Bruce,
On the whole, I don't have any problems with someone following the teachings of Jesus if they believe that adhering to Jesus' teachings is the best way to live out their life. I would disagree, but that is a perfectly reasonable way to choose to live your life. However, Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha and is usually referred to as an atheistic religion (i.e. a religion which has no deity they worship). So my question is, are you following an atheistic version of Baptism where you subscribe to Baptist traditions, teachings, and culture while not believing in its supernatural claims? Furthermore, if you accept the supernatural aspects of Baptism, such as Jesus' divinity, an omnipotent God, miracles, etc., how do you justify your belief? Thanks!
Bryan
Bryan,
Baptists are all over the map; because Baptists have historically rejected religious creeds and hierarchy, there is no "official" Baptist position on ... anything. Truly, Baptists are among the most diverse religious groups in the world - perhaps the most diverse - representing some 250 distinct groupings worldwide, and within each grouping, a wide range of beliefs.
But, here's an interesting historical tidbit: in the ancient world, Jews were considered atheists because ... everyone else (read: animistic and other primitive, polytheistic type faiths) worshiped visible gods (or gods who took visible forms). Jews, on the other hand, worshiped a supposedly invisible God who did not manifest himself in nature's objects.
- Bruce
Bruce,
Similar to Jews being called atheists, Christians were also called atheists by the Romans because Christians didn't believe in the Pagan gods. You are correct in that I shouldn't make blanket statements about the beliefs of Baptists because their beliefs are diversified. Therefore, I would like to know more about your beliefs specifically. How do you define the supernatural entity that I assume you believe in, and why do you hold that belief?
Bryan
Bryan,
How do I define God? Something along the lines of: mysterious, experiential, all-encompassing, ever present, ungraspable, glimpsed in Christ, allied with the poor and down-trodden, emanating compassion and love in its best sense, so forth. I don't know of anyone, including the men who penned the Jewish and Christian holy texts, who understands the fullness of that which I (and many others) call God. But I do know quite a few folks who worship a God crafted in their own image.
- Bruce
Bruce,
Do you care if your beliefs are true? Or are you just content with accepting some of your beliefs on faith?
Bryan
Bryan,
Truth is what I seek. Yet when it comes to God, no human or text can fully comprehend. So while truth I seek, I also know truth is only partially obtainable. We all see through a glass darkly, to paraphrase the NT's Apostle Paul.
- Bruce
Bruce,
Well why do you believe the Bible has any type of authority on what is true or not? How is the Bible different than any other religious texts (i.e. the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.)? From my point of view, the Bible is not a credible source for the truth of the extravagant claims it makes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In fact, except for a few historical truths (about place names and rulers) there are claims in the Bible that directly contradict our understanding of science. If you attribute these inaccuracies to metaphors that are taken too literally, how do we discern what is metaphorical from what is supposed to be taken literally?
Bryan
Bryan,
Truth has many dimensions. The Bible is and never was a scientific textbook. Those who try to make it so are trying to force a modern mindset of truth upon an ancient text written at a time when truth (and knowledge) was far different than it is today.
- Bruce
Bruce,
How does truth have multiple dimensions? Sure, the Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook, however when the Bible does try to make scientific claims (e.g. the Genesis story of creation) they are directly contradictory to our current scientific understandings. Although this would not dismiss all other claims found in the Bible, such as the supernatural, there should be some doubt cast on the truth that the Bible claims to have. I would agree with you that the knowledge possessed by the people who wrote the Bible was vastly inferior to ours, but that does not mean the truth has changed. Yes, their perception of what is true may be different and that is what science attempts to correct. However, the 'truth' about how our universe actually came to be is fixed. We can speculate as much as we like about how the universe came to be, but the 'truth' of how it happened does not change relative to when people are pondering the question. You referred to the Bible as an ancient text and that is exactly what it is. I have two questions for you:
1) Considering other ancient texts such as the Bhagavad Gita (came millennia before the Bible) and the Qur'an (came centuries after the Bible) along with the Bible, how do you determine (coming from my standpoint) which one is the most accurate and/or which religion I should subscribe to?
2) Suppose you are doing research and writing a scholarly paper on the history of the Middle East. After publishing this paper, a group of Muslim historians call you out and tell you that your work is very poor and obviously fallacious because there are things you talk about in the paper that directly contradict what is in the Qur'an. To me, you are perfectly justifiable in saying that the Qur'an's claims about history must be suspect because you have found contradictory evidence. How would you respond to these Muslim scholars? And how would your answer differ if a group of Christian scholars said your work contradicted the Bible?
Bryan
Bryan,
Genesis does not make scientific claims; modern Christians force Genesis to make scientific claims. Not until modern times (post Reformation era) have some Christians insisted that Genesis must be literal to be true. The "days" of Genesis in Hebrew are infinite periods of time; "Adam" (in our English translations) is not an actual man in Hebrew; the word "adam" literally means "earthling," and if you put Genesis in its actual context, it is talking about God creating earthlings over a great but unknown period of time. The rib story is not presented as fact in the original context, but a story-telling explanation of how man and woman are to relate. In their own time and context, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two entirely different stories, non factual stories that harbor greater truths beyond mere facts.
In the larger context, and no offense meant, but you seem to be approaching the Bible the way religious fundamentalists do: that is, you want to make it an empirical, modern truth-based book.
Truth is far more than quantifiable fact, and is not confined to realm of science. It is found, just as readily, in poetry, ancient myths, other literary devices, emotion, experientialism, philosophy, the list goes on. Even in the discipline of history, truth has many (and often opposing) dimensions. Pick a recent historical event, such as: why did the recent revolution in Egypt happen? There is no one answer, no one truth. The truth is much more complicated, more multidimensional, and ultimately not fully known in this instance. There is not even a given truth for exactly how or when the universe came to be; if you follow current scientific thought, you are aware that there are various theories among scientists, including a theory that the universe has always been. In economics, the most learned economists disagree greatly over what is necessary for a healthy economy; there is no one truthful answer, and it is quite likely that shades of truth exist in the various economic theories of a nation's well-being.
I could even ask the simple question, "Who are you?", and you would only be able to partially answer the question, because you don't even know the full truth about who you are ... and you never will. (Nor will I as to who I am.)
Until one begins to grasp the fuller dimensions of truth - a difficult task for many modern, Western humans - he or she will have a stunted view of himself or herself, the world in which he or she lives, and the history (including the religious dimension) that has led us to this point in time.
- Bruce
Bruce,
Genesis does explain how the Earth was made. Animals weren't just placed on the Earth at one time, the Sun was formed before the Earth, a woman wasn't born from the rib of a man, do you think there is a talking snake?, where is the Garden of Eden now?, there was no global flood, there was no migration of species to the ark, and so forth. I know that I'm looking at empirical truths because that is the only thing that matters. Genesis, although perhaps you can argue is a particular elegant creation myth or piece of prose, is demonstrably false in a factual sense. Genesis was an attempt to explain the formation of the world we live in and how humans came to be. As I am sure you know, this is just one of thousands of creation myths throughout the world.
The reason most people don't look at the Bible as literal truth anymore is because they realize it is factually wrong. The Bible has taken a more metaphorical meaning. Again, I don't mind if someone picks out the good parts and decides to live their life based on the opinions of the writings of the Bible, however it is irrational to say that the Bible is entirely factual.
I am sorry, but I just cannot buy the, "Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are... stories that harbor truths beyond mere facts." What are these truths that you are talking about?
When I say science, it is just shorthand. Allow me to clarify what I mean by science. Science, in this context, is the application of skepticism, the scientific method, and critical thinking in order to better understand reality. Under this definition (and the definition I am referring to when I say "science") history, philosophy, and other academia, as well as science, fall into this category. So yes, I agree with you that there are way outside of literal science to discover what is true.
Using your analogies for the recent revolution in Egypt, the scientific "theories" (used in the colloquial sense; a scientific theory is defined by scientists as a well established model of something that encompasses several laws, pieces of evidence, etc.), and economics, I think you are actually in agreement with me. I am not claiming we know everything; I am also not claiming finding specific causes or best ways of doing something is easy (or if it is possible at all). What I am claiming however, is the truth of the formation of the universe, the truth for the exact ways and reasons the revolution in Egypt happened, and the truth for the best economic model to follow exists. It is impossible or nearly impossible to reach this truth. You said that, "there is no one truthful answer, and it is quite likely that shades of truth exist in the various economic theories of a nation's well-being". I am sure that there are many models of economies, that if implemented properly, would achieve positive results. However, there must necessarily be a best option, depending on what quantifiers you would use to define "best". "Shades of truth" are probably in most, if not all, economic theories, but by saying this you admit there is a truth from which these shades come from.
Your paragraph on the "Who are you?" question, I'm in complete agreement with you. I agree with the notion that we must study, "the world in which he or she lives, and the history (including the religious dimension) that has led us to this point in time" as well as "poetry, ancient myths, other literary devices, emotion, experientialism, [and] philosophy". I love to talk about religion; it is one of my favorite topics to discuss. However, although these things may stumble amongst truths. The best method of finding/discovering truths as accurately as possible is the scientific method by far. By studying emotion or poetry we may find truths, but the tool set we use to find out if they are true or not is the scientific method or some close variant.
You also mention that truth can be found in ancient myths. I would agree that can be found (however rare that is), but we need some way to determine if these claims are truthful or not. It is not as if an ancient myth is a carefully calculated masterpiece of truthful claims. They are stories that are ad hoc in nature and can be as simple as someone writing a stream of consciousness. How does ancient myths lead us to truths unless it's by accident (which we won't even know until it is verified by some other means)? Consider this situation, for example: Suppose the Qur'an gives a detailed and correct account of the exact science of the chemistry and biology that takes place in a mother's womb throughout a nine month pregnancy. Impressive right? How would the culture of the 7th century know that this is true? They wouldn't. They would have to accept this on faith (a problematic practice in general) to accept this as true. In fact, they should reject these claims as true because there is no evidence to believe in it at the time (although now we know it to be true). The point is, we need some else to discern what is true in ancient myths, poetry, etc. and this is what I call "science".
Bryan
Bryan,
If your contention that empirical truth is all that matters, is true ...then we live in a sad and hopeless world, it seems to me.
As to a literal understanding of the Bible: prior to the 16th century Protestant Reformation, few Christians interpreted the Bible (as a whole or largely) literally; allegory was the most common method of biblical interpretation prior to this time.
Not until the early days of the Scientific Revolution / Enlightenment did masses of Christians begin thinking in terms of the Bible as a literally-interpreted text. And only then did Christians begin forcing modern scientific truth/constructs upon the ancient scriptural texts. In short time, as modern science became the norm, believers began defending the Bible as science, or defending the Bible from science - the latter often utilizing scientific reasoning to prove the Bible's truth over science, ironically.
From that time forward, it has been very difficult for Western humans to allow the Bible to be what it is ... rather than re-shaping it by modern norms (of which many religious people, from fundamentalist to liberal, are prone to do).
- Bruce
Bruce,
When I say that empirical truth is all that matters, what I mean is that when we are talking about claims that people are trying to pass off as true, empirical evidence/skepticism/critical thinking is the most reliable way of discerning what is true from what is false. This is not to say that you cannot find beauty in things that are not 'true'. I find beauty in chess games, in nature, the girl that I love, in artwork, etc. I find hope in humankind, charitable acts, etc. These things (e.g. beauty and being hopeful) are wholly irrelevant when talking about truth. I am not sure how you can assert that if you accept that science is the most reliable way to discover what is true, then the world is sad and hopeless.
Perhaps I am incorrect in interpretations of the Bible over history (I am convinced that you know more about the history of the Bible than I do), but I would say that anyone who takes the Bible as literal truth is sorely mislead. I would even say that if your belief in God comes from the Bible you are mislead. There are good things about every religious text, however when looking at them outside the scope of being metaphorical, but still fictional, I would say that is harmful to an individual's understanding of reality.
Bryan
Bryan,
Firstly, methinks you draw too narrow a box around truth.
Secondly, I would say there are good and bad images of God in the Christian Bible. Different Christians focus on different aspects.
And finally, I would argue that no one (even the most fundamentalist fundamentalist) interprets everything in the Bible in a literal fashion. Anyone who turns to the Bible as a book of faith does so selectively.
- Bruce
Bruce,
I think the box around truth needs to be fairly narrow. There are people who believe that homeopathy works (excluding placebo), that evolution is false, and some people believe they have been abducted by aliens. If truth is defined any more broad then there is going to be contradictions. A pet peeve of mine is when people try to argue that all religions are correct or your theory about how the universe is formed is just as good as mine. There are statements in religions that are mutually exclusive, dichotomies that would have to be held at the same time. There may be true elements in all of them, but all cannot be 100% true. Speaking in a objective sense, there has to be a religion or scientific theory that has the best representation of reality. Drawing the box around truth any wider than I am leaves room for interpretation and when determining what is true, interpretation should be removed as much as possible. This is not to say interpretation doesn't have its place. For example, you can interpret artwork to mean whatever you want, even if the artist didn't intend for it to mean what you perceive it to mean.
I agree. God does some terrible things in the Bible and He does some good things as well. Christians (usually) focus on the good parts.
Again, I agree. I would be scared if somebody took everything in the Bible as literal truth and we never see this (at least simultaneously). For example, people refusing to eat shellfish, stoning their unruly children to death, not wearing polyester, advocating slavery, and so forth. What I don't understand is how people decide what parts of the Bible is ok to follow and which parts are not. If they truly believed that the Bible is divinely inspired by God shouldn't they accept everything? This is why I have a certain respect for the Westboro Baptist Church more than most others. Even though their beliefs are crazy and are taken to extremes, every view they publicly share is supported by textual evidence from the Bible.
Yes I realize nobody follows the Bible literally literally. I should qualify my statement more.
Bryan
Bryan,
And yet ... in most truth, there is some degree of interpretation. As professional historians know, history is interpretation. Historians strive for the best interpretation by trying to assemble as much evidence as possible, stitching it together (in a manner of speaking), and drawing a conclusion ... that will likely be revised later in light of new evidence ... and so on.
Conversely, historical interpretation detached from evidence is wishful thinking.
Science is a never-ending search for truth, because the more we explore our natural realm, the more dynamics and dimensions of reality open before us. We're always moving toward a greater understanding of truth, but not even science will ever unlock all truth.
In essence, the big question is this: since we humans are finite creatures with limited tools (natural and man-made) with which to examine the (essentially infinite) universe, will we ever really know the truth?
- Bruce
Bruce,
What I said was, "when determining what is true, interpretation should be removed as much as possible". I realize that some type of interpretation is absolutely necessary (for some fields of study) in many cases. I would just like to limit interpretation as much as possible. For example, suppose we find one piece of evidence for X during a certain time period for a location in history. Our first guesses about what X was during that time period for that location will inevitably be off the mark and require a lot of interpretation and educated guesswork. However, the more evidence we find for X, the less interpretation is necessary for X. Using a combination of critical thinking and research, we are narrowing the room for interpretation until we ultimately reach a sufficient amount of evidence that leaves room for no interpretation. We will then be able to fully and accurately describe X at that point. Granted, this is nearly impossible to accomplish and there will always be a need for some interpretation. Therefore, I agree with everything in your last e-mail! Just more to the point and eloquently then I have been saying it.
You asked "Will we ever really know the truth?" The answer is obviously no. However, that doesn't mean we should stop seeking it and it doesn't mean that some methods of finding truth are unreliable!
Bryan
Bryan,
I think we have much agreement on the nature of truth. And I do wonder, say 100 years from now as truth continues to unfold, if humans then will know that some methods of finding truth that we now consider reliable - are much less so.
- Bruce
Bruce,
That is a very good question. I would like to say that I can't think of a way of discovering truth than is better than science. However, because I recognize that this is fallacious (being an argumentum ad ignorantiam,) I have to say that there could be a way in the future of discovering truth more reliably or accurately. Although, I have no idea how likely this is.
Bryan
Bryan,
Actually, what I was thinking of is that scientific methods (broadly speaking) are constantly changing, and today's experts know that some of yesteryear's accepted methods of determining truth are not really reliable and/or are incomplete or fall short.
However, it is quite possible (as you indicate) that "science" (as we understand it) a hundred or two or three hundred years from now will be unacceptable in the search for truth, replaced by something that today we cannot imagine.
- Bruce
I hope you enjoyed this dialog because I know I sure did! If you have any questions, suggestions, or you disagree with me, e-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu. If you have a comment specific to the content in this post (by me or Dr. Gourley), feel free to leave a comment below! Have a great day!
No comments:
Post a Comment