The Potential Danger of Literalism

[Vance]

Anything that calls into question the method of creation demands careful scrutiny, especially in light of Biblical revelation. Were it not for the fact that the Bible offers compelling reasons within itself to question the validity of macro-evolution, specifically of the introduction of mankind, we indeed would have nothing to debate here.

Just to make clear (I don't want to put words in your mouth), are you saying that absent your particular reading of Scripture, you would find the scientific evidence for an old earth and macro evolution compelling?

 

[California Tim]

Just to make clear (I don't want to put words in your mouth), are you saying that absent your particular reading of Scripture, you would find the scientific evidence for an old earth and macro evolution compelling?

Seeing how there would be no alternative to the literal Genesis account but evolution, that point would be obvious. I could also say the same thing about salvation through Christ alone. Were it not for the Biblical declaration that there is only one way, I'd be compelled to believe a merciful God would spare everyone who made an honest effort to acknowledge him in their own way even if they never knew Christ. The problem is that this is unscriptural and reduces the purpose of Christ's sacrifice to mere folly. Similarly, since I believe the Genesis account is accurately read as narrative history, the evidence in creation, being subjective, must be analyzed by the objective truth of scripture. It won't work the other way around.

 

[Vance]

Well, first of all, your interpretation of Scripture IS subjective. Even more subjective than a review of the evidence from God's Creation can be. That doesn't mean your interpretation is necessarily wrong, but to deny that your human subjectivity is not involved in how you read Scripture is to make a fairly dramatic proposition that even Augustine refused to make. So, the choice is NOT between subjective review of natural evidence v. objective truth of Scripture. It is, in the case of origins, a choice between subjective, but testable and methodoligical, review of natural evidence v. subjective review of Scripture.

What you have done is start with a subjective interpretation, Then convert it into an objective Truth of Scripture, then use that new status to trump everything else. The point is that just because we believe something to be true in Scripture, this does not make it absolute truth. As you have pointed out, outside of the essential salvation issues, things are often (usually?) subject to various interpretations, and thus we have to choose among them, prayerfully and with the Spirit's guidance. But we should remain as humble as Augustine about such choices. Yes, we should make a choice, but only believe it with the degree of certainty that is consistent with a review of all of those factors Augustine mentions.

If you believe that the best interpretation, taking all these factors into consideration, is that the earth is young, then fine. But since it is not a salvation issue, it is not wise, IMVHO, to hold such a belief dogmatically or, worse, treat it as if it is suddenly an objective Truth of Scripture, which would then require absolute refusal of all that would contradict it. I think that belief should be held only with that degree of certianty which is warranted by all those factors.

But your proposition is not completely true on the science. There ARE alternatives. You could still believe that the earth came into existence 10,000 years ago even if you didn't have the Bible to tell you that - if all the natural evidence pointed to it. After all, even atheists believe it started at a given time. If the evidence really is that the earth is young, then you would simply think that starting point was more recent rather than later. The question is whether the natural evidence, on its own, points to a young earth or an old earth.

Right now, you seem to believe that there is a great deal of convincing scientific evidence that the earth is actually about 10,000 years old. If you (somehow) found out conclusively tomorrow that either an old earth or a young earth could be completely consistent with Scripture, and you could, in good conscience, come to either conclusion based solely on the natural evidence, would you conclude the earth was young or old?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well, first of all, your interpretation of Scripture IS subjective. Even more subjective than a review of the evidence from God's Creation can be. That doesn't mean your interpretation is necessarily wrong, but to deny that your human subjectivity is not involved in how you read Scripture is to make a fairly dramatic proposition that even Augustine refused to make. So, the choice is NOT between subjective review of natural evidence v. objective truth of Scripture. It is, in the case of origins, subjective, but testable and methodoligical review of natural evidence v. subjective review of Scripture.

i often wonder why science seems so uniform and Christianity so fragmented. Part of the answer is to be found by following up on the ideas expressed here.

a neat term is intersubjectivity. i first thought about it due to a reference:

This brings up an issue i have discussed in the past in this blog, the public nature of science and the private nature of religion. I had the very good pleasure of reading an essay in Darwinism Science or Philosophy? chapter 8 "Radical Intersubjectivity" by Frederick Grinnell. Where he states "Individual scientists make discoveries; scientific communities make discoveries credible" pg 101. This is the fundamental reason that science has a right to feedback into Christian theology, that the basis of our faith is public, is the real universe that science proposes to investigate. But the public nature of science is smaller in a significant way than is religion. Take the discovery of the benzene ring.

from: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/wimpsgimpsblack.html

this intersubjectivity, something between objective and subjective is a valuable notion. In many of the elements of the faith i can see things in other people, or in their writings that echo with my experience. Yet unlike science, there is seldom a body of experiences that we can make reference to in religions. Most often we describe our experience and look for those resonances in others. Science is different, partly because of its public nature, but mostly because it has voluntarily limited itself to exactly these common experiences.

it is to no one's benefit that YECists tend to word the argument as objective truth in the Scriptures and subjective opinion in the reading of the book of nature. For in fact, the opposite appears to be closer to the truth.

...

 

[California Tim]

it is to no one's benefit that YECists tend to word the argument as objective truth in the Scriptures and subjective opinion in the reading of the book of nature. For in fact, the opposite appears to be closer to the truth....

A most interesting paradigm you possess. May I ask your opinion of what "objective" truth is? Also, if there is an objective truth, then what is it and how did it come about? (in a nutshell).

 

[Vance]

Well, obviously, all Christians would agree that there is objective truth, including objective truth about Scripture. The point is that your subjective idea about Scripture can not, and should not, be assumed to be that objective truth in every case. We definitely can believe that a particular reading is the objective truth, and we all DO believe this. But we all should be humble enough about our interpretive abilities to feel that we could be wrong about whether we have it right. As you pointed out from the Westminister Confession of Faith:

Chapter 1, VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, ut the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

So, those objective truths regarding the matters of salvation are truths that anyone can see and believe if only they will. Other times, the objective truth is not so obvious and plain, and thus our subjective interpretation is used to seek that objective truth. Since we are fallible humans, we must seek the Spirit's guidance and pray, but even then, God in His infinite wisdom sees fit to allow Spirit-led Christians to hold different opinions on this matter.

I think Augustine echoes this necessary humbleness regarding Genesis in particular:

"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

It is very possible to hold too firmly to a particular reading of Scripture. So, if you believe that a particular reading IS the objective Truth, without the proper humbleness to be willing to alter that position "if the further search for truth justly undermines this position", then problems can arise. The only way you could NOT "fall with it" is to be willing to alter that viewpoint, which is to recognize that your subjective view of that objective truth was incorrect.

Does that make sense?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

A most interesting paradigm you possess. May I ask your opinion of what "objective" truth is? Also, if there is an objective truth, then what is it and how did it come about? (in a nutshell).

objective truth lies in God.
He has shared truth with us in both the Scriptures and in creation.

for us to learning these truths we must interpret either. Scriptures via hermeneutics and creation via science which relies on a particular epistemology.

essentially we see Scriptures through the grid of our hermeneutics and the creation through the filter of our scientific epistemology, in either case,(which are remarkably parallel) what is in our minds is a subjective interpretation. For we are not God knowing things as they really are.

this is not relativist, for God's interpretation is true, and the closer we approximate it, the better and more truthful are our ideas. So there is a standard, the closer to reality the better the science, and the closer to God's intention in Scripture the better the Biblical hermeneutic.

...