There are two things that pseudoscientists and science deniers love in their promotion of excrementum tauri. One is lengthy videos; the other is debates.
Why? Because these are formats which strongly favour style over substance.
Just think about it: in both cases, you’re trying to explain complex technical concepts to people who gave up science at the first possible opportunity at age sixteen and haven’t set foot in a laboratory since, and who believe that reading body language is the most effective way to tell whether a candidate for a software engineering job can code their way out of a paper bag or not. (Spoiler: it isn’t.) In such situations they will favour the smooth talking guy in a sharp suit and tie over the person who actually knows what they are talking about.
In the meantime, real scientists teach the relevant concepts to students by taking them into the lab and giving them hands-on experience, then sending them out into the workplace where they have to put what they’ve learned into practice in situations where getting it wrong would kill people.
For me, it helps to view literalism within the frame of human tradition and as a reaction to modernity. This was especially true in the US which has a long history of anti-intellectualism.
You need tangible data. You rely on your senses. Not everything is so obvious or definable. And your senses can be fooled. Your brain makes sense of things that may not be what you see. I have seen the “feathered” fossils and the ludicrous ossification of the first gill to make a jaw bone. Desperation doesn’t even come close.
Science has limits. because of the type of data it requires and the interpretation of the data it gets.
The tangible data is the distribution of physical characteristics in both living and fossil species as well as the DNA sequences of genomes in both living and recent extinct species.
If you are claiming that scientists are fooled then present the evidence that they have been fooled. If you think an interpretation is wrong then present evidence that it is wrong.
Yes, science is limited to empirical evidence. Do you think science would be improved if we allowed for subjective beliefs or just making stuff up?
No. Science is what science is. But, As Clint Eastwood’s Dirt Harry said “You must know your limitations”
I am not a scientist. I have no authority or standing. However, there is absolutely no rhyme nor reason why the first gill should separate and ossify to make a hinged jaw (other than to satisfy the apparent development). it is just beyond credibility. just because they look the same? That is two dimensional vision trying to be three dimensional. When I saw it on a documentary I could not believe it. I just assumed it was fallacious. But it would appear that people actually believe it.
Scientists aren’t total snobs. If you have valid insights then the scientific community would be happy to hear them even if you lack authority or standing. As it stands, I see no reason think scientists are being fooled into thinking this fossil has feathers. They have even observed stacked melanosomes, a feature found on feathers in modern birds.
Arguments from incredulity aren’t that convincing in science. If we threw out theories because someone decided they just couldn’t believe it then science would be much worse off. If nothing else, science is the practice of pushing past your biases that prevent you from accepting a well evidenced conclusion.
For the record, you seem like a fine gent and are a welcome voice in these forums, even if we disagree at times. Your opinions are always welcome, and I try my best to respond in a helpful manner (although I fail at times).
Ehhh… my experience with those in positions of intellectual authority, when the new perspective challenges that authority, hasn’t been so positive. I remain hopeful and am encouraged by some new conversations.
Alvin Plantinga writes about this, or tells the story, I don’t recall, of a freshman philosophy student having a fresh philosophical insight. Will the senior professor, with decades of laborious study of the great texts in their original languages, recognize the undeserved genius?
I would argue that science is a bit different. The authority in science is the data. Scientists can fall into traps of human bias which can result in bad interactions, but at the end of the day data is king within science. If you can marshal data to back up your claims, then you are on the same footing as any other scientist.
I suspect philosophy operates a bit differently than science.
Again, how you approach it depends on your audience. To a group of science majors who may be on the fence, presenting the science is effective. To a group of incoming general studies majors or to the general public, it might be more effective to present your story of how you came to your reconciliation of faith and science without getting into specifics. Someone can always argue about the science, but it is hard to argue with your experience.
Molly Worthen describing how she met Jesus in a megachurch’s worship service is pretty compelling, and yet it is all too easily dismissed. Or consider Delia Knox’s testimony of being divinely healed. It hasn’t persuaded someone like Peter May that healing miracles occur today.
Addressing the flaws in biblical interpretation is essential. Speaking as a Christian, bring out how YEC functions as a legalistic imitation gospel that places restrictions on God’s ability to create as He wants and imposes a modern reading on selected bits of the Bible.
You make a very important point - we must be careful to turn a critical eye on our own interpretation as well. But extreme postmodernism is not true, either. All interpretations are not equally valid. We must examine what range of interpretations is plausibly in keeping with the intent of the authors.
Jephthah would generally be thought to be an example of being wrong for being true to a wrong belief. Romans 14 refers to more or less restrictive interpretations of what is appropriate for oneself within biblical prescriptions. It would not be good for me to be true to a belief that I should destroy anyone who disagrees with me.
Why do we have keep in line with what ancient authors meant? It seems to me early Christians used OT verses quite loosely in the NT. The New Testament itself did not really follow this practice very strictly. Why should we?
Can the Bible not take on a larger meaning than what each individual author meant when it becomes canonized as one book? Can the sum be greater than the parts?
I suggested as much earlier. Scripture has levels of understanding. The suffering servant passages of Isaiah was originally viewed as Israel but re-interpreted as Christ. That is just an obvious example.
That would be a debatable point. Especially as we cannot be 100 certain what the original intent was,
At the end of the day Scripture is only as useful as our understanding of it. Dogmatism about this is what causes most of the arguments.
Yeah, I’m not denying the need or value of understanding the intent of the ancient authors. I think the historical-critical method is fine but the canonical dimension of scripture goes beyond it in Christian traditions so many times I often wonder why we are so quick to appeal to “what the ancient author meant.” That is certainly one meaning. If God is running behind the scenes inspiring this whole work over a thousand years then clearly when we assemble them into a canon, bigger meanings will be gleaned than just what “the ancient authors were thinking.”
Many prophecies are in the same boat. Typology is very common in Matthew. Another example is the Serpent in the Garden being Satan. I don’t think Satan was really on the Jewish radar back then. Later Christians had no issue finding him there despite what the original author probably meant.
Even then, it’s possible both interpretations can be true. It meant one thing to ancient audiences, it takes on a new meaning to us as part of our canon. The foresight of Gordon display.
“Why do we have keep in line with what ancient authors meant?”
There is no point in your statement, or in any other statement, if we can just assign any meaning that we like. For example, you would rightly be annoyed if I claimed that your statement actually meant that you just promised to give everyone who reads it $100. There is no basis for that in your words; it is completely imposed without regard for what you said.
It is quite true that there’s a significant challenge in determining what is reasonably in accord with the intent of the authors. The recent post on the BioLogos site by John Walton discusses the issue (Interpreting the Bible: Common Mistakes - BioLogos ), for example.
Usage of OT passages in the NT can be unexpected. The way that Jesus fulfilled prophecies was not how the biblical experts of the day expected. We should be cautious in assessing our interpretations.
Paul makes allegorical use of the account of Sarah and Hagar. Does that justify our making allegories that are only limited by our imagination? No, one could come up with anything that way. But Paul is using the historical incident to illustrate a theological principle that he has defended on other grounds. Just because I heard a sermon illustration based on hockey doesn’t mean that every hockey story is theologically sound.
Several New Testament writers, notably Matthew, make application of OT quotes in ways that seem rather arbitrary. Although it would be impossible to prove that he didn’t have a version of the OT that combined elements of the Masoretic and Septuagint as well as variants seen in the Dead Sea texts, it seems that he and others may have selected the textural tradition with the most suitable wording for the intended point. Does this justify proof-texting, against Dorothy L. Sayers’ objection to someone basing a theological point on misunderstanding an idiom used by the KJV translators? To return to Walton, Scripture needs to be a tether, not a springboard. How do the NT writers fit that rule? If we accept the premise, as they did, that the OT is in fact pointing ahead to Christ, then it is true to the broader meaning of the text to see Jesus throughout its pages. Thus, when Matthew takes Hosea’s historical statement about Israel “Out of Egypt I have called my son” and treats it as a prophecy fulfilled in the exile of his family avoiding Herod, he is not taking random verses out of context and looking for some random connection to recent events the way many end-times fans do when they have left behind solid exegesis. Rather, because Jesus fulfills what Israel was called to be, it is appropriate to apply language about Israel to Him.
Of course, words may inspire us in ways that the original author did not foresee. There’s a story that some students were assigned to analyze a Robert Frost poem and got the bright idea of phoning him up (from off campus) and asking him about it. He was glad someone took an interest and talked extensively. The resulting grades were not good, the interpretation was not creative enough. But we need to distinguish between such inspiration and what the text actually says.
If the Garden story was originally meant as either allegorical, or even just Folk lore, would he Christian view of it being real or part of history still be valid?
Let’s admit it, 90% or more of the “discussions” on this website are centred around interpreting Genesis 1-11. It would appear to be crucial to many. Can we justify one view over another? Would the original intent be a deciding factor? Or maybe Paull’s view? Luther? Calvin. Richard?
Original sin stands or falls on a view of the Garden narrative. if there was no original sinner there can be no original sin. The meaning of “death”? The intent of God in Creation? I could go on.
This is a live question for me too. I suppose one answer to your question might be that we obviously can’t (and won’t) go the route of thinking that scriptures should be malleable in just any direction anyone ever wants to take it! I think most all of us here recognize that that has never (or rarely) led in good directions. And yet your point remains - that New Testament authors were certainly creative in how they commandeered ancient prophecy! Pete Enns bangs on this drum a bit. But many critics would respond to this with the frequently-invoked principle of “the Bible interprets the Bible”. In other words, “well, yeah … but that was Jesus and Paul”, etc. Obviously, they got to do that, but why would we think we have status enough to do the same? No No, they would say - we must be on a much shorter hermeneutical leash of sticking to original authorial intent. After all, there needs to be some recognizeable limit to how far one can drift away from intended meanings.
And I do share in my last expressed concern above, even though I don’t buy into much of the rest above. To me “the Bible interprets the Bible” ends up too often just being more code lingo for what @knor so elegantly wrote earlier in another thread: “an inerrant Bible is mentally tied to the idea of inerrant interpretation” - which (to me) is one of the many places that modern “inerrancy” so badly goes off the rails: It has a spectacularly failed record in refusing to address this very issue. It’s an elephant in the room with them that they are bound to never be able to even acknowledge because they realize that its mere existence means their whole modern notion of ‘inerrancy’ would have already been ‘dead on arrival’.
