Thwarting God's Supporters
It would be easier to believe that all the dollar-appointed Christian leaders who tell us that the Bible is best understood literally were on to something if they didn't all disagree on what that literal interpretation is.
The Bible is an anthology. Even a casual reading shows that it can't be said to speak with a single literary voice at all.
But even ignoring that, once you are sure that your interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation, then your interpretation becomes the very word of God itself. You do not stand to learn anything; you merely stand to see what other voices agree with your vaunted "understanding" and what voices do not. You have authority for no other reason than that you confer it upon yourself. That's the height of arrogance, since it confuses one's ideas about God with God Himself(*).
And it doesn't even hold together logically. Consider the following syllogism:
P1: If there are contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible is false.
P2(A): The Bible is not false.
C1: Therefore, there are no contradictions in the Bible.
That's logically consistent, but note that there are many vocal atheists who accept P1 and follow it up with:
P2(B): There are contradictions in the Bible.
C2: Therefore, the Bible is false.
In other words, both the fundamentalist Christian and the vocal atheist agree on P1! It's just that only one of these two is actually able to back up his conclusion from that premise with evidence. (It is not possible, even in principle, to have evidence of a negative like "The Bible is not false anywhere".) Therefore, only one of the two can truthfully say that relevant data will change his mind, and even have that stance backed up with demonstrable fact relevant to the subject.
Most Christians currently on the planet simply reject P1. They point out that the word "true" (as it is used conversationally) can have many meanings outside simple logical soundness or scientific accuracy. (This is also how, for example, many Christians understand that the evidence clearly indicates that evolution is true and insist that the Biblical account of creation has something important to teach us. You'll note that in this specific case, it is both the fundamentalists and the vocal atheists who assert that the trustworthiness of Scripture hinges on whether or not the first chapters of Genesis can be understood as a valid scientific treatise; that's a particular instance of P1.)
---
(*) This becomes especially pernicious, and is also thrown into stark relief, when the Christian assumes that an attack on what they think about God is an attack on God(**). You can see this in the current state of political Christianity, especially in Evangelicalism's attempts at "culture war" that it is trying to fight on so many fronts.
Paradoxically, many attacks on bad ideas about God are actually defense of the goodness of God Himself. If someone is willing to point out a dangerously false idea about God, they are, in fact, defending God's character.
This means that Christians who are irrationally defending their ideas about God are, if their philosophical opponent has any point whatsoever, putting themselves in the position of obstructing those who would contend for God's character. Even if said Christian's defense is based on his preferred understanding of Scripture.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
---
(**) In my experience, many Evangelicals -- especially Reformed Evangelicals -- have a very hard time recognizing that there's a difference between the theology they articulate and what God says, and that both of those are different from Who God is. Ironically, these three things continue to be inextricably intertwined in their minds even as they opine that, for example, papal infallibility is a fundamentally flawed concept.
The Bible is an anthology. Even a casual reading shows that it can't be said to speak with a single literary voice at all.
But even ignoring that, once you are sure that your interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation, then your interpretation becomes the very word of God itself. You do not stand to learn anything; you merely stand to see what other voices agree with your vaunted "understanding" and what voices do not. You have authority for no other reason than that you confer it upon yourself. That's the height of arrogance, since it confuses one's ideas about God with God Himself(*).
And it doesn't even hold together logically. Consider the following syllogism:
P1: If there are contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible is false.
P2(A): The Bible is not false.
C1: Therefore, there are no contradictions in the Bible.
That's logically consistent, but note that there are many vocal atheists who accept P1 and follow it up with:
P2(B): There are contradictions in the Bible.
C2: Therefore, the Bible is false.
In other words, both the fundamentalist Christian and the vocal atheist agree on P1! It's just that only one of these two is actually able to back up his conclusion from that premise with evidence. (It is not possible, even in principle, to have evidence of a negative like "The Bible is not false anywhere".) Therefore, only one of the two can truthfully say that relevant data will change his mind, and even have that stance backed up with demonstrable fact relevant to the subject.
Most Christians currently on the planet simply reject P1. They point out that the word "true" (as it is used conversationally) can have many meanings outside simple logical soundness or scientific accuracy. (This is also how, for example, many Christians understand that the evidence clearly indicates that evolution is true and insist that the Biblical account of creation has something important to teach us. You'll note that in this specific case, it is both the fundamentalists and the vocal atheists who assert that the trustworthiness of Scripture hinges on whether or not the first chapters of Genesis can be understood as a valid scientific treatise; that's a particular instance of P1.)
---
(*) This becomes especially pernicious, and is also thrown into stark relief, when the Christian assumes that an attack on what they think about God is an attack on God(**). You can see this in the current state of political Christianity, especially in Evangelicalism's attempts at "culture war" that it is trying to fight on so many fronts.
Paradoxically, many attacks on bad ideas about God are actually defense of the goodness of God Himself. If someone is willing to point out a dangerously false idea about God, they are, in fact, defending God's character.
This means that Christians who are irrationally defending their ideas about God are, if their philosophical opponent has any point whatsoever, putting themselves in the position of obstructing those who would contend for God's character. Even if said Christian's defense is based on his preferred understanding of Scripture.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
---
(**) In my experience, many Evangelicals -- especially Reformed Evangelicals -- have a very hard time recognizing that there's a difference between the theology they articulate and what God says, and that both of those are different from Who God is. Ironically, these three things continue to be inextricably intertwined in their minds even as they opine that, for example, papal infallibility is a fundamentally flawed concept.
Comments
Post a Comment