue, since it touches on both areas. But I wouldn't really want this to get bogged down in whether or not it's inerrant (which I'm sure has been done to death). My question is more directed to the alleged utility and/or desirability of claims of inerrancy and/or completeness in the first place (and I would affirm that such claims are useless). So, "Faith and Belief" it is. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yes, I see where you're going now. Tentativity as part of the scientific method has demonstrated its value in gaining knowledge, so why are fundamentalists so resistant to its application to the Bible? This is a great topic, but it's different from my original interpretation. If you put together a final version I'll promote it.
There will be other opportunities to discuss inerrancy versus tentativity in a scientific context, so don't worry about trying to cover that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1753 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Creationists presume Biblical inerrancy and/or completeness and certainty. Scientists recognize the value of tentativity. Which is a better method for understanding the nature of the Bible (and, as an aside, the world around us)?
What fundamentalists call "The Bible" has many of the earmarks of having been a work in progress, even though it is now considered by them frozen in completed form, which either stands together or falls together as one monolithic whole. Is examining the Bible in scientific terms (i.e., determining its origins, previous sources, history of formation, superfluous accretions, implied missing bits, and so on) somehow considered verboten and/or sacrilegious? Paul himself said (in 1 Thessalonians 5:21): quote: "Testing all things" is the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Why should any aspect of the Bible itself be exempt? DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
After discussion, the final post from DWIII in this thread became the opening post for a new thread proposal, Tentativity and The Bible. Closing this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024