God has spoken through both Nature and the Bible, and thus these two "books" are in harmony. Whether you are a Christian or a skeptic, we hope you will see the reasonable faith of Christianity.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Meeting this Saturday
We're having another discussion meeting at my place this coming Saturday (Oct 24th) at 11am. We'll be talking about the origin of life, and how the current scientific understanding provides evidence for a creator.
I'd like to comment on the Two Books Approach, and this is as poor a place as any.
While I generally agree with the Two Books paradigm, there is a drastic and important asymmetry between the two "books" that I think is almost always overlooked.
Literal books generally are written using culturally specific, yet widely understood rules of communication and interpretation. This means that, while it may not always be clear to modern scholars, the way to interpret any given text is a question of historical fact. That is, there is basically only one right way to interpret the text, and it was known to humanity at least at some point in history.
In stark contrast, the "book of nature" was not written using humanly understood rules of communication and interpretation, and it is highly possible, even probable, that the "book of nature" has a primary purpose other than to communicate to humans. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
Additionally, the text of the Bible is available to us in complete form, while the "text" of nature (experimental data) remains largely incomplete. And a lot of what we consider to be scientific facts are dependent on how we have interpreted other data.
(For example, the Big Bang is postulated based on interpretation of the fact, among other facts, that the universe is expanding, but that fact is itself based upon interpretation of the fact that light from stars has undergone a Doppler-like redshift, which is itself an interpretation of the observed shift in the light wavelengths away from the expected values. This is, of course, a huge oversimplification, but it is just for example.)
This means that while the rules of Biblical interpretation are historically known facts, the rules of interpreting experimental data are not, and vary greatly over time, as new facts are discovered, and (hopefully to a lesser extent) philosophical assumptions change.
Just think about it. Which has varied more greatly over the last 2000+ years: the interpretation of Genesis, or scholarly cosmology? I would definitely say cosmology.
So, the strange thing to me about many people who talk about the "Two Books" approach is how they seem to treat the "books of nature" as if it is without need of interpretation, and just speaks plainly for itself, while they treat the Bible as though it is open to many different complex interpretations, that we can pick and choose from based on our current interpretation of nature.
I love Abraham's comment! Actually, I mostly agree with him, but I would like to point out a few things. But first, I definitely would say that the bible has the final authority in the matters it speaks to. For example, God has revealed Himself to us specifically in the pages of scripture of who He is and how we may have a personal relationship with Him. There is no way we would be discerning enough to see that without His special revelation.
God has also acted in history; in fact, I would argue that all of the books of the bible are at least somewhat historical in nature (rather than mythical), and in particular the greatest revelation of God given to us has been that of His son, Jesus Christ, who was a real person who lives 2000 years ago. So, in a way, the bible is not only a book but a factual account of God's story for us.
However I would point out that the bible doesn't speak to every matter. For example, you won't find a detailed description of the electronic configuration of the atoms in water molecules in the bible. We have to trust general revelation for that, and I think we should praise God for water molecules! They're ingenious!
I would also mention that even though the bible has now been given to us in its complete form, it is still subject to interpretation, even today, and even by conservative scholars. I am not saying that we should /reinterpret/ the bible to say what we want. I am just saying that we don't always know what it's original intended meaning was, and it takes hard work and study in some cases. In fact, the bible itself mentions that. For example, in Daniel 12:8-13, Daniel mentions that he did not understand the revelation given to him. The angel's response was that it will become clear in due time, and even then, it is only the wise who will understand. And 1 Peter 1:10-12 mentions that the prophets, and even the angels, longed to understand the things that the Holy Spirit revealed to them, but realized that it was not for them to know.
I am not saying that we can't know how to correctly interpret the bible, or Genesis, but I would be hesitant to say that just because cosmology has changed a lot in the last 2000+ years proves that it isn't (at least somewhat) correct. But there is hope! That is why we follow sound hermenutical principles. Passages that are unclear are interpreted in light of more clear passages. Scientific data that are difficult to interpret are evaluated in light of a broader scientific theory.
Abraham mentions that a lot of scientific interpretations are based on still other interpretations, which are based on others, which are...I would say the same is true of the bible. (Going back to sound hermenutical principles.) What do we do with passages in which God is condemning whole people groups to utter destruction? In an absence of other passages that proclaim God's perfect love, we may conclude (and many have) that God is not fully good. We do indeed interpret bible passages in light of what the entire bible tells us about who God is and what our relationship is both to Him and to the rest of creation.
In other words, I fully agree that the bible is the final authority on the matters it speaks to, and it is very specific (as opposed to the general nature of the "second" book we are talking about), but each of these is subject to human interpretation and error. And the correct way to minimize those errors is to attempt to interpret the entire bible consistently and error free, and the same is true for the record of nature.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to comment on the Two Books Approach, and this is as poor a place as any.
While I generally agree with the Two Books paradigm, there is a drastic and important asymmetry between the two "books" that I think is almost always overlooked.
Literal books generally are written using culturally specific, yet widely understood rules of communication and interpretation. This means that, while it may not always be clear to modern scholars, the way to interpret any given text is a question of historical fact. That is, there is basically only one right way to interpret the text, and it was known to humanity at least at some point in history.
In stark contrast, the "book of nature" was not written using humanly understood rules of communication and interpretation, and it is highly possible, even probable, that the "book of nature" has a primary purpose other than to communicate to humans. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
Additionally, the text of the Bible is available to us in complete form, while the "text" of nature (experimental data) remains largely incomplete. And a lot of what we consider to be scientific facts are dependent on how we have interpreted other data.
(For example, the Big Bang is postulated based on interpretation of the fact, among other facts, that the universe is expanding, but that fact is itself based upon interpretation of the fact that light from stars has undergone a Doppler-like redshift, which is itself an interpretation of the observed shift in the light wavelengths away from the expected values. This is, of course, a huge oversimplification, but it is just for example.)
This means that while the rules of Biblical interpretation are historically known facts, the rules of interpreting experimental data are not, and vary greatly over time, as new facts are discovered, and (hopefully to a lesser extent) philosophical assumptions change.
Just think about it. Which has varied more greatly over the last 2000+ years: the interpretation of Genesis, or scholarly cosmology? I would definitely say cosmology.
So, the strange thing to me about many people who talk about the "Two Books" approach is how they seem to treat the "books of nature" as if it is without need of interpretation, and just speaks plainly for itself, while they treat the Bible as though it is open to many different complex interpretations, that we can pick and choose from based on our current interpretation of nature.
I love Abraham's comment! Actually, I mostly agree with him, but I would like to point out a few things. But first, I definitely would say that the bible has the final authority in the matters it speaks to. For example, God has revealed Himself to us specifically in the pages of scripture of who He is and how we may have a personal relationship with Him. There is no way we would be discerning enough to see that without His special revelation.
ReplyDeleteGod has also acted in history; in fact, I would argue that all of the books of the bible are at least somewhat historical in nature (rather than mythical), and in particular the greatest revelation of God given to us has been that of His son, Jesus Christ, who was a real person who lives 2000 years ago. So, in a way, the bible is not only a book but a factual account of God's story for us.
However I would point out that the bible doesn't speak to every matter. For example, you won't find a detailed description of the electronic configuration of the atoms in water molecules in the bible. We have to trust general revelation for that, and I think we should praise God for water molecules! They're ingenious!
I would also mention that even though the bible has now been given to us in its complete form, it is still subject to interpretation, even today, and even by conservative scholars. I am not saying that we should /reinterpret/ the bible to say what we want. I am just saying that we don't always know what it's original intended meaning was, and it takes hard work and study in some cases. In fact, the bible itself mentions that. For example, in Daniel 12:8-13, Daniel mentions that he did not understand the revelation given to him. The angel's response was that it will become clear in due time, and even then, it is only the wise who will understand. And 1 Peter 1:10-12 mentions that the prophets, and even the angels, longed to understand the things that the Holy Spirit revealed to them, but realized that it was not for them to know.
I am not saying that we can't know how to correctly interpret the bible, or Genesis, but I would be hesitant to say that just because cosmology has changed a lot in the last 2000+ years proves that it isn't (at least somewhat) correct. But there is hope! That is why we follow sound hermenutical principles. Passages that are unclear are interpreted in light of more clear passages. Scientific data that are difficult to interpret are evaluated in light of a broader scientific theory.
Abraham mentions that a lot of scientific interpretations are based on still other interpretations, which are based on others, which are...I would say the same is true of the bible. (Going back to sound hermenutical principles.) What do we do with passages in which God is condemning whole people groups to utter destruction? In an absence of other passages that proclaim God's perfect love, we may conclude (and many have) that God is not fully good. We do indeed interpret bible passages in light of what the entire bible tells us about who God is and what our relationship is both to Him and to the rest of creation.
In other words, I fully agree that the bible is the final authority on the matters it speaks to, and it is very specific (as opposed to the general nature of the "second" book we are talking about), but each of these is subject to human interpretation and error. And the correct way to minimize those errors is to attempt to interpret the entire bible consistently and error free, and the same is true for the record of nature.
Great discussion! Please keep commenting!