May 22, 2005
-
naturalism vs postmodernism
here's a fascinating commentary link about a Nature article... and about the eminent scientists who are outraged by it...
And my thoughts:
The Nature magazine seems to be one of the premiere/avantgarde science magazines, as evidenced by the fascinating phenomena that they seem to be somewhat influenced by postmodernism, while still trying to retain their modernist materialist scientific outlook. They are trying desperately to remain "mainstream scientific" in the naturalistic sense, without offending their increasingly postmodern constituency which believes that science does not have all the answers and that in fact nobody has ANY absolute answers. Thus Nature recommends "reconciling" science and belief, by relegating belief to "myth" status. Or perhaps "pleasant myth" or "traditional myth" or "cultural myth" status, if that floats your boat better.
But there are still some die-hard modernists (read the above article), who will not tolerate this mushiness. I admire them, in a way. Even though they come to the wrong conclusions, they are seeking the perfect goal - Truth. They don't tolerate this "religious truth and scientific truth don't have to mesh" platitude. "They have zeal, but not according to knowledge."
Comments (11)
"Students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist."
And I think they're right, about this. I'm not equipped to handle scientific challenges to my faith and in my experience pseudoscientific attempts validate it turn out to be ridiculous.
I've ended up coming to a rather pleasant understanding of the roles of science and faith in Christianity... that neither the scientific evidence suggesting that evolution is a feasible model for the origin of plant and animal life nor the Genesis creation account can tell me definitively how humanity came into being. Misinterpretation of both things is highly likely, and blind trust in a specific interpretation of either is misplaced.
But anyway, the language above makes me wonder... who should students who cannot handle theological challenges to their science seek guidance from?
Hey bobstevens,
"theological challenges..." ha ha! Good thoughts...
Three phrases you mentioned - "definitively," "highly likely," and "blind trust"... these are very interesting... I'm curious as to know your rationale - WHY do you believe that neither naturalistic science (NS) nor Genesis could contain a true account of our origins? Is "misinterpretation" of NS or Genesis more likely than "misinterpretation" of other truth claims, like the claim that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or the claim that the Pacific is contaminated by large amounts of dihydrogen oxide, or the claim that George W. Bush is currently the president of the USA? If so, why?
Further, why would trust in NS or Genesis necessarily have to be "blind" trust? Couldn't it be supported by other factors? (such as, for example, the resurrection from the dead of a Man who claimed to be the Creator and referred to Genesis as if it was factually/scientifically accurate history?)
Finally, on "definitiveness," it is certainly "pleasant" to slightly demote the certainty-claims of two contradictory competing theories from "absolute" (100%) to "maximal" (99.999...%) and then wave one's hands and claim that the conflict is resolved. However, I have personally found that if one looks carefully at the situation, the problem still remains.
The better question is not whether NS or Genesis can tell us "definitively" about the Beginning, but rather whether they can tell us ANYTHING about it. And subsequently, whether their core purported reconstructions harmonize or not. (I have personally found that they do not.)
All the best to you in your continuing pursuit of truth,
Tim
WHY do you believe that neither naturalistic science (NS) nor Genesis could contain a true account of our origins?
Because they contain apparent contradictions. This naturally leads to the assumption that either one of the two is misinterpreted or a complete lie, which indicates a belief that there is no harmonization between the two. I suspect that both are misinterpreted and that there is harmonization in the long run, NOT necessarily theistic evolution. There aren't any scientific challenges to the story of Ceasar crossing the Rubicon that I'm aware of, so it doesn't fall into the same category.
You are right in that "blind trust" was probably too harsh a phrase. My point is that both assumptions about origins require significant amounts of faith since neither is observable or testable. Scientists might dispute this, but the fact is that their research only makes their theories more or less plausible; it doesn't indicate whether or not they actually came to pass.
I'm not waving my hands and claiming the conflict is resolved, I'm waving my hands and claiming that the conflict is irrelevant. Definitive claims about origins are ridiculous... it's all about faith and plausibility. I personally find the existence of a deity and that deity's subsequent creation of the universe in 6-7 days much more plausible than evolution, but in the end it doesn't matter. Scientific validation of this particular story is not going to give me stronger faith in the truth of the Gospel, and if it was revealed in the end that the Creation story was intended to be read as a didactic legend and not as a factual historical account, that wouldn't shake my faith either.
I hope we're not talking across one another's arguments here.
Hey Bobstevens,
Thanks for your thoughts... I'd like to discuss the issue of historicity re Caesar's Rubicon etc. in more detail soon, but I agree with you that the key issue is relevance. You wrote:
I'm not waving my hands and claiming the conflict is resolved, I'm waving my hands and claiming that the conflict is irrelevant.
Actually, we would not be having this discussion of "harmonization" if we were not at least slightly concerned about "resolution" and "what actually happened",
but let's temporarily put that aside. Is the conflict really "irrelevant"? Is the Creation "story" irrelevant? Let me ask a different question: Is the Gospel "story" irrelevant? Is the "fact" of whether Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died (a substitutionary death) on a Roman cross, and was raised to life again three days later merely a "legend" or "didactic legend" as many claim? I suspect that you will say, "No, of course not, Tim. The literal interpretation of the gospel accounts is not in question."
But let's not be naive... Many people do question the literal resurrection of Christ, and substitute for the gospel that you and I believe a different religion based on "following Christ's example" and "living a godly life." They suggest that we ought not to "bind ourselves slavishly to a literal inerrantist interpretation of miracle stories" such as those in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and ought instead to extract the (between-the-lines) "larger story" of the "beautiful life" of Christ.
Let's say your personal belief is that the Genesis "story" is irrelevant, possibly mythological/legendary, and of no concern whether or not scientific evidence corroborates or contradicts it, wheras the Gospel "story" is relevant, factually and literally true, and historically worthy of being believed IN SPITE OF (cf. David Hume) the fact that modern science proscribes people being raised from the dead, points out "contradictions" in the four gospel accounts, and postulates alternative naturalistic hypotheses.
My question ( as usual
is "WHY?" Why do you say that Genesis is misinterpreted/nonliteral, while John is properly interpreted/literal? How do you draw the line, and say "this part of the Bible is directly from God, and factually true, whereas that other part of the Bible is merely an errant semetic legend which God allowed into His "perfect Law" in order to teach some sort of "between-the-lines" sentiment?"
You might enjoy reading a similar (though much longer) discussion at Josh's xanga: http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=josjo80&tab=weblogs&uid=186955044
but who knows... maybe you will.
Actually, you might not enjoy it...
Enjoying your excellent thoughts and dialog, and anticipating your further comments,
Tim
Well, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who felt that a correct understanding of the origin of the universe was salvific. With the exception of the protoevangelium, a literal understanding of the Creation story neither adds to nor subtracts from the Gospel itself. Thus, while I believe that the Genesis creation story is neither a didactic legend nor an outright lie, I have no reason to defend a literal interpretation.
Furthermore the utter ridiculousness of scientific attempts to defend Genesis in the past (many of which are mocked openly by secular scholars) leads me to believe that focusing on manufacturing proof for a literal interpretation of the Creation story is not pragmatic. The ID movement is apparently seen by some as the Holy Grail of scientific proof for theism, or something, but it really doesn't do anything for Christianity and by extension it doesn't really do anything for me.
So while some Christians find it worthwhile to spend years of their lives promoting outragiously terrible "proofs" for the Genesis story while defending their questionable use of the title "Doctor" (Kent Hovind, if you were wondering), I find that none of this is interesting or worth spending time on, because a literal interpretation of Genesis is not essential to the Gospel.
And so, on to the bigger question... how do I know what is or is not literal in the Bible? Well, I don't. It's best to go with a first guess, or to take the most straightforward interpretation given the literary style... something proposed by Clive Staples. For example, the literary style of the book of Job screams "fairy tale" or "didactic legend". Did it actually happen? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The Bible isn't false if there was never a man named Job. I hope to never be a part of the camp that conveniently discards aspects of God that I'm not comfortable with, but I think there is definitely room for interpretations of the Bible that are not strictly literal across the board.
"They are trying desperately to remain "mainstream scientific" in the naturalistic sense, without offending their increasingly postmodern constituency"
HAHA! This is the perfect quote for the week! How true indeed. Nice blog entry.
BTW, Thanks for your comments on the LXX. I'll read through the sources in detail when I am more free next week. (Two Assignments due tomorrow). A quick browse through appears to give some fruit for thought. Thank you again.
Hi Bobstevens,
"...a literal interpretation of Genesis is not essential to the Gospel."
I hear you, bro. Why defend parts of the Bible unecessarily, especially if naturalistic science loudly proclaims it to be inaccurate?
And I agree with you that Jesus Christ is the core of the Gospel - Who He is, what He did, what He said, believing 'in' each of these. Believing in Him. (I Tim. 1:15, Romans 10:9, etc)
But as soon as you go beyond that (i.e. beyond kindergarten sunday school teaching), you progress to the question "why "... What is the justification for our belief? Why do we believe that it's not just a local western cultural-heritage myth, but a life-and-death truth that every single person in the world must hear and accept?
What does it mean that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners?" What is sin? Why did Christ have to die for me? Why can't I save myself by my own good works? Why did Christ not need to die for His own sins?
From Rendle-Short, "How could the Fall of man have brought sin and death into the world, [Romans 5] if the fossils were showing a creation ‘groaning’ for millions of years before man? How could man be both a rising ape and a fallen image?"
If the Creation account and the Curse were myths, then is heaven a myth too? Rev. 22:3...
"...take the most straightforward interpretation given the literary style..."
I wholeheartedly agree. This is the best way to preserve the meaning of ALL texts, including the Bible. This is, for example, the principle I use to interpret your blog posts.
What is the literary style of Genesis? How did Jesus quote Genesis?
With respect,
Tim
As for the science aspect, I'll say this: if I believe that some sort of creation by God occurred, and that there was a real man referred to in the Bible as 'Adam,' with a wife referred to as 'Eve,' and that they were initially perfect but, through a temptation initiated by the devil, fell into sin, through which the whole world was cursed, then I think I've got the root of what Genesis means. I can cite of lots of explanations of how that outline leaves room for billions of years prior to the fall, and maybe even a lot more years than a straightforward reading of the chronologies would grant us. Was there a literal place referred to as 'Eden,' or was it just whole earth? And on and on...
The point is, as long as we believe Christ and Paul that Adam was a real man ("just as through one man sin entered the world"), and that he fell, then we know that the earth was cursed... and what exactly does that mean? Well, for one, if Adam wasn't going to die, then his biology must have been rather different than ours, and almost definitely his environment as well. In fact, wouldn't entropy guarantee that he would eventually die, inevitably, and that, in fact, the whole creation would die?
I am done at this point. Beyond the curse, our modern scientific knowledge can only make vague uninformed guesses, because I posit that it is pre-eminently reasonable to assume that the entire nature of the world was changed at that point, thereby invalidating whatever scientific assumptions (such as the second law of thermodynamics) we make about the pre-fall world. I'll make wild guesses, just to show that my imagination can dream them up, but that's it. I see no specific reason to disbelieve a literal 6-day creation account, but I also see no specific reason to defend it to the death. If we believe the Word literally as far as the above outline, I see no need to get into speculative (at best!) explanations of 'how.'
Hey Huster,
Thanks for your thoughts, bro!
Following up on your post, if I understand that there was a guy named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago and told people to love each other but was misunderstood and killed as a insurrectionist, I've got "the root of what the Gospel means" too...
May I also "massage" your other statement a bit?
You wrote:
"I see no specific reason to disbelieve a literal 6-day creation account, but I also see no specific reason to defend it to the death."
Let's strip away the rhetorical imbalance and make it more straightforward:
"I see no specific reason to disbelieve a literal 6-day creation account, but I also see no specific reason to believe a literal 6-day creation account."
Now the reply becomes obvious:
The "specific reason" to believe a literal 6-day creation account is that the text of Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 20:11 (etc) requires it. You may disagree, but I have looked into both sides of the discussion and have found that a fair analysis of the text without scientific/philosophical preconceptions leads in only one direction. And once that is determined, I thus have independent reason to doubt the "assured results" and other postulations of modern naturalistic science that leads to a contradictory account.
I respect your opinion and your right to believe what you want to believe, but I respectfully disagree with you about the 'unimportantness' and 'irrelevance' of "defending" the factual/historical truth of the Word of God. (1 Peter 3:15, Romans 1:19-25, 2 Peter 3:1-18)
Blessings and peace to you,
Tim
Also, just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that I was not seriously expressing my real beliefs in my false statement of "the Gospel" in the third paragraph of my previous post... I just included it to challenge Huster and others to correct me... and then for them to notice that the same hermeneutical principles used to correct me would also point toward a literal Genesis.
Your very own sincere, often-pedantic, filled-with-inexpressible-joy, sometimes-overcautious, loving, truth-loving, awed-by-his-own-ignorance-folly-and-sinfulness, more-awed-by-Christ's-incredible-love/power/forgiveness,
Tim
Comments are closed.