The Cause of This Article and Preface to the Argument
During my time at Messiah College, one saying was heard constantly in chapel or in the classroom; "adopt and adapt."
The best way to describe the 'adopt-adapt' view is this; 'We live in a different culture than the people of the times in the Bible. There are certain cultural norms that we no longer advocate, so we must adapt the Bible to our time. We must adopt the rules that still work in our culture, the true Word of God that is universal to all cultures.' I have to call bullsh*t. It is impossible to pick and choose which rules to continue to follow without compromising the integrity of the Bible itself. It is dependent upon the individual, then, which parts of the Bible are to be followed and which rules are to be dismissed as 'culturally irrelevant.'
I propose that the method of 'adopt and adapt' is unsustainable for the Church and bastardizes Christianity in the process. The only way a modern Christian can continue to claim that title is to accept ONLY the teachings of Christ in the four gospels, which supersedes all other rules/ laws. The alternative is to live strictly by every literal Biblical law/ commandment which is, in itself, impossible to do in most countries without becoming a martyr.
While this originally was meant to only address the 'adopt-adapt' view, I will be arguing against both fundamentalism and the 'adopt-adapt' viewpoints in favor of the 'literal Christian' stance. Make no mistake, though; the final portion of this essay is the focal point. The first two sections are purely to provide reasonable doubt for holding those views, and while faith will always be a factor in accepting any belief I believe that the logical difficulties in holding either of the prior views too be too great.
As two final points, I would like to be clear that this is merely a persuasive essay. There will be people who disagree with me, who say my argument in part or in whole is invalid, or new information in the future could make this whole essay meaningless. Also, this same argument can be made of any other religion wherein specific rules/ commandments/ laws are stated for people to follow yet, because of the changing times, certain ones have been dropped with those cultural changes (i.e., Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.).
Finally, before moving onto the actual essay, it is important to note that I am not an apologetic or expert on the Bible. While I did grow up in a Christian household and went to a Christian college, I do not claim to be a scholar on the topic. I am a philosopher by nature with an emphasis on morals and temporality. That being said, you will notice plenty of references from the research I have done for this piece. Unlike most of my other entries I have taken this seriously and am putting forth an actual argument.
Problems With Living Fundamentally
This is going to be the shortest portion of this essay. Just look at Exodus 21-23. Upholding merely verse 22:20, "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed," would require a massive crusade and create near-endless war between Christians and everyone else. (Islam has a similar command for Muslims.) There are plenty of scenarios where people are forgiven or overlooked in our time who should be put to death. Denying this one instance of the Bible's literal word is enough to discredit anyone who considers themselves a literalist/ fundamentalist.
Suppose you still think you can live as a fundamentalist. You must be able to read Greek and Hebrew then so you can verify the original manuscripts. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of versions in just English. Do fundamentalists in Greenland, Chile, and Nepal live by the same 'Bible'? It only takes a few words interpreted differently to utterly change a passage from, 'they must leave,' to, 'they must be banished.' Within the Creation account we see two different versions of how Adam and Eve were created; the first account in which they are created simultaneously and the second account in which Eve is created from Adam. There is a problem when you have a definitive text on a topic that gives two different accounts of the same event.
Suppose we overlook any errors in the translation and say that the
'spirit of the text' is all that matters, given that reading 20
different versions will still have the same base message in any given
passage. There is still a problem of deciding which of those passages to
adopt and which can be ruled out as 'culturally irrelevant.' Is the
matter of stoning adulterers culturally sensitive? Which parts of Paul's
letters were Paul and which were God speaking through Paul? (Here is a well-done article
on the subject by an apologetic collaboration that, as irony would have
it, supports my argument.) Anywhere you look in the Bible you will find
these issues of what I call 'pick-and-choose' religion. The Bible is
not a bad thing, but the 'adopt and adapt' method ruins its message and
effectiveness for the Christian.
These issues combined, I believe, provide reasonable doubt against living as a biblical literalist/ fundamentalist. The method of 'adopt and adapt' is the fallback for those who discard their fundamentalism, and people who advocate that method would likely make similar points. I will now give an argument against that as well.
Subjectivity and 'Pick-and-Choose'
For those who do not know what the terms mean, an objective thing is something that does not depend on the entity interacting with it, i.e., '2+2=4 in base 10' will always be the same, (thank you Professor Schenk) while a subjective thing is dependent upon the interacting entity, i.e. 'Gyros are delicious' is not true for all people. The Bible as a whole is an objective thing with clearly written guidelines for life, death, and everything in-between. There are the Ten Commandments, the Fruits of the Spirit, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Even the parables and the classic stories are designed to show readers how to act or react when faced with certain situations. For Jews the Old Testament is a definitive history of their predecessors in the same way students view history textbooks. In this sense there is no 'adopt and adapt.' It is a history book.
It is here that we see the foreshadow to the method of 'adopt and adapt;' the Bible is not a scientific authority. Whether Moses led the Israelites through the desert for 40 years is considerably less controversial than whether life begins at conception.While there are certain experimental science theories that were precursors to our modern understandings, there are other examples where new information has disproved certain statements, such as that in Mark 4:31 (there are smaller seeds and bigger plants.) Regardless, almost all of this science-talk is still within the objective-sphere of things than be proved or disproved.
Do you think killing someone in self-defense is a crime? Should homosexual couples be allowed? Is abortion a form of murder? Every person will come up with different answers to these questions.Two people could believe the same set of principles with wildly different justifications. Even things as simple as when to have communion can divide entire populations. Certainly discussion of these things creates a healthier Church, but had Martin Luther known how his ninety-five theses, or critiques of the medieval Church, would fracture Christianity he may have taken a different approach.
The modern Catholic Church at least has some degree of coherency between the cardinals and bishops when deciding what is doctrine, dogma, law, etc. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a one-stop location for anyone who wants to know where Catholicism stands on an issue, sort of like Wikipedia. Protestants do not have such a centralized governing body so it is up to each individual as to what they believe and practice, and this is where the big problems arise. You can have two Christians in a room where one is pro-life, anti-war, universalist, and believes in evolution, while the other is pro-choice, pro-crusade, annihilationist, and is a Young-Earth Creationist. Saying you are a Christian is about as descriptive as saying you like dogs. The only thing that really ties Christians together is that they believe Jesus Christ is/ was God in human form.
'Adopt-adapt' is a subjective process where the individual decides what is right and wrong based on how they themselves interpret the text. The most glaring issue, as already stated, is that anything other than the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts are a translation of an interpretation. While the translation process is often arduously careful (it took forty-seven scholars 7 years to publish the King James Version from Latin), five years in customer service has shown me that even the most carefully worded and obvious texts can be indescribably misunderstood.
Literally Christian
One of the most important terms I learned at Church youth group was that the term "Christian" literally translated means "follower of Christ." My proposition for the modern Church, Protestant and Catholic is to discard the rules, commandments, obligations, and rigidness of the Old Testament and those put forth by the Apostles.
This is the part where I say all literal Christians should live by the exact words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that correspond, but given my argument against the 'adopt-adapt' view that would be contradictory. Additionally, given my arguments against fundamentalism, following any direct rules set forth by Jesus in the Gospels would also be a contradiction. So where does that leave us?
I propose that the only way to live a Christian life is to follow the character of Christ as summed up in one sentence; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Is it theologically accurate? Given that this view requires an outright rejection of living life by the Bibles laws I would say that theology is no longer part of the equation. I believe Jesus himself commanded this because he saw it as being above the Bible, going beyond culture and time. I sincerely doubt that a God of love, of whom it is believed Jesus himself is incarnate, would find any joy or pleasure in His followers persecuting or killing in His name. You as a follower are only responsible for your own actions and those actions display to others how your religion works.
The character of Christ is what Christians should be focused on to live their lives. In this regard we can use the Bible as a history text book to tell us more of that character, and since independent sources all reference Jesus in the same way, His reputation and life events are quite reliable. Jesus kept the company of prostitutes, tax collectors, thieves, the sick and poor, and one of his most prominent disciples was a former Jewish Rabbi who swore to destroy Christianity. Jesus was a living representation of the Fruits of the Spirit; love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Living life like this, with this mindset, is the truest goal of Christianity.
Suppose for a moment we found a new set of Dead Sea scrolls with more books, and in these books are other years of Jesus' life or new books from other authors. Those living as fundamentalists or by way of 'adopt and adapt' would have a major problem in deciding which books should be accepted as "inspired by God", which parts are to be followed by us, and ensuring that there is no contradiction between the new books and the current Bible. Even that in itself creates a major problem. Imagine that God speaks to you and tells you to commit an act that is clearly outlined in the Bible as forbidden. Without getting into the arbitrary problems of Divine Command theory, you will have a terrible dilemma; abandon the religion you have lived your entire life by, or ignore a command that God spoke to you personally and literally. By living in the character of Christ instead of by the rules of the Bible this would never be a problem. If you believe Christ is God (which you almost have to if you claim to be a Christian) then God will never give you a command that damages the well-being of another person.
I have made my case and I hope it has been clear. Again, this is not a definitive argument. There will be people who agree with me and who disagree with me. One of the greatest things I strive for is constructive debate. Whether you support or deny an argument, just remember that you are doing so to the argument, not the arguer. If two people can enter a debate with that in mind then both will walk away better off than when they started.
Steve
Monday, February 24, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
'Turn the Gay Away' Bill and Freedom of Choice
After reading up on the news regarding Arizonas "turn the gay away" bill, which may become a law soon, I decided to take a break from the other articles I'm working on to write this quick op-ed piece. You can read up on the story here from CNN, here from the Arizona Daily Star, and the actual bill from AZ can be found here. (I had to do a good deal of searching to find the bill itself since no news outlets seemed to actually reference it.)
Long story short, lines 8-11 and 19-21 give business owners immunity if they refuse service to anyone (not just gays) if servicing an individual strains the business owners religious beliefs. If you're an old-school Mormon, you could refuse to serve black people. If you're a Muslim, you can refuse service to non-Muslims.
Suppose there are business owners who enforce this should it become law, which there almost certainly will be. How exactly do you determine if someone does or does not fit your criteria? Unless we begin to go German and force people to wear certain things designating their lifestyle or beliefs, it is up to the discernment of the business owner whether or not a customer fits the criteria to be serviced.
The thing that really gets me is that the government is saying who a business can and cannot serve. There is a major difference between regulating products to ensure they are safe and regulating the relationship between a business and its customers. I have major sympathies for the Libertarian party and, with that attitude, believe a business owner should be allowed to do business with whoever they decide. You as an individual have a right to do business with whoever you choose, except in the case of legal action such as a lawsuit, subpoena, etc.
When it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of religions, right to bear arms, etc., anything should be allowed so long as it does not harm another persons right to do so. However, if you are providing goods or a service then why should anyone have the right to tell you who you can and cannot serve?
Do I support arbitrarily discriminating against people? No, not at all. But I do support the right for a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason just as much as I support the right for customers to not buy from a business they do not wish to buy from. When it comes right down to it, the business is losing a customer. I'm sure anyone can see how that is going to hurt them, so let them do it to themselves and keep the government out of it.
Long story short, lines 8-11 and 19-21 give business owners immunity if they refuse service to anyone (not just gays) if servicing an individual strains the business owners religious beliefs. If you're an old-school Mormon, you could refuse to serve black people. If you're a Muslim, you can refuse service to non-Muslims.
Suppose there are business owners who enforce this should it become law, which there almost certainly will be. How exactly do you determine if someone does or does not fit your criteria? Unless we begin to go German and force people to wear certain things designating their lifestyle or beliefs, it is up to the discernment of the business owner whether or not a customer fits the criteria to be serviced.
The thing that really gets me is that the government is saying who a business can and cannot serve. There is a major difference between regulating products to ensure they are safe and regulating the relationship between a business and its customers. I have major sympathies for the Libertarian party and, with that attitude, believe a business owner should be allowed to do business with whoever they decide. You as an individual have a right to do business with whoever you choose, except in the case of legal action such as a lawsuit, subpoena, etc.
When it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of religions, right to bear arms, etc., anything should be allowed so long as it does not harm another persons right to do so. However, if you are providing goods or a service then why should anyone have the right to tell you who you can and cannot serve?
Do I support arbitrarily discriminating against people? No, not at all. But I do support the right for a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason just as much as I support the right for customers to not buy from a business they do not wish to buy from. When it comes right down to it, the business is losing a customer. I'm sure anyone can see how that is going to hurt them, so let them do it to themselves and keep the government out of it.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Dissecting the Nye-Ham Debate
I'm going to state right away that there will be no quotes, no references, and no second-hand accounts of the debate. Here is a video of the entire debate. It is 2.5 hours long so sit down with your significant other and watch it. You will either bond or be divided over how you react. Either way your life will be better off and you won't be subjected to merely the portions of the video I wish you to be subjected to. Secondly, this debate was sort of boring, bordering on the line of dumb. Both sides made fundamental mistakes in their own defense as well as in understanding the opposition. This essay is to correct what was wrong, from the extreme category errors to the definitional differences. Thirdly, for as great of an entertainer as Bill Nye is you would think he would be better at getting his points across. Lastly, while I deny Ken Ham's worldview, I am thoroughly inclined to his line of thinking and rationality. In the end though, I really don't care much about which of these people is right. Does what I believe about this make a difference to what my next meal will be? No, so whatever.
Science and evolution DO have multiple meanings.
Li'l Wayne and Leonardo DaVinci are both artists. When I talk about how great DaVinci was at art, I must mean that Li'l Wayne does the same thing. Why else would I call them both artists?
Reiterating Ham's point, there is a difference between experimental science which we are capable of replicating time and time again in certain conditions and historical science, or the study of how what is in the present came to be from the past. Li'l Wayne is able to cause chemical burns, precisely cut though rocks, and create temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. (He can also do this with things other than his voice.) DaVinci looks at what Li'l Wayne is doing in the present and says, "The outcome of Wayne's experiments result in certain markers left behind. With enough educated guesses, I could give a probable explanation of how all of this stuff around me came to be!"
In a similar light, there are two kinds of evolution; micro-evolution, which virtually no one anywhere will deny, and macro-evolution, which is both much more difficult to convince people of and much more difficult to support. Micro-evolution can be observed over several generations; breeding certain animals, plants, etc. together will result in offspring with desirable attributes from each parent. In a matter of days it is possible to create hundreds of iterations of different bacteria using micro-evolution techniques to create a breed with desired attributes. Macro-evolution, to my knowledge, has never been observed in the world except through theories regarding the fossil record. There is no lizard-keeper who has started with two lizards and managed to produce a bird over the generations.
This is a clear and simple definitional error when people use the term "science" or the term "evolution" with one sense in mind. And we don't just have Li'l Wayne and DaVinci; there are Slipknots, Picassos, Emily Dickinsons, Tolkiens, Springsteins, etc. The only way to prevent confusion in debates is to be clear about what you are actually debating. Not all white people are the same; not all religious people are the same; not all Koreans are the same. Know what you're debating and stay within that realm or else any constructive progress you try to make will fail.
This is not a debate on religion.
While it is true that the YEC viewpoint arose from fundamental Christians, Christianity is not part of this debate. This entire debate is based on the physical explanations explained in the Bible. The existence and nature of God are not the things being debated; the life of Christ is not being debated; what is morally right and wrong is not being debated; who is saved and damned is not being debated.
The question at the center of the debate should have been, "What merit does Young-Earth Creationism have in regards to modern observations regarding the age of the universe?" Except for pagans and Scientologists, no one is going to look at rocks and say, "this is all that is wrong with religion!" If you want an understanding of the debate on whether or not God exists at all, see this complicated page. If you want to inflate the Nye-Ham debate to include the existence of God, then please get off my blog and never speak to me in public because I will rip you apart unflinchingly.
YEC and macro-evolution are only theories.
No matter how strongly either case was made in this debate, neither party can say that their view is fundamentally correct beyond any and all doubt. Both theories are the result of inductive reasoning and are subject to future evidence. Imagine two people building huts with materials from the same section of forest. Each will claim that their hut is more fireproof than the others and they will debate for days on end, showing how the others hut can't stand up to the flame. Neither hut will stand once a tsunami or tornado hits, though.
As is the problem with all theories there is no absolute right or wrong. The one theorizing may believe they are right, or that another is wrong, but their theory is only as strong as the evidence they have to support their claim. At any time new evidence could arise that confirms or denies even the most carefully constructed theory. Until we create a time machine to go back and observe things happening first-hand, the debate over the history of our universe will never truly end.
When you talk about logic...
About halfway through the video I got sick of hearing, from both Nye and Ham, that their side was more reasonable. Yes, it is reasonable to believe God created the universe; yes, it is reasonable to believe scientific studies of the past are likely to be true. Virtually anything can be reasonable, so here are two instances when reason takes you into a pit of despair with no way out.
As I already outlined in a previous entry, there was this guy named Xeno who constructed a series of paradoxes to screw with academics to this day. Here is one example of his line of reasoning; you want to get from point 0 to point 1. At some time you have to pass .5 to get from 0 to 1. To get to .5 you have to pass .25, and to pass .25 you have to pass .125, and so on. Eventually you get to the point where you realize it is impossible for you to move because you will always have to pass the halfway point between your intended destination and the halfway point to that first halfway point. Long story short, logic just prevented anyone from ever moving.
The second example, and one I feel is much more compelling, is the Gettier problem. Please just read the two cases in his article because I don't feel like summarizing a paper that hardly even counts as a brochure. Assuming you just read the article and started reading again, Gettier used common-sense logic to show how it is possible to have justification for your beliefs, and have unknowingly false information, yet still have a correct conclusion. Echoing the sentiments of David Hume, if something like this can happen with minor states of affairs, how likely is it that our understanding of the big things is dead wrong? Logic doesn't seem so logical anymore.
Bill Nye REALLY wants more scientists to help the economy.
I'm sorry, but by my count he made this point at least 8 times over the course of the debate, nearly as many times as he challenged someone to find an out-of-place fossil in the archaeological record. We get it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No one is going to say, "we don't have a need for more scientists." Additionally, as I started out with this paper, being a scientist doesn't mean believing the universe is 4.7 billion years old. Being a scientist means inventing, hypothesizing, observing, creating, etc. Christians, muslims, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, and ginger kids can all participate in the same science fairs without debating how old the universe is.
That's about all I have for you. While I may come off as somewhat cynical, it is only because I have come across and been involved in this type of debate countless times. Debating is a good thing and, if done correctly, enhances all parties involved. Just make sure you remember it is a matter of idea vs. idea, not group vs. group.
Steve
Science and evolution DO have multiple meanings.
Li'l Wayne and Leonardo DaVinci are both artists. When I talk about how great DaVinci was at art, I must mean that Li'l Wayne does the same thing. Why else would I call them both artists?
Reiterating Ham's point, there is a difference between experimental science which we are capable of replicating time and time again in certain conditions and historical science, or the study of how what is in the present came to be from the past. Li'l Wayne is able to cause chemical burns, precisely cut though rocks, and create temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. (He can also do this with things other than his voice.) DaVinci looks at what Li'l Wayne is doing in the present and says, "The outcome of Wayne's experiments result in certain markers left behind. With enough educated guesses, I could give a probable explanation of how all of this stuff around me came to be!"
In a similar light, there are two kinds of evolution; micro-evolution, which virtually no one anywhere will deny, and macro-evolution, which is both much more difficult to convince people of and much more difficult to support. Micro-evolution can be observed over several generations; breeding certain animals, plants, etc. together will result in offspring with desirable attributes from each parent. In a matter of days it is possible to create hundreds of iterations of different bacteria using micro-evolution techniques to create a breed with desired attributes. Macro-evolution, to my knowledge, has never been observed in the world except through theories regarding the fossil record. There is no lizard-keeper who has started with two lizards and managed to produce a bird over the generations.
This is a clear and simple definitional error when people use the term "science" or the term "evolution" with one sense in mind. And we don't just have Li'l Wayne and DaVinci; there are Slipknots, Picassos, Emily Dickinsons, Tolkiens, Springsteins, etc. The only way to prevent confusion in debates is to be clear about what you are actually debating. Not all white people are the same; not all religious people are the same; not all Koreans are the same. Know what you're debating and stay within that realm or else any constructive progress you try to make will fail.
This is not a debate on religion.
While it is true that the YEC viewpoint arose from fundamental Christians, Christianity is not part of this debate. This entire debate is based on the physical explanations explained in the Bible. The existence and nature of God are not the things being debated; the life of Christ is not being debated; what is morally right and wrong is not being debated; who is saved and damned is not being debated.
The question at the center of the debate should have been, "What merit does Young-Earth Creationism have in regards to modern observations regarding the age of the universe?" Except for pagans and Scientologists, no one is going to look at rocks and say, "this is all that is wrong with religion!" If you want an understanding of the debate on whether or not God exists at all, see this complicated page. If you want to inflate the Nye-Ham debate to include the existence of God, then please get off my blog and never speak to me in public because I will rip you apart unflinchingly.
YEC and macro-evolution are only theories.
No matter how strongly either case was made in this debate, neither party can say that their view is fundamentally correct beyond any and all doubt. Both theories are the result of inductive reasoning and are subject to future evidence. Imagine two people building huts with materials from the same section of forest. Each will claim that their hut is more fireproof than the others and they will debate for days on end, showing how the others hut can't stand up to the flame. Neither hut will stand once a tsunami or tornado hits, though.
As is the problem with all theories there is no absolute right or wrong. The one theorizing may believe they are right, or that another is wrong, but their theory is only as strong as the evidence they have to support their claim. At any time new evidence could arise that confirms or denies even the most carefully constructed theory. Until we create a time machine to go back and observe things happening first-hand, the debate over the history of our universe will never truly end.
When you talk about logic...
About halfway through the video I got sick of hearing, from both Nye and Ham, that their side was more reasonable. Yes, it is reasonable to believe God created the universe; yes, it is reasonable to believe scientific studies of the past are likely to be true. Virtually anything can be reasonable, so here are two instances when reason takes you into a pit of despair with no way out.
As I already outlined in a previous entry, there was this guy named Xeno who constructed a series of paradoxes to screw with academics to this day. Here is one example of his line of reasoning; you want to get from point 0 to point 1. At some time you have to pass .5 to get from 0 to 1. To get to .5 you have to pass .25, and to pass .25 you have to pass .125, and so on. Eventually you get to the point where you realize it is impossible for you to move because you will always have to pass the halfway point between your intended destination and the halfway point to that first halfway point. Long story short, logic just prevented anyone from ever moving.
The second example, and one I feel is much more compelling, is the Gettier problem. Please just read the two cases in his article because I don't feel like summarizing a paper that hardly even counts as a brochure. Assuming you just read the article and started reading again, Gettier used common-sense logic to show how it is possible to have justification for your beliefs, and have unknowingly false information, yet still have a correct conclusion. Echoing the sentiments of David Hume, if something like this can happen with minor states of affairs, how likely is it that our understanding of the big things is dead wrong? Logic doesn't seem so logical anymore.
Bill Nye REALLY wants more scientists to help the economy.
I'm sorry, but by my count he made this point at least 8 times over the course of the debate, nearly as many times as he challenged someone to find an out-of-place fossil in the archaeological record. We get it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No one is going to say, "we don't have a need for more scientists." Additionally, as I started out with this paper, being a scientist doesn't mean believing the universe is 4.7 billion years old. Being a scientist means inventing, hypothesizing, observing, creating, etc. Christians, muslims, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, and ginger kids can all participate in the same science fairs without debating how old the universe is.
That's about all I have for you. While I may come off as somewhat cynical, it is only because I have come across and been involved in this type of debate countless times. Debating is a good thing and, if done correctly, enhances all parties involved. Just make sure you remember it is a matter of idea vs. idea, not group vs. group.
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)