Not only a description but a prescription

[rmwilliamsll]

I've been trying to find another way to express the idea that Gen 1 is a cosmology that is being used by God to teach important theological truths without at the same time being a binding cosmology on all subsequent believers.

i've used this quote a few times:

Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side. pg 25

from: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science by Massimo Pigliucci

trying to show that an atheist and a skeptic clearly sees the issue when the bulk of YECist Christians are confused between using and teaching, between an observer's POV and an authoritive you-must-do-likewise Scriptural commandment*.

Reading Paradigms on Pilgrimage helped in several ways.
first, the long section on the observational POV, not just of Genesis but of the whole Scriptures.

"In time I came to be amazed at how pervasive this observational 'cosmology' was in the Bible, but even more so at how indifferent I and others had been to it while at the same time being very concerned about reconciling the Bible's 'cosmogony' or its description of how the universe came to be, with scientific descriptions. Why the double standard? Why did we not bat an eyelash at observational cosmology, but insist on the literal truth of what migh be a similiarly observation cosmogony?" pg 135-6

"their descriptions must rathe be intended essentially as literal, given the limiations on the observations they and their contemporaries could have made. The biblical authors do not appear to have been granted supernatural insights into the non-apparent facts of cosmology." pg 136

"This leaves open the question, of course, of how the biblical writers, if they truly were inspired by God, could have been 'wrong' at least by contemporary scientific standards, as they described how the world came to be." pg 138

and secondly, the idea that the writers are inspired but not given supernatural knowledge about the inner working of the universe as a result of this inspiration:

"That is, the Genesis author does not demonstrate knowledge far beyond what he could have had in the time and culture in which he lived. Like his contemporaries, he had little idea how vast and complex the universe actually is."
"contrast two statements: Because the Bible is scientifically accurate, it's the word of God. Because the Bible is the word of God, it's scientifically accurate. .. the expectation that the 'word of God' will reflect the divine omniscience of its ultimate Author." pg 194

"the Genesis author does not seem to be aware of the limitations of his own knowledge. In other words, not only does he not know, he does not know that he does not know. While his descriptions of creation and cosmology is phenomenological, he believes it to be objectively accurate." pg 196

i was unaware that people expected scientific "easter eggs" in Genesis in order to prove it's divine origin, sounds like Biblical numerology to my ears. But the issue of not just what the writers knew, but the bigger issue of if they even knew how big the universe really is, is an important one.

i was reminded of this with:

I'm sorry but I have to agree with her that creation is clearly written out to be 24 hour days. There is no possible way that the author of Genesis could have made that point clearer.

Not only are the words important, not only is the textual context important, not only is the social/cultural/religious context of the times important, but it is also important to be careful of our own times.

this is the take home message of:
While his descriptions of creation and cosmology is phenomenological, he believes it to be objectively accurate. and how we are to interpret it. Just because God inspired the writer of Genesis to present us with Gen 1, it does not mean that the writer knew what the universe was actually like, even though he talks as if he does. We are not required by God to put ourselves into his POV and STAY THERE, we are allowed and even encouraged to take what we learn and rejoin our culture to engage with it. Not as ANE clones but as modern people, we do not leave the author's shoes with his cosmological POV intact (and as a result requiring Christians to be flat earthers, and anti-evolutionists) but rather with his relationship to God having changed us.

"a 21st-century cosmological understanding. His reading was suffering from the proverbial 'paradigm effect'. Therefore, in rereading the creation account, he made a conscious effort to forget what he knew about the structure of our solar system and the universe beyond." pg 178

therefore, the origin of the title of the book.....


so, i'm thinking about calling this the "description that wrongly becomes a prescription problem" in place of the awkward "using but not teaching it as transcultural and eternal" phrasing.

notes:
*my favorite example of this common misreading of Scripture is:
Mat 27:5 ...and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37...Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

 

[Assyrian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rmwilliamsll again.

Excellent post.

The thing that struck me is how painful it can be when paradigms shift. The old securities are shaken and all you are left with is your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.