Faith In Action: Bringing Hope to the Planet

[geo]

Is the Bible sacred? This is a trick question, rather like the pharisee's asking Jesus whether to pay tax, or whether to stone adulterers. On tax, 'yes' isolates him from the Jewish radical base, and 'no' is criminal sedition. Hence the masterful response, render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's. On adultery, 'yes' is merciless, while 'no' is against Moses. The master responds - let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.

Is the Bible sacred? 'Yes' takes us down the barren old path of inerrancy and intolerance, when we know the Bible contains many metaphorical ideas, wrong ideas, and ideas lifted from older mythic traditions. 'No' ignores the sense in which a divine presence speaks within this text in a way that has immense practical transformative vision for our planet. On balance, I believe we should see the Bible as sacred - meaning precious and central, while recognising that this does not make it an infallible blueprint. This book has not been adequately studied from a modern critical perspective. The critics falsely assume the Bible is delusional and do not give it the respect it deserves, or like some of the comments here, look through it to find everything bad that they can use to promote atheism. Christians tend to be far too defensive, and should lighten up to sort the wheat from the chaff.
RT

I didn't intend it as a trick question. I asked DH whether he believes the Bible is the word of God, not so I can use it against him, but to establish a baseline for discussion. It's my sense that there's an unspoken fixed belief that is the basis of DH's devotion to the Bible (perhaps yours too). I've only been here for a short time, but I've seen several threads that go round and round and never get anywhere and I suspect they never will if one position is faith-based. Without that baseline of intellectual honesty, I think some of us will remain baffled about this seemingly fixed sense of sacredness ascribed to the Bible.

In other words, I'm trying to deconstruct DH's position and find out what lies at the root of it.

The way I see it, if DH's answer is an unequivocal 'yes,' I would say he's coming from a position of faith and any kind of meaningful ontological debate is impossible, but we would at least know where he's coming from and I, for one, would respect that. I would be tempted to invoke Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA (Nonoverlapping magisteria), which says science cannot presume to comment on matters metaphysical and religion cannot presume to comment on matters scientific, and we'd all leave it at that.

Instead, DH responded with what I see as a lot of equivocating, so I think we're actually no better off than where we started.

Then again, maybe I'm asking the wrong question. You indicate above that the Bible is "sacred" to you, at the same admitting the "metaphorical ideas, wrong ideas, and ideas lifted from older mythic traditions." You still haven't explained to me why it's anything more than just a book. How is the "divine presence" you speak of any more real than the apparently credulous belief in a deity? How can a mere book be seen as sacred, on the same level as the awesome beauty and majesty of nature?

[Dissident Heart]

geo: In other words, I'm trying to deconstruct DH's position and find out what lies at the root of it.

And, I've deconstructed your desire for a yes/no answer as really a shibboleth: at root it is a way to find out what side I am on (to whom do I pledge my allegience in the NOMA paradigm). The key buzzwords are: intellectual honesty, equivocation, fixed belief. Whereas, I think my own approach to the Bible reflects substantial deconstruction: a fairly radical hermeneutics that is anything but blind faith. I don't see deconstruction as a faithless enterprise: it seems you do. Or, maybe, you are simply blind to your faith.

Deconstruction is fundamentally an act of faith: that within every notion, belief, paradigm, structure or system exists a dynamic force that unsettles, disturbs and deconstructs the surrounding cocoon of hardened orthodoxy and settled opinion...an un-namable, in-describable, un-graspable something that simply wont stay still...an endlessly generative pulsation constantly shedding skins...dropping resolute certainties along the way as it discloses different angles on new perspectives...always a step ahead of our hermeneutics: pulling us along, luring us into uncharted territories, provoking our logic and tempting our passions...whispering to us, "No, not that...nor that...nor that either". Something for which "It's either yes or no" has no place: is nonsense- senseless.

geo: I've only been here for a short time, but I've seen several threads that go round and round and never get anywhere and I suspect they never will if one position is faith-based.

That's one way to describe it: another way is to identify how one side is unable, perhaps unwilling, perhaps in denial of the ways that their own position relies upon faith: claiming a sort of moral, intellectual, and cognitive high ground because they are honest, whereas the others obfuscate, equivocate, and lie. Again, its no wonder the use of shibboleths are required: it is imperative to know which side you are on, and that yours is the honest one, the good one, the one that really cares and tries and takes truth seriously...unlike the others.

[geo]

geo: In other words, I'm trying to deconstruct DH's position and find out what lies at the root of it.

And, I've deconstructed your desire for a yes/no answer as really a shibboleth: at root it is a way to find out what side I am on (to whom do I pledge my allegience in the NOMA paradigm).

No doubt I'm oversimplifying things, but I can't help but feel that we humans tend to make things needlessly complicated. Even Einstein's special relativity can be summed up as:

1.) The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity).
2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

So maybe life isn't so complicated after all. Maybe we humans, always aspiring to be something more than the simple animals that we actually are, have invented stories to explain things we don't understand. And maybe, just maybe, we get ourselves into trouble when we start to believe them as true.

[Interbane]

A smart person can take something simple and make it complicated. A genius can take something complicated and make it simple. Reduction does not always entail information loss, like when it sheds what is irrelevant.

[Frank 013]

DH
That's one way to describe it: another way is to identify how one side is unable, perhaps unwilling, perhaps in denial of the ways that their own position relies upon faith:

It looks like we need to revisit that discussion about simple faith and leaps of faith...

DH
it is imperative to know which side you are on, and that yours is the honest one, the good one, the one that really cares and tries and takes truth seriously...unlike the others.

I wouldn't describe it as imperative, but if we really are looking for truth I see no reason to purposely complicate the answer to a simple question.

Later

[Frank 013]

Interbane
A smart person can take something simple and make it complicated.

Interbane
A genius can take something complicated and make it simple.

And a stupid person sees the simple as complicated...

I'm not pointing any fingers... I just thought Interbane's post seemed a little incomplete.

Later

[DWill]

And, I've deconstructed your desire for a yes/no answer as really a shibboleth: at root it is a way to find out what side I am on (to whom do I pledge my allegience in the NOMA paradigm).

Gould's whole point with NOMA was, of course, that no individual had to pledge allegiance to one magisteria or the other. Gould himself was a Christian, after all. The contradiction between the two was only apparent, not real, he believed.

[geo]

Gould's whole point with NOMA was, of course, that no individual had to pledge allegiance to one magisteria or the other. Gould himself was a Christian, after all. The contradiction between the two was only apparent, not real, he believed.

I'm curious, where did you get the idea that Gould was a Christian? I've heard him described as a secular Jew, but I think he considered himself an agnostic.

Here, in an interview with Skeptic Magazine:

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

I found that quote by Googling Gould. I couldn't directly verify that he said this.

from an article on the University of Cambridge web site:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/biology.html

On the atheist side, the atheist (or agnostic) and eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has generally denied that religious and scientific claims can contradict one another: according to Gould, they occupy 'non- overlapping magisteria' (NOMA) where scientific claims are understood to be about the empirical world and religious claims are understood to be about the world of values. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has also argued (although on different grounds) that evolution and religious belief are compatible.

By the way, earlier I mentioned I would be tempted to invoke Gould's NOMA, but I should say I think there are problems with NOMA as well. Basically it gives a free pass to those with extraordinary claims. On the other hand, what I like about it as that it draws a clear line between the physical and supernatural realms. I see it as a hindrance to meaningful debate when we attempt to mingle the two realms together. Dawkins, of course, believes the NOMA paradigm is only shameless pandering to the religious, and he's probably right.

[Frank 013]

Geo
Dawkins, of course, believes the NOMA paradigm is only shameless pandering to the religious, and he's probably right.

I agree... Making definite claims about an entities existence... and claiming to understand this entity's relationship with humans is a scientific claim as far as I can see.

It is a definate claim based off of nonexistent, flawed and at best substandard and conflicted evidence.

Later

[Chris OConnor]

I've actually spoken to Gould about NOMA and I completely disagree with him. Gould didn't ever say it, but I am left to believe NOMA was designed to say to the religious nuts:

Please don't screw with my grants and funding. I won't step on your toes as long as you don't step on mine. I call a truce.

Gould was an atheist.

Frank, this was classic:

And a stupid person sees the simple as complicated...