What's Wrong With Fiction?

[artybloke]

I'm putting this here because I've no idea where else to put it.

It's not really to do with science, it's to do with a strange attitude that I often find among creationists generally. It's their seeming distrust of fiction. Where do people think it comes from?

I've been reading a book about Robert Graham, he of the "Nobel Sperm Bank", where he purported to collect sperm from Nobel prize-winners to "pass on their genes" to the future. Apart from the naffness of the science (or non-science), based as it is on eugenics, something else struck me. He only wanted scientists and engineers, not poets.

Poetry and fiction, of course, are things you can't measure, and they don't always follow the rules of common sense. Common sense seems to be the default philosophy of most Americans, and seemingly most conservative Christians.

Poetry and fiction are, to me, one of the most powerful ways of exploring and conveying truth about the things of the spirit. I've been a poet for as long as I can remember (fairly successful too - I had a book published last year) and I think in that way. That Genesis is poetry of a sort seems so obvious to me (aside from the science issues) that I find it difficult to consider that some people read it as literal "fact."

Sorry it's a bit rambly.

 

[shernren]

Well, I'll co-ramble.

There has to be some kind of higher dimension to the whole deal than just "literal / figurative". This has been brought out forcefully in the little brawl we had over at that topic about the serpent in OT. Juvenissun and busterdog tried to make a reference to how snakes constantly use their tongues to gather scent for their vomeronasal organs as a fulfillment / scientific interpretation of the fact that the serpent will "eat dust". I fought that both on scientific grounds and theological grounds.

The theological tussle was interesting to me. After busterdog gave up on the VNO he went back to his standard "this is mysterious but I should still be a lot more correct than you" fare. He now wanted to shape the passage as a description of Satan, who must therefore in some way be reptilian.

The cynical view on it is that this is a halfway house between literalism and figurative language. One cannot make the passage completely literal so one makes literal what one can and makes figurative what one can. However, that doesn't explain why they choose the literal elements they choose.

It seems that there is a desire or a push towards reification, and a particular kind of it that is very tangible, even if not scientifically tangible. Satan and demons and heavenly war - I wonder if modern evangelicalism's Lucifer isn't just Hitler writ large. After all, "Lucifer" isn't even an explicit, specific name in the Bible for Satan. One has to take quite some liberty to read Satan into the king of Tyre mentioned in Isaiah and Ezekiel (IIRC), yet there is a degree of anti-literalness here which, if applied to Genesis, would immediately shift its interpretation completely away from YECism - and yet YECs are perfectly willing to hold both together.

The YEC position isn't simply defined by literalism, nor is it defined by a plain authorial-intent hermeneutic. There is a YEC site I know of that preaches YECism "as the Bible intends" followed by a convoluted scheme by Satan to dilute the bloodline of Jesus by means of the Nephilim etc. That's not literalism.

Maybe the driving force is simply fashionable esotericism ...

 

[gluadys]

I'm putting this here because I've no idea where else to put it.

It's not really to do with science, it's to do with a strange attitude that I often find among creationists generally. It's their seeming distrust of fiction. Where do people think it comes from?

I've just finished Words with Power, Northrope Frye's second look at the Bible and literature.

He makes the point several times that in Western history, especially post-Enlightenment history, all the words associated with literature (narrative, myth, fable, legend, fiction, poetry, story) have acquired the secondary meaning of "not really true". However, the question of how we got there is pretty complex.

I've been reading a book about Robert Graham, he of the "Nobel Sperm Bank", where he purported to collect sperm from Nobel prize-winners to "pass on their genes" to the future. Apart from the naffness of the science (or non-science), based as it is on eugenics, something else struck me. He only wanted scientists and engineers, not poets.

It is also interesting to note that in ancient times the poet or bard was honoured as the keeper of cultural memory. To the extent we have moved to written documentation and the use of argument and evidence to support concepts of truth, the poet has been socially marginalized.

Poetry and fiction are, to me, one of the most powerful ways of exploring and conveying truth about the things of the spirit. I've been a poet for as long as I can remember (fairly successful too - I had a book published last year) and I think in that way. That Genesis is poetry of a sort seems so obvious to me (aside from the science issues) that I find it difficult to consider that some people read it as literal "fact."

Sorry it's a bit rambly.

I think people are sometimes afraid of the power of poetry. It is not necessarily something conscious, but a vague discomfort with the poetic as something not quite graspable.

 

[artybloke]

I think people are sometimes afraid of the power of poetry. It is not necessarily something conscious, but a vague discomfort with the poetic as something not quite graspable

Exactly! It's not measurable. A good poem is not paraphrasable - you can't put it into other words without losing something - and can't be pinned down into a clear plain statement.

Stories always contain truth - but the truth is in the telling not only the little kernals of meaning we take away with us ("this story is about faithfullness" - well, yes but not only that...)

It seems to me that faith is about stepping into uncertainty, not away from it. It's about accepting the mystery of life, and letting Christ be the light that leads you through it.

I think that literalism at heart is a fear of the unknown.

 

[InTheCloud]

Poetry and fiction are, to me, one of the most powerful ways of exploring and conveying truth about the things of the spirit. I've been a poet for as long as I can remember (fairly successful too - I had a book published last year) and I think in that way. That Genesis is poetry of a sort seems so obvious to me (aside from the science issues) that I find it difficult to consider that some people read it as literal "fact."

Genesis 1 yo 11 is clearly a creation poem not a oral narrative like the rest of the Book, and most modern biblical scholars believe it was a latter addition, specially the six days part.
Poems are used in the Bible to convey prophecies and to transmit deep emotional truths. Using it as a literal story actually hurts the message.
The important things are:
1. God created the universe.
2. God created people.
3. People are called to have a special relationship with God.
4. There was a Original (if you are Catholic/Protestant) or First (if you are Jewish or Eastern Orthodox) sin that damaged that relationship.
5. Humans are bound to sin and hurt each others.
6. There are limits that humans shall not cross, Nephilim and the Noah story.
7. The basic unity of the human race (the long genealogies, the Babel story).
Genesis should be compared with the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, they are very similar but differs into this classic points. That is the mesage YHWH was trying to teach.