"Flexibility of views and generosity of spirit concerning Genesis 1 are hardly unusual among committed Christians."
http://biologos.org/blog/how-should-biologos-respond-to-dr-albert-mohlers-critique-petes-response/
Put another way, "committed Christians" can take any one of the following three positions:
a) Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
b) Gen 1 is wrong most of the time
c) Gen 1 is wrong all of the time
Oh, good grief. What's the point of this other than to insult the intelligence of your readers?
ReplyDeleteI know you don't really need someone to point out that the debate is over interpretation and that, when interpreted correctly, Gen 1 is never "wrong". Is Joshua "wrong" when it says that the sun stood still?
According to Sparks, Enns, and Seely, Genesis is wrong when interpreted correctly.
ReplyDeleteIn times past, people just said they didn't believe in the Bible. Now, they say they believe in it, but only according to their own interpretation. Then they get Ph.D's and write books on their interpretation so others can have these books as "proof" of their argument.
ReplyDeleteToday you don't have to deal with the text as it was meant to be understood by it's original author. All you have to do is prove that you view could fit in between the lines of Scripture. (Strategically this is a smart move, as it becomes difficult to hit a moving target. Morally it's just plain wrong.) And in our postmodern society, who wants to disagree with someone who's just trying to fit in?
For Pete's Sake . . . Christians debunk each other constantly
ReplyDeletegeocentrist creationist Christians
young-earth creationist Christians
gap theory creationist Christians
day-age creationist Christians
other types of old-earth Christians
progressive-creationist Christians
temple-imagery interpretation of Genesis 1 Christians
Ed has a point. Atheists never disagree among each other. Nor do scientists.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Ed think mere disagreement among Christians entails epistemic turmoil for all Christians.
ReplyDeleteEd, derive this proposition about epistemic turmoil
[E] All Christians are in a state of epistemic turmoil
validly from this proposition about disagreement
[D] Some Christians disagree with each other
[D] is not a logical truth or a theorem and so you can't [E] straight from D. I'll get you started:
C = Christians
S = state of epistemic turmoil
D = disagree with each other
Derive: (x) (Cx -> Sx)
1. 3x (Cx & Dx) Assumption
Paul Manata asks: "Why does Ed think mere disagreement among Christians entails epistemic turmoil for all Christians."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's because you and others here have insisted that God's truth is real and that it is knowable?
Are just some things knowable? If so, what are they, and how to we determine the "knowable" truths of Scripture from the "not-so-knowable" ones? What approach are we to use?
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Are just some things knowable? If so, what are they, and how to we determine the 'knowable' truths of Scripture from the 'not-so-knowable' ones? What approach are we to use?"
Unbelievers don't seem to have any problem determining what they think Scripture really means. After all, they compile long lists of what they deem to be mistakes and contradictions in Scripture.
Are you telling us that unbelievers don't know what the Bible means?
"Are you telling us that unbelievers don't know what the Bible means?"
ReplyDeleteWell, anti-Theists do often seem to agree on what the mistakes and contradictions of the Bible are. They frequently cite the varying Creation accounts, for example.
Objectively speaking, though, yes, it's probably true that anti-Theists don't know what the original intent of any particular Bible passage is or why it was placed there. They can be more or less accurate based on their historical knowledge, but their "hits" are just as much accidents as anything else. If they claim otherwise, they're just being as arrogant as the militant fundamentalist.
Notice I didn't say "unbelievers", because I'm not sure what that means (although I think you intend that to mean anyone who rejects a very complex set of beliefs about God, not just that He exists).
There are Pentecostals who consider people like John MacArthur an "unbeliever" in the gifts of the Spirit (no small matter!).
James,
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and do the derivation, i.e., prove the assertion prome the premise.
You suggest that the assertion about disagreement entails that Christians are in a state of epistemic turmoil by this claim:
"Perhaps it's because you and others here have insisted that God's truth is real and that it is knowable?
How does that get you to the conclusion? I don't see how it does. These two claims are logically consistent
[K] God's truth is real and knowable.
[D] Sometimes Christians disagree about what God's truth is on some matters.
Can you show that it is impossible for both [K] and [D] to be true at the same time? If so, derive the contradiction. It seems obvious to me that both [K] and [D] are consistent, they don't even make claims about the same domains. [K] is a claim about God's truth, that it is knowable. [D] is a contingent claim about some Christians, that they disagree about God's truth.
Now, perhaps you have something like this in mind, which is what you'd need:
[D*] Necessarily, if a subject matter, x, is real and knowable, then there will be no person, S, who disagrees with S1 -> Sn, about x.
However, [D*] is problematic in many ways. For example, leaving aside the problems it would bring about on all matters of inquiry, there's this unfortunate consequence: [D*] cannot be true or knowable since I disagree with [D*].
So, I don't think the prospects that you'll get your criticism out of the bare naked assertion stage look too good.
James,
ReplyDeleteSimple example to show the flaw in your thinking:
My wife is a math teacher. Let's say she gives an exam to 30 students, and on one of the questions on the test, all 30 students miss the question. Furthermore, all 30 students get a different wrong answer.
Does it then follow that there is no right answer to that question?
I think there are more possibilities than the three listed in the OP:
ReplyDeletea) Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
b) Gen 1 is wrong most of the time
c) Gen 1 is wrong all of the time
d) Some of Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
e) All of Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
f) Most of Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
g) Most of Gen 1 is wrong all of the time
h) All of Gen 1 is wrong all of the time
And alternatively by implication:
i) Gen 1 is right some of the time
j) Gen 1 is right most of the time
k) Gen 1 is right all of the time
l) Some of Gen 1 is right some of the time
m) All of Gen 1 is right some of the time
n) Most of Gen 1 is right some of the time
o) Most of Gen 1 is right all of the time
p) All of Gen 1 is right all of the time
I gotta go p!
In Him,
CD
Paul,
ReplyDeleteFirst note that I never said the truth of a matter can't exist. I'm just skeptical about human ability to arrive at that truth. Science isn't immune from this problem, but it does have methods where you can reduce the level of uncertainty to a livable degree.
In terms of [K], though, please clarify:
Should I take that to mean "God's truth is real and knowable to everyone?"
If not, I assume that it should be:
"God truth is real and knowable to people who ... "
How would we qualify that?
People who study the right theology? Who have saving faith (as opposed to false Christians)?
People who have knowledge of history? Perhaps it's knowable through prayer and personal revelation?
In terms of [D], there are things that are knowable (let's say basic math). However, people might disagree if they have learning disabilities. Who knows. However, given instruction on the basic rules of the truths of math, most people will agree that 2 and 2 are 4.
I guess I've always taken it for granted that we live in a world of ambiguity. We can live as if things were true (after all, the only other choice is paralysis), but there's not a whole lot I'd bet the farm on.
CORAM DEO SAID:
ReplyDelete"I think there are more possibilities than the three listed in the OP."
Except that Peter Enns' principle of "generosity" and "flexibility" doesn't extend to the option that Gen 1 is right all the time. Which is why his appeal is so disingenuous.
James,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that you said the truth of the matter cannot exist. I mentioned a premise you'd need for the bad argument that you're defending (Babinski's) to go through. Since you deny that premise, I don't see how you're going to get the argument to go through from [D] to [E]. Perhaps you shouldn't have stepped in for Babinski?
"In terms of [K], though, please clarify:
Um, [K] is your claim. I simply quoted you.
Keep in mind the chronology:
* Babinski made a claim about disagreement among Christians.
* I asked what that was supposed to prove. That Christians should be in a state of epistemic turmoil [E]? I asked how to get to that conclusion from the disagreement premise, [D].
* You came and suggested that [E] followed from disagreement because, "Perhaps it's because you and others here have insisted that God's truth is real and that it is knowable?." I called your claim [K].
* I asked how that gets you to [E], seeing as it would need something like [D*] to go through.
So, if you have an argument from disagreement to epistemic turmoil, let's have it. That's what I'm interested in. That is what I objected to in Babinski. I'm not going to discuss what you're prepared to bet the farm on, or what you take for granted. That's not to be rude, it's to stay focused. So, either you have an argument for the conclusion or you don't. If you don't, just say so. If you continue to insist, especially without an argument, then I may be inclined to think that you're "betting the farm" on youre dire view of our epistemic condition. Since that's not a logical truth, a theorem, or a transcendental precondition for thought itself, then I don't see what you find so problematic about people betting the farm on other matters. If you don't "bet the farm" on your dire view, then it shouldn't be a problem to admit you don't have an argument for the conclusion under discussion from the premise of disagreement.
Put another way, "committed Christians" can take any one of the following three positions:
ReplyDeletea) Gen 1 is wrong some of the time
b) Gen 1 is wrong most of the time
c) Gen 1 is wrong all of the time
Okay. Let me put it in yet another way, "committed Christians" can take any one of the following three positions:
a) Peter Enns is wrong some of the time
b) Peter Enns is wrong most of the time
c) Peter Enns is wrong all of the time
I lean towards either (a) or (b).