Question: you’re a local newspaper in Lexington, Kentucky, and you want to describe an upcoming debate on “Religion in the 21st Century”—a debate that will feature at least three speakers who are anti-religious—but you don’t want to offend your religious readers. (Kentucky is one of the more religious states in America.)
Answer: You pick out one theologian and one critic of religion, and show that they both agree on one thing: the Bible can’t be taken literally.
That, at least, is what the “culture critic” of the Lexington, Kentucky newspaper, the Herald-Leader, did when describing our upcoming debates on Oct 10-12 at the University of Kentucky. (schedule below). Bart Ehrman, agnostic and critic of the Bible and the story of Jesus, will square off against David Hunter (“Are Faith and History Compatible?”) and on the last night I’ll be up against Catholic theologian John Haught in a debate on “Science and Religion: Are they Compatible?” (guess which side I’ll be taking?).
What does writer Rich Copley say about this? He interviewed Ehrman and Haught, who apparently agree on a few things, one being that the Bible is “misused”.
Ehrman and Haught acknowledge that religion is a huge topic in contemporary culture, though it is not a terribly edifying conversation, particularly when it comes to history or religion.
“It’s a mixture of poor science education and poor religious education,” says Haught, a senior fellow in science and religion at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
Ehrman observes, “There are real culture wars going on in America. You have the conservative movement and the emergence of a new atheism and humanism.”
A lot of that, both argue, goes back to a misuse of the Bible as an authoritative text on history and science.
Putting aside the fact that Copley devotes 50% more words to Haught’s views than to Ehrman’s, it would have been nice of him to quote the “opponents” of Haught and Erhman rather than just try to point out the two guys’ common ground. Those opponents, of course, are David Hunter and I.
I don’t really mind being ignored here, but what I can’t stand is Haught’s views going unopposed, especially his oh-so-sophisticated but insupportable view that the Bible is not “a textbook of science”. This kind of stuff is really starting to tick me off:
“The point of Scripture is transformation to an authentic existence,” says Haught, an author of several books including last year’s Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (Westminster John Knox Press, $20). “But there is this assumption that sacred texts inspired allegedly by God should give you reliable scientific information.”
That, he said, is not the Bible’s purpose. But that assumption leads to heated conflicts and ultimately distrust between the scientific and religious communities. The results can be seen in things like the Creation Museum in Petersburg, which Haught has visited and says gives the biblical Creation story “a degree of scientific reliability.”
Maybe that’s the point of scripture to Haught, but it’s not the point of scripture to the vast majority of believers in America, who take much of the bible literally. Remember that 78% of American believe in angels, 81% in heaven, and 70% in hell and in Satan. For millennia the Bible has been taught as containing literal truths about what happened among our ancestors. That has changed—but mostly among more “sophisticated” believers—and largely because science has showed that many Bible stories are bunk. Now theologians regroup with their talk of “metaphor”. But who the deuce does Haught think he is to tell everyone what the “point” of scripture is? Does he have a pipeline to God?
He goes on:
Haught says scientists have also misused the Bible, saying that “because it doesn’t deliver scientific information, they reject it all.”
He says that understanding that science is science and that the Bible is a religious text has been essential to his own faith journey.
“Truth cannot contradict truth,” he says. “Science and faith respond to different questions.”
When Haught and his fellow accommodationists assert that “the Bible doesn’t deliver scientific information” or “the Bible is not a textbook of science,” what they really mean, but dare not say, is this: “The Bible is not true.” Or, more precisely, they mean, “Most of the Bible isn’t true, but some of it is, and I’m the one who gets to decide which bits are true.”
Give me an honest fundamentalist, who takes everything literally, rather than a weaselly accommodationist who picks and chooses what’s true without any rational criteria. After all, most of these Bible-is-not-science types do see Jesus as a divine being, born of a virgin, crucified, and revived roughly three days later. That story is not up for grabs, nor is the existence of a divine Father in heaven. (If you’ve any doubts, read the Nicene Creed, which is loaded with statements about empirical truth and which, presumably, Haught recites when he goes to church.) After all, if you’re really sophisticated, you can see God as a metaphor, too: as a mere word that encapsulates the awe we feel when we contemplate the universe and how science has helped us understand it.
And “truth cannot contradict truth”? Give me a break. As interpreted by Haught, that statement is a pure tautology, because “truth” in the Bible is defined as “that metaphorical interpretation which cannot contradict science.” Up until a few years ago, the literal existence of Adam and Eve was accepted by many as “truth.” Now that “truth” is known to contradict the scientific truth that the human population size never bottlenecked at anywhere near two individuals. So the theological sausage grinder extrudes new “truth”, including the idea that Adam and Eve were the two out of many people whom God designated to form the “federal headship” of humanity. Such is the instantly malleable nature of religious “truth.”
_______
Here’s the schedule if you’re anywhere around Lexington on Oct. 10-12
“Are Faith and History Compatible?” Bart Ehrman, department of religious studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and David G. Hunter, department of modern and classical languages, literatures and cultures, University of Kentucky. 6 p.m. Oct. 10. Singletary Center for the Arts recital hall, 405 Rose St.
“The Compassionate Community: How Universal Ecumenical Values Can Strengthen Politics and Policy,” Jonathan Miller, lawyer and author of The Compassionate Community and TheRecoveringPolitician.com. “Islam and the Relation of Religion to State,” Ihsan Bagby, department of modern and classical languages, literatures and cultures, UK. 6 p.m. Oct. 11. Singletary Center for the Arts recital hall.
“Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?” Jerry Coyne, department of ecology and evolution, University of Chicago; and John Haught, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University. 6 p.m. Oct. 12. UK Student Center Worsham Theater.
I hope this debate ends up on YouTube. If it does, I’ll have no choice but to watch it.
In these kinds of debates with the “Bible is not a science book” or “Bible is not a history book” types, I have found it helpful to turn their own talking point against them. Challenge them to be more specific about what they mean, and that their lack of doing so reflects a simplistic view of what is actually a more complex subject. The Bible is composed of many different books by many different authors. Are they saying the whole Bible is not science/history, or just certain parts? It is a basic premise of conservative evangelical Christianity that major portions of the Bible (particularly the gospels) are historically reliable documents. Is he saying they are wrong? That would work well in front of a conservative audience to get them to back off from agreeing with Haught, and to ironically agree with the atheist.
Brian
Percentage of accurate science in the bible: 0%
Percentage of accurate history in the bible: maybe slightly more, but not much. There is virtually nothing except some places and some broad historical context that is substantiated elsewhere. Certainly not Jesus. Read anything by Ehrman for details. Or ask Ben Goren.
Or read Robert M. Price (or listen to The Bible Geek podcasts).
I agree that very little of the Bible is scientifically or historically accurate. It was not my contention that it was either of those. However, conservative evangelicals consider it to be accurate on both those counts. So, when the accommodationist says something like “the bible is not a science book” he is saying something that sounds reasonable at first blush, but runs counter to basic fundamentalist Christianity. When in front of a fundamentalist Christian audience, it is useful to point that out.
A statement like “The Bible is not a science book” is much too vague to be useful. Even a book that is not intended as a science book can still accurately portray science, or it can inaccurately do so. Considering how many different books are in the Bible by many different authors with many different motivations and contexts and purposes, such a sweeping generalization gives a misleading picture of the Bible. Ironically, it is the accommodationist who has the unsophisticated view of the Bible that they accuse the new atheists of having.
Brian
I view the statement “The Bible is not a science book” as a first step, maybe, for those who have been brainwashed. But, “The Bible is not a science book” or “history book” is like a little white lie that requires a bunch of caveats and explanations that go nowhere, ultimately making it more complex than it need be. The truth is, however undiplomatic it may be, that the bible is a crock o’ shite. Much easier statement to defend.
When debating in front of a hostile audience (as I have done on discussion forums numerous times), I find it useful to phrase things in a way that effectively requires them to agree with me. Rather than say a bunch of things that they are going to disagree with (even if they are true), I try to say something that they will agree with, because it is important to establish a psychological precedent in their minds that they agree with me on some point. That makes it harder for them to sustain any kind of knee-jerk hostile reaction towards me.
The Bible is indeed a crock of shit, but saying that in front of a hostile audience of fundie Christians will not get you nearly as far with them as will pointing out that it is a basic premise of conservative Christianity that the Bible is a scientifically/historically reliable document (something that they have to agree with, even if it makes them momentarily uncomfortable to agree with an atheist on), and this “moderate” accommodationist is effectively saying it is not, when making his or her statement about it not being a science/history book.
Brian
Well, if you actually want to persuade a hostile audience, sure, that’s a reasonable start to the argument. My issue is the accomodationist “The Bible is not a science book” that everyone can agree on, and they think it’s all settled to everyone’s satisfaction. As long as you’re willing to keep pushing to the conclusion.
I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing with each other. 😉
going beyond the “the bible is not a science book”, one has to then ask WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Haught’s answer:
er, wut?
what the hell is an “authentic existence”?
Haught might have written a book called “Making sense of Evolution”, but he certainly has shown a failure to make sense of his own arguments.
Presumably Haught’s existence is ‘authentic’ – assuming that he really exists and is not some sort of theological illusion.
As for the rest of us, who think we really exist, I suppose Haught regards us as given over to illusory desires, etc, and therefore not properly authentic, like him, whose intellect and desires and whole existence are focussed on what, according to Haught, is unchanging and unchangeable, which is to say, God.
I wonder, incidentally, what Heidegger would have thought of ‘authenticity’ becoming a buzzword.
As for the rest of us, who think we really exist, I suppose Haught regards us as given over to illusory desires, etc, and therefore not properly authentic, like him, whose intellect and desires and whole existence are focussed on what, according to Haught, is unchanging and unchangeable, which is to say, God.
uh… huh….
O.o
😛
I should add that, for such as Haught, the sciences considered in themselves are necessarily an expression of an inauthentic existence since they are concerned with the things of this woeld, with what is ‘material’ as opposed to ‘of the spirit’; and the same is true of all art that is not directed towards a religious (for which read ‘Christian’) end.
I suggest whenever apologists or liberal theists say something like ‘the Bible is not a textbook of science’, just substitute ‘reality’ for ‘science’. Or if they say, the Bible is not ‘scientifically accurate’, just substitute ‘accurate’.
Science is a tool for understanding reality. To say the Bible doesn’t do science is besides the point — of course it doesn’t do science. The point is that the Bible doesn’t reflect reality, either.
If the Bible gets the actual universe all wrong, just why would one expect it to get all the alleged ‘unseen world’ right?
Given the cultural backdrop in Kentucky, I think what the reporter wrote is pretty daring. “The Bible is not literally true”….those are fighting words for many Kentuckians.
I thought Bart Erhman is one of “us”. He used to be an evangelical fundamentalist.
It depends what you mean by “us”. He’s certainly an excellent biblical scholar, and he’s now an agnostic and generally reasonable person.
I don’t agree with him on the HJ issue, but then he is an expert on biblical literature, and I’m not.
What do you mean by “us”? And which “side” is that, and since when has any complex topic had only two well-defined “sides”? And anyway, I don’t see much in the article that says Ehrman is on the other “side”. I’d say that while he’s not as much of a religion-basher as many round these parts, he’s certainly no friend to orthodoxy, either.
What do you mean by “us”?
if not evangelical, then orthodoxy basher or atheist even?
And which “side” is that,
the side thinking the bible is entirely disposable?
and since when has any complex topic had only two well-defined “sides”
this isn’t a complex topic, really.
you’ve apparently just been lead to believe it is.
Bart Ehrman, despite being portrayed as the proverbial bogeyman by evangelicals, is a pretty conservative biblical scholar. True, his textual criticism doesn’t pull any punches, but when it comes to his work on the historical Jesus, he is not only highly consevative, but also methodologically dubious. Examining the gospels with the premise that anything early Christians had no reason to make up is likely therefore to be true is not a sound historical method. And I don’t thinking I’m misrepresenting Ehrman in depicting him this way. He shares a similar methodology with nearly everyone else in biblical studies.
Surprisingly it’s quite possible to be an agnostic (or even atheist) and still hold quite conservative views towards the bible.
True, his textual criticism doesn’t pull any punches, but when it comes to his work on the historical Jesus, he is not only highly consevative, but also methodologically dubious.
not an atheist then.
not even an agnostic, then either?
Surprisingly it’s quite possible to be an agnostic (or even atheist) and still hold quite conservative views towards the bible.
this is the entire core of the argument for why “science and religion are compatible”.
It’s absolute BS from both a methodological and philosophical perspective, but because humans have an uncanny ability to compartmentalize, we still talk about it as if it makes “sense”.
just because there ARE people who are both heavily religious and scientists, does NOT mean the two things are compatible.
sorry, but regardless of what Erman calls himself, if he thinks that any of the bible can “conservatively” be held accurate in the primary message, then he ain’t atheist OR agnostic.
Similarly, I have met an Anglican priest, that still leads services, that has called himself an atheist.
His congregation knows this and is fine with it.
so, I’ve spoken with him, he’s an atheist all right, but calling himself an anglican priest is a joke.
Not me, pal. The accommodationist is just pathetic. The fundamentalist is scary. And what is scariest is the extent to which he is dishonest.
Read the transcript of an address by Albert Mohler. In it, he essentially demands that educated Christians lie about how they understand nature. If you can get large numbers of people to purposefully lie for a cause, you have a dangerous ideology.
(If I remember correctly from reading it the first time, that transcript was made by Karl Giberson and, every time Mohler said inerrant, Giberson transcribed it as inherent. There’s yer liberal theology for ya.)
I would certainly not call Ehrman a conservative biblical scholar. His stance on the resurrection has always been that the historian simply cannot comment on it (nor any other miracle) because it falls outside of the realm of real historical research. In other words, a miracle is by definition the LEAST probable of all possible events, and because historians necessarily must deal only with what is historically MOST probable, miracles are simply meaningless and unverifiable. The implication of this rigidly historical stance is, in fact, one that says ANY scenario at all is MORE probable than a miraculous resurrection. Jesus’ body being stolen is MORE probable than a physical resurrection. Therefore, I do actually think you are misrepresenting Ehrman by lumping him together with the majority of (religious) biblical scholars who doggedly affirm the literal resurrection of Jesus as the only thing that is capable of explaining the growth of the the early Christian movement (cf. the ridiculous views of N.T. Wright). This view, in the words of Peter Atkins, is tantamount to “intellectual laziness” and I do not believe that Ehrman works off this premise. True, he may take an agnostic approach, saying we can’t know for sure, but this is far different from saying we can know and then deciding in favor of miracles. So he’s not quite conservative in the usual sense of the word, but rather intellectually and historically honest. For a very nice treatment of the early Christian movement immediately following the death of Jesus (one which vehemently denies the bodily resurrection), see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, and The Birth of Christianity.
That stance is hardly defensible.
If I claimed that Martians invaded New York after landing a saucer on the White House Lawn, an historian should have plenty to say about such claims — specifically, that they’re pure bullshit. Any such events would have been recorded in everything from the front pages of every newspaper on the planet to the diaries of small children.
The events of the Gospels are hardly less earth-shattering — after all, that’s the entire point of the stories. It’s The Greatest Story Ever Told for a reason, you know.
And yet, though we have an extensive extant contemporary and near-contemporary record, there’s nary a peep of even the slightest hint of anything that could be vaguely mistraken for anything that the Gospels describe.
Wait, that’s not exactly true.
We do have countless examples of stories that’re essentially indistinguishable from those of the Gospels, just told about other pagan demigods of the era. Bacchus turned water into wine; Perseus was born of a virgin in accord with the prophecy; Asclepius raised the dead; and Dionysus conquered death in the underworld to return to offer salvation for the righteous. Read Justin Martyr if you want a more exhaustive list of the sources Christians adapted for their own when fabricating the Jesus myth.
Ehrman’s refusal to address the significance of the lack of evidence for extraordinary historical claims is unscholarly and cowardly. Apologetic, even.
Cheers,
b&
Thanks for the comments, which are good ones. I doubt that we are actually disagreeing about all that much. You are right to point out the myriad examples of miracles in the ancient world, and especially those which resemble the ones usually attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers, and also right to say that there is about as much reason to believe in them as in the resurrection, etc. (i.e. NO evidence). Christians cannot escape this problem by choosing which ones are true and claiming that all the identical pagan ones are bs. Ehrman has an entire chapter in his Introduction to the New Testament where he includes all the myths of Christ-like figures, which he concludes by saying that there is no reason at all to privilege one set over the other.
All I am actually saying is that the historian operates within a rigid methodological framework (clearly too rigid for your taste). So while Ehrman and others are wearing their historian’s hats, they are constrained by the rules of their trade in affirming/denouncing the claims of miracles. Of course, what they believe once the hat is off is another story. I am confident that Ehrman would agree that dead people do not come back to life anywhere, at any time, ever. Period. And, in fact, the stance of the historian is almost identical to this position, as it plainly says that ANY possible explanation for an event is MORE probable (and therefore more believable/better/superior/more respectable) to a supernatural miraculous explanation. See Ehrman’s debate with William Lane Craig on the historicity of the resurrection to get an idea of his view on the issue).
So, such a position is in fact perfectly defensible AS AN HISTORIAN. And Ehrman DOES address the lack of evidence for miracles by saying that they are the MOST IMPROBABLE of stories and thus are essentially NON-explanations. I don’t think the gap between these positions is as large as you are making it out to seem. As historians, we are confined to working within parameters of historical research. But as atheists (“agnostics” in Ehrman’s case) we are free to point out the sheer absurdity of miracle stories and reject them all day long. However, these are two different exercises which do require some distinction, however subtle it may be.
Hi Brett
Thanks for you comments. IMHO the problem is that if you get rid of the miracle stories in the gospels what is there left? A failed apocolyptic prophet, which is what Ehrman, and Albert Schweitzer before him believed? But this is not what the gospels depict. They depict a godman born of a virgin who is whisked to a mountain top by Satan, performs stupendous miracles, is transfigured into Old Testament characters, who predicts his own execution and resurrection and then shoots off into outer space at the end. What makes us think that we can remove all those things, as most liberal scholars generally do, and still have a humam being left in front of us?
I don’t find the idea of a historical Jesus implausible. By no means. A Jewish preacher/trouble-maker pisses off too many people and is bumped off by a trigger-happy Roman prefect? Perfectly believable for what we know of the time and place. But again, this is not what the gospels say.
Ehrman is certainly not as conservative as some around, but IMHO just because he’s agnostic about miracles and refuses to allow any special pleading for Christians miracles in particular (which is quite right, I think)doesn’t necessarily mean he’s some radical. Compared to the pioneers like FC Baur, David Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann, Ehrman, and most of today’s biblical scholarship, is very conservative.
Aside from the (very common name) of this Jesus of yours, how can he in even the remotest way be thought of as Jesus the Christ of Nazareth?
I understand I have Dennett to thank for this analogy: Santa is real! He lives in Florida year-round, he’s tall and thin as a rail, his actual name is Samuel Karchner, he hates children, he hasn’t given anybody a Christmas present in fifteen years, he’s allergic to reindeer, and he’s never been north of Boston. But he’s the real Santa Claus!
Cheers,
b&
“Aside from the (very common name) of this Jesus of yours, how can he in even the remotest way be thought of as Jesus the Christ of Nazareth?”
That’s the point I was making. The paragraph you quote of mine is basically saying (or trying to say) there’s hardly any common ground between an early 1st century Jewish preacher/freedom fighter/rabbi/hasid, and the magicman depicted in the gospels defying the laws of the known universe. But this is what liberal or moderate scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Vermes, Sanders etc. are trying to find. They do this by generally removing all the miracles (or reinterpreting them somehow), glossing over other improbabilities like the Temple incident, the Jewish night trial and the Barabbas episode and hoping there’s something leftover at the end of it. That’s what I find methodologically unsound about the process. By doing this one is simply constructing a narrative of one’s own.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not sure if you think I was doing some kind of apologetics. I most certainly was not. I don’t think Jesus did miracles, conversed with Satan, changed into Mo and Eli and came back from the dead before being lifted into the heavens via unknown means of aerial propulsion. But I recognise those things are there in the narrative for theological or literary reasons and can’t simply be removed in the hope there’s some profane history underneath. One could remove all the supernatural stuff from Superman and leave a story about a newspaper reporter with a girlfriend with an alliterative name. That would be perfectly plausible story in 20th century America, but it wouldn’t make it historical.
Thanks
PS
FWIW, I have serious doubts whether Jesus existed, but I try not to be dogmatic about the whole thing. That’s why I said the idea of a Jewish preacher garnering a following and then being killed by the state is perfectly plausible. But ‘plausible’ is not the same as ‘probable’. Nowhere near. And the fact that there are so many ‘plausible’ readings of who Jesus was is a good indication of how NT scholarship has failed in this regard.
Thanks again
I think you’re right. If you get rid of those core tenets of Christian belief, there is not much left. This is why I can’t sensibly call myself a Christian, and why scholars like Schweitzer, Ehrman and others lose their faith as well.
I also think you’re right about what we can know about Jesus, which is NOT MUCH! What seems fairly certain is, as you say, he upset the Roman administration during an extremely sensitive Jewish holiday (Passover, which commemorates the Jewish liberation from their Egyptian oppressors [at least according to the story]–not a good time to start trouble while under the current Roman oppression!). The Romans were quick to silence troublemakers so as to prevent any form of potential rebellion, and Pilate was as ruthless as they came, on more than once occasion using brutal violence to suppress Jewish rebels.
I also sympathize with what you have to say about the current state of scholarship because it is still largely dominated by scholars who come to their research from some Christian background and therefore are subject to biased interpretations. The study of the Hebrew Bible has largely rid itself of Christian apologist scholars, who essentially gave up the fight on that ground. New Testament scholarship, however, is still highly saturated with Christian believers, making the field very difficult to work in due to political and religious posturing. This is clearly a problem. But on the whole, while many remain religious and conservative (if they deny the resurrection, in what sense can they still call themselves Christian!!!), there are still those who are willing to read the texts as objectively as possible and to make genuine historical inquiries for the sake of discovery. It is the field of Islamic studies that needs the same exposure to the historical-critical method that has long demolished the traditional foundations of the Judeo-Christian narratives and beliefs.
Cheers
Ehrman is surely being a precisian where what he alleges to be the methodological principles of the historian are concerned because that is the simplest way to avoid addressing directly the question of the plausibility of miracles – once embarked on that road with a true believer – see John Henry Newman on miracles, for instance – there’s no ending. Ehrman’s is a good forestalling tactic.
Let’s not overstate things here. Of course the Bible is not a textbook of science. You would not use it as a textbook in your classes, nor would I. Even a Bible-thumping fundie would not use it as a science textbook, though he might insist that textbooks be consistent with the Bible.
The real problem with “not a textbook” isn’t that the assertion is unsupportable. The real problem is that the statement is so broad that it borders on being meaningless.
There are none. Even the most extreme fundie will agree that some parts of the Bible are not intended to be taken as literal, and that he gets to pick which parts are literal and which are not.
Let’s not overstate things here. Of course the Bible is not a textbook of science. You would not use it as a textbook in your classes, nor would I.
he’s not, you misunderstand that Jerry is not attacking the trivially true point you just made, but indeed it is generally understood he means what the statement actually refers to, which is biblical innerancy.
but…
Even a Bible-thumping fundie would not use it as a science textbook,
this actually is not accurate.
I in fact have seen homeschools using either the KJV or a more modern version as a science textbook in their “classes”.
don’t underestimate just how stupid people can be, or WANT to be.
The approach I like to take to the question of the validity of the Bible is this:
Has Jesus read the King James Bible?
The whole point of a Christian life is to ensure one’s good graces when standing before Jesus on Judgement Day. So, the question becomes whether or not Jesus is a competent judge — whether or not he has read the KJV Bible and whether or not he’s aware of the natural and understandable tendency of humans towards literalism.
Thus asked the real question becomes whether or not Jesus is satisfied with the KJV Bible in all its gory glory or whether he’s incompetent to alter it (or to have “inspired” its human authors) to better suit his wishes.
And, with that question, I think we can safely dismiss any of this nonsense about how to interpret the Bible. It simply can’t be anything but an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the Bible reads, every word of it, exactly as Jesus wants it to (and therefore you damned well better take it as 100% pure unassailable Capital-G-Gospel Capital-T-Truth) or it’s an entirely human invention with no divine influence, no different from the Egyptian Book of the Dead or any other similar ancient anthology of childish faery tales.
Jerry, you might even be able to slip this question in to John Haught, as part of a way of distinguishing between scientific and religious approaches to the world. Simply, the religious claim is that the Bible is of divine origin, and the divine in question is capable of doing anything, including creating Life, the Universe, and Everything. A scientist will take that claim at face value and attempt to devise a way to falsify it — and any such attempt will quickly lead to laughable absurdities.
Cheers,
b&
The usual dodge is that our present Bible need not be perfect, because of textual corruptions or mistranslation, but the “original manuscripts” were indeed inspired, inerrant, infallible, etc. Some evangelical organisations have this as a defining doctrine, and some require members to sign affirmations of it, sometimes every year(!) in case they change their minds.
I’ve always thought this missed the point, because why argue for the perfection of something that no one has or will ever have? And there are plenty of factual and moral problems with the Bible(s) we actually have.
After all, most of these Bible-is-not-science types do see Jesus as a divine being, born of a virgin, crucified, and revived roughly three days later.
Actually, it is not clear that Prof. Haught actually believes that Yeshua of Nazareth was born of a virgin and was physically resurrected. In his Dover testimony, he implied that the virgin birth might be allegorical and stated that, had a video camera been present during the alleged resurrection, it would have recorded nothing, seeming to indicate that it occurred via a vision of the onlookers and did not occur physically.
‘Here, then, Revelation meets us with simple and distinct FACTS and ACTIONS, not with painful inductions from existing phenomena, not with generalized lawa or metaphysical conjectures, but with JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION; and “IF CHRIST BE NOT RISEN” (it confesses plainly) “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” Facts such as this are nor simply evidence of the truth of revelation, but the media of its impressiveness.’
(from the second of John Henry Newman’s ‘Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford Between A.D. 1826 and 1843’, first published 1844 – the capitalized words above are of course italicized in the original)
Notice that ‘facts such as this’ and compare it with Haught’s fudgings about the Resurrection – for Haught, I suppose, it is also a ‘fact’ but – if his Dover testimony is anything to go by – one that is not verifiable except via the ‘witness’ of certain interested parties and through the persnal and ‘authentic’ acceptance of that ‘witness’.
Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in how Christians think, Newman’s sermons make interesting reading, and the first especially, on ‘The Philosophical Temper’, in which Newman addresses the quarrel between science and religion, which he seeks to dissolve by asserting (definitely not showing) that it was really Christianity that was responsible for the rise and proper development of science because of its superior morality, the heathen philosophers for the most part, according to JHN, not being ‘serious and sincere in their inquiries and teaching.’
And another book that is worth reading is Janet Martin Soskice’s ‘Metaphor and Religious Language’, since it is an intelligent and well-written book and provides probably the best exposition of that metaphorical evasiveness that allows people like Haught to get away with what he does. She speaks, at the end of the book, of ‘the legacy of a literalism which equates religious truth with historical facts, whatever these might be. Christianity is indeed a religion of the book, but not of a book of this sort of fact. Its sacred texts are chronicles of experience, armouries of metaphor, and purveyors of an interpretive tradition. The sacred literature thus records both the experiences of the past and provides the descriptive language by which any new experience may be interpreted. If this is so, then experience, customarily regarded as the foundation of natural theology, is also the touchstone of the revealed. All the metaphors which we use to speak of God arise from experiences of that which cannot adequately be described, of that which Jews and Christians believe to be “He Who Is”.’
And so you have Haught’s equivocations on the Resurrection. (One can’t help being taken aback by Soskice’s ‘historical facts, whatever these might be.’)I prefer Newman who, as well as sermons on ‘The Usurpations of Reason’, ‘Faith and Reson’ and ‘The Nature of Faith in Relation to Reason’, also has a sermon, ‘Natural and Revealed Religion’, in which he speaks (contra our woollier and more evasive theologians, and contra Soskice, who escape criticism by retreating when challenged to what Newman calls the ‘divine PRINCIPLE’ of the philosophers as opposed to the ‘Divine AGENT’ of Christianity) of the ‘PERSONALITY’ of God, as ‘Governor and Judge’, as it has been revealed to us (!) by means of sacred writings and the experience and witness of the faithful.
Sorry about the length of this, but it seemed important. And JHN does write beatifully – James Joyce admired his prose style and learned from it.
the ‘question’ isn’t a question!
( subscribing )
Two panelists will speak on faith and history, and two on science and religion. If I were a local newspaper in Lexington, Kentucky, I might have focused on the third pair speaking on religion and American civil society. I might have asked panelist Ihsan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky, what he meant, as he has been widely quoted as saying at an Islamic Society of North America event, by this:
“Ultimately we can never be full citizens of this country … because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.”
oh yeah culture “wars” — “How many battalions do the atheists have?”
How many atheists are even gun owners, etc? We are.
But this is a great illustration of how the theocratic feel any idea that challenges is terrorism and an immediate mortal threat, so, grab tne guns and ammo, lock and load — The ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!!!!
Actually, it the theo-terroists that are at war — with the world.
It would be one thing if the Bible merely failed to give scientific information. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it does give unscientific information.
Nothing stopped God from keeping his mouth shut about the order in which various elements of our world came to exist. But once the All-Knowing Lord opens his mouth, he reveals an understanding which is uncannily similar to that of a totally pre-scientific culture.
Some alternate Bible could have stuck entirely within the realm of ethical advice (something else the Bible fails at, but that’s another story). Instead we have a book that gives bogus explanations for why we have rainbows and snakes have no legs. Oops.
What in Loki’s name does he mean by that? It sounds like the opposite of everything he was quoted saying. Maybe Haught actually said that it attempts to provide scientific reliability (and of course fails).
The “truth cannot contradict truth” part is a quote from the last pope who was quoting an earlier pope. It was in a statement about evolutionary theory to some scientific academy meeting (Just Google: “Pope and truth cannot contradict truth”
Small world–
Speaker Jonathan Miller (“The Compassionate Community”) is my first cousin.
His book is a basically an argument for ecumenicalism that tries (unsuccessfully, I think) to promote a multi-cultural approach to religious-based charitable activities. Its a mind-set that’s pretty common among liberal politicians and liberal religionists (i.e. “deep down all religions share the same core values”).
Its the Tony Blair approach, demolished by Hitchens in their Munk debate last year.
Jon Stewart’s quote comes to mind:
“Religion. . . . providing comfort to millions in a world torn apart. . . . by Religion!”
Here’s some debating advice:
1. Keep it simple. A few clear concepts. The anti-Gish Gallop.
2. Be definitive. I know, for a scientist this is tough. But the first time you waffle is the last time the audience takes you seriously.
3. Pick a useful analogy and stick to it. However, I’d stay away from the flat-earth analogy because — well, you’ll be in Kentucky.
4. Pre-prepare responses to what you perceive your are your opponent’s strongest arguments. Really think through his top 10 and your 2-sentence reply to each. Keep a list and check the list when he speaks.
I would love it if you asked your opponent a question I’ve been posing to theists without reply for a while now.
Preface it with something like this: We all know that scientific advances have overturned religious notions of the Earth being flat, fixed, and with four corners. We now know that Adam and Eve could not have existed. We know the universe is billions of years old, and that there may be a multiverse that is truly infinite in scope and time. All of these scientific findings overturn religious dogma.
We also know that religion fights the advance of science tooth-and-nail. Galileo was persecuted and Bruno was burned at the stake for daring to claim that the Earth wasn’t at the center of the universe. Virtually all of the objections to the modern biological theory of evolution come from religious and not scientific perspectives.
Now here’s the question: Name one scientific finding — great or small, enormous or trivial — that has been overturned by religion.
For the life of me, I can’t imagine a coherent response unless your opponent is a unrepentant creationist. It is quite literally a one-way street. Science overturns religious teaching; religion retreats into claiming that its teaching was “metaphorical” all along.
And a last bit of advice: Practice what you’re going to say out loud. You don’t want to come off sounding “canned”, but neither do you want to stammer your way through a presentation that you have well-ordered in your own head. Practice actually saying the words you want to say.
This is because most agnostics are taking a theological position (“we can’t know”) similar to accommodationists (“we shouldn’t tell”). Technically atheists, methodologically still theists.
Similarly to the majority of theists actually being literal against the official proclamations, the majority of agnostics are actually religious. (If religiously based is taken as a sign of reliance on religion rather than a comprehensive rejection.)
“But who the deuce does Haught think he is to tell everyone what the “point” of scripture is?”
Yes, it’s quite Haughty of him, isn’t it?
Surprised I’m the first to make this joke — it practically wrote itself.