Fallacious Interpretations

[Zadok001]

Remember our interpertation of the bible can be wrong, not the bible itself

Godzman said that in another thread.

I have a problem with that reasoning. Let us assume for a moment that we, indeed, have a perfect, infallable text. We have a myriad of interpretations of said text. The problem is, none of our interpretations match up to reality. Basically, we know two things to be the case:

1. The text in question is infallable.
2. No known interpretation of said text matches up to what is known to be true about reality.

Now, under these circumstances, I believe we can clearly show that (1) is a meaningless statement. Whether or not our text is infallable, if we cannot interpret it such that it matches up with reality, we cannot use it to reach any justifiable conclusions. Basically, we have reached an impasse until we can invent a functional interpretation.

So, the problem is, our infallable text cannot be used to provide us with any truth we don't already know to be the case from the world around us. Basically, our interpretation of the text MUST MATCH UP TO PREDEFINED CRITERA before it can be considered valid.

Hence, the problem of getting "truth" out of an interpretable text. Even assuming infallability, the only way to acquire knowledge is through fallable interpretations. And if our interpretations may be fallable, we cannot justify a given interpretation without aligning it with our knowledge of the world.

Consider this in the light of the Quran. A poster some time ago (either here or on Infidels, I don't remember) cited the Quran as saying that mountains were built like pegs in the earth. As it turns out, the rock structure of a mountain extends deep underground in a form that could be considered peg-like. Hence, if we assume the Quran is infallable, we conclude that the proper interpretation of this passage is that mountains have an underground structure.

(Remember, we're still assuming our text is infallable. So no arguments from circularity or post hoc rationalizations here.)

So here's my problem. Under this model of interpretation, no "truth" can be derived from an infallable text WITHOUT OUTSIDE CONFIRMATION. This strikes me as HIGHLY problematic for those wishing to claim ANY part of the Bible is literally true, be it Genesis, Moses's long march, or Jesus's crucifixition.

So, even with divine revelation that a certain book is infallable, can we EVER know anything BASED on that book?

 

[Zadok001]

And it now occurs to me that this is SO the wrong forum. Der. Mods, delete me.

 

[Arikay]

I think it fits in the forum, since even though its the science forum, creationism is often based off of an interpretation of the bible.

A couple things to point out,

I would say that Number 2 is wrong. There are many known interpretations of the bible that match up with as much as we currently know about the universe.

In the Koran claim, I dont know much about mountains as pegs, however, the claim continued on to say that these pegs hold the crust together and help prevent earthquakes and fast plate movement (If I remember right), this of course is false, since activity seems to increase around mountain ranges.

 

[Zadok001]

Well, (2) can't really be "wrong," per se, as it's an assumption about a theoretical state of affairs.

As to the problem with the Quran's claim, note that if we assume the Quran is infallable, we must by necessity assume our interpretation that passage is incorrect. (I would also assert that a "literal" interpretation has no particular advantage over any other.)

 

[lucaspa]

Godzman said that in another thread.

I have a problem with that reasoning. Let us assume for a moment that we, indeed, have a perfect, infallable text. We have a myriad of interpretations of said text. The problem is, none of our interpretations match up to reality. Basically, we know two things to be the case:

1. The text in question is infallable.
2. No known interpretation of said text matches up to what is known to be true about reality.

#2 is completely wrong.

Science argues only a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8, some references to flat and immovable earth, and the part where the sun stands still. That's IT!!

Not the whole Bible by any means.

Most of the statements are about the existence of a particular deity. Well, we do not know that deity in general or this particular deity does not match up with reality. Certainly not be science. Many people believe that deity in general and Yahweh in particular doesn't exist, but that is not knowledge.

Now, under these circumstances, I believe we can clearly show that (1) is a meaningless statement. Whether or not our text is infallable, if we cannot interpret it such that it matches up with reality, we cannot use it to reach any justifiable conclusions. Basically, we have reached an impasse until we can invent a functional interpretation.

The text is for theology. So, the text can be infallible as theology and still be very fallible as history or science.

My favorite example is Shakespeare's Macbeth. The play is set in a fictionaly Scottish history. Yet the play remains popular because it discusses human truths such as greed, lust for power, honor, justice, etc. Those human truths are not any less true because the literal history is completely wrong.

So that is how the first quote in my signature can be made. The theology of the Bible can be considered infallible while having very fallible science. Instead of a scientific interpretation of those passages, look for a theological one.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, (2) can't really be "wrong," per se, as it's an assumption about a theoretical state of affairs.

#2 is a claim about ultimate reality -- the existence of deity. You state that claim doesnt' match reality. But you don't know that is so. So #2 as structured is wrong.