Biblical Literalists – like Creationists who interpret the Genesis stories in the Hebrew Bible literally – then move to a ‘scientific’ young earth rationale. Christian ‘liberal’ theologians start from ‘rational scientific’ presuppositions to doubting miracles, prayer, even the existence of God, etc.
A plague on both their houses!
(Summary/precis of Richard Rohr’s ideas – see the early chapters of The Naked Now (2009). Review here
*****
Some comments from a Facebook discussion (separated by …)
a plaque on all their teeth…
Those be fighting words, Rowland…
Rational presuppositions… from where else would I start? Blind
prejudice? Wish fulfillment? What my kindy teacher said in Sunday
School? My fear of death…. which would you choose?
Scientific presuppositions… would you start from a presupposition
which rational science showed to be ridiculous? There is no point, or
honesty, in claiming scientific support for something science is not
qualified to comment upon. But to hold to something that peer reviewed
science shows to be unsustainable in fact, is not faith-full… it’s
stupid, and if not na ƒ ¯ve, then probably dishonest.
And if our best science challenges our doctrines? Well maybe we should
show some existential courage instead of ducking off behind idols like
“the historicity of biblical miracles, intercessory prayer, even the
existence of God…” It’s great to appeal to these ideals and memories
of our history with stirring rhetoric, but if a god is only big enough
to cope with our scientific discoveries by denial of what is obvious,
it’s a god not worth having.
Theology, if it is any use and not a mere panadol for our fear of
existence, needs to start with where we are and what we know. What we
know is incontrovertibly linked with scientific ideas and
presuppositions. These ideas have their limits, but until you stop
trusting bridges to get you over rivers, and stop using the internet,
don’t suggest we can ignore them in theology. I will not deny reality
for the sake of your God…
Well, I’m over this debate there is no clash between theology and
science; they ask two different types of question. It is like telling
someone that they must choose between liking Beethoven and liking
Vegemite sandwiches, because they are self evidently mutually exclusive.
I explain this by saying it is like asking me, “How do you make a book?”
I may reply by talking about the need for a plot, characters and themes
OR by speaking of cutting paper, selecting a font and binding…both are
true, the former is comparable to theology, the latter to science…
Evolution is compatibale with Biblical theology. Many parts of the Bible
are still interpreted by many Fundamentalists as literal, but a growing
number of theologians are reinterpreting (hermeneutics) certain parts of
the Bible as they were intended eg. Genesis has 2 Creation accounts or
sequences: humanity created after vegetation and animals (Gen 1:1-2:4a);
humanity created before vegetation and animals (Gen 2:4b-3:24); “Adam”
in Hebrew is plural for “humanity” or “humankind”. The Bible is full of
imagery, metaphors and allegories to communicate divine Truths. The
first Christian fathers eg. Augustine etc all believed in a
predominantly allegorical interpretation of Genesis and other parts. God
is a God of Design, Creativity, Function etc, and there are all these
factors in Evolution, hence Evolution is compatible with Biblical
theology. Thanks for allowing me to communicate a certain point of view.
Darwin’s fascinating discoveries – many links hae been discovered &
confirmed through DNA & scientific research – God bless!…
I like the historical-metaphorical hermeneutic proposed by Marcus Borg –
it balances both the need to understand the historical context and the
capacity of a text to convey the truth through layers of meaning…
Yes, both, in truth conform to, and are based on a Rationalist
Enlightenment mindset, ( and a secular way of thinking) and not on St
Pauls’ ‘transformed’ or spiritual mindset…
I toast your plagues, Roly. To which I would add. A plague on The Theory
of Evolution as well, especially for being any explain-all. A plague on
its arrogant panagryics to its own (and human-ego placating)
mental-comforts and panaceas.
Give us inquiry and awe which keeps heart and mind open to the Original
Mystery…
I find your attempt at equivalence troubling. I wouldn’t put myself in
either category but I know which side I’d prefer…
J. Gresham Machen said the following:
‘Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I
greatly dislike, a ¢â‚¬Å“Fundamentalist ¢â‚¬ ? Most certainly I do. But in the
presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my
brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God.’
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1464_J_Gresham_Machens_
Response_to_Modernism/ …
No-one has mentioned the ‘gap theory’ which could explain both 7 literal
days of creation, and the earth being millions of yrs old as science
says. ;-)…
Genesis reflects the world view assumptions of it’s ancient
authors/editors. The so called Bible Science” is an attempt to give the
bible scientific credentials. Creation texts like Genesis and Isaiah 40
make good sense as polemic against the idolatry and nature worship of
the surrounding peoples in the Ancient Near East. But are we really
expected to believe that the ancients were concerned about threats to
the faith by naturalistic understandings of the world like biological
evolution, two and a half to three thousand years before Charlie penned
“Origin of Species”? …
1 Cor. 8:2 “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know
as he ought to know.” Embrace the mystery…
Re Charles Darwin’s book, it actual title was On the Origin
of Species. I really wish people would keep in mind that it still
remains a theory and nothing more…
It was hard to follow who was who, but the debate was surely interesting.
The whole notion of seven literal days to me seems nonsensical, since for most of the first and second day its hard to be sure what was orbiting, where, and how fast.
I find the best truth filter for anyone peddling an explination, is asking what they stand to gain from a certain interpretation of the detail. I can’t look at metamorphic folding of rock-beds, and still agree with my dad when he says it was all done by noah’s flood. No way. Neither then do I accept that we evolved from monkeys.
One thing we never seem to get clear is exactly what it is we don’t know. Maybe if we started from there and worked backwards, we might have a better space in which to live out faith. For me faith is still the substance of things not seen… the essense of things unknown, but strangely beautiful.
Laura and I were debating whether or not it made a difference whether God was man or woman. I suggested teapot, as I have a sudden crush on teapots as objects of beauty, in form and in function. How foolish you say, that I should compare God, to something men created… but how do you know that women didn’t create teapot in God’s image.
You don’t.
Actually we all know deep down that there is something of God both captured and liberated in the form and function of a great teapot. In Twitter terms: Unifying Serenity.
To play with science is to explore creation and the mind. To believe that all we learn in play is a synopsis of the whole, is to mistake the feeling of the inside of a box, for the reality of the whole box.
Rowland… what if liberals do doubt the existance of God? Isn’t it true that in the darkness we all doubt God occasionally? Anyway if your plague does strike their house, they’ll just assume it was bad luck… so you’ll be stuck listening to their whining to no avail.