We’ll be delving into the Bible over the next 40 weeks and I think you’ll find it enjoyable. Of course, a Biblical study can last months or years, but we’ll be focusing primarily on Biblical truths, historical reliability, archeological data, etc, so there will be portions that I do not cover as in-depth. I wavered a bit on whether to start off from the New Testament and reference the old, but in the end I have decided to take it chronologically beginning, of course, with the Creation. That being said, a Biblical discussion doesn’t do a great deal of good unless you know what you are looking for in the first place. So, I would like to take this week to discuss what exactly we should hope to glean from Biblical text.
Literal versus True
First and foremost, declaring that some or all of the Bible is true is not tantamount to saying that everything written in the Bible literally took place. As an analogy, let’s take a look at the phrase “raining cats and dogs”. The etymology of this phrase takes us back to Europe where houses were built so close together that rooftops were shared and the roofs almost became a landscape unto themselves. Stray animals would often make the rooftops their home and when rain came in torrents, it was not uncommon for the stray cats and dogs to literally rain onto the ground below when they lost their footing. When someone in suburban Oklahoma uses the phrase, however, he is not referring to cats and dogs literally raining down upon the ground; rather, he is saying that the rain is heavy. Both the Brit and the Oklahoman are speaking the truth, though one (or possibly both, depending on how you define “rain”) is not speaking a literal truth. The Bible, likewise, is wrought with metaphor. There are some who choose a literal interpretation, but I think this mindset leads to confusion and/or untruth. In my own Biblical studies, I have found that the metaphors are almost as easy to discern as they are in a Mark Twain novel, though sometimes ambiguous translations or a lack of understanding of the original language can make it more difficult. The only thing that I can guarantee as we begin to study the Bible is that I will be honest with myself and with you as we encounter metaphoric language and not-so-straight-forward terminology. In other words, the goal is not “to have [my] cake and eat it too”.
Historical Perspective
In my own studies, I have found that the Bible compares well historically to secular texts and I will do my utmost to provide historical parallels (probably after we discuss the Creation) during each discussion. The Bible is one of the most well-preserved historical texts we have and it is important not to dismiss it as a “nice story”. Secular texts and archeological data point to a very genuine desire for historical preservation.
My View of the Bible
The Bible is true. Or it is not. There is no middle ground. Why is this? Biblical authors make the claim (within the Bible) that the Bible is the Word of God (sometimes translated “God-breathed”). Nearly all of the Biblical authors claim to have spoken directly to God or to have recorded the stories of Jesus’ apostles. So, either:
A. The Bible is a hoax (and therefore completely untrue) perpetuated by the supposed followers of God/Christ.
B. The Bible is the product of some mass delusion (and therefore cannot be relied upon to be true)
C. The Bible is true.
Lying, crazy, or truthful. I believe these are the only three options. So, as you read the Bible, I encourage you to keep these three possibilities in mind. It is important, too, to recall that we do not know what limits if any may be imposed on a God who is not of the universe.
I apologize for the break between posts, but I’ll be out of town for a time and I want to stagger two posts over three weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Discussing the Bible is almost always interesting. I agree with most of your post. There is a huge mix of metaphor and more historical writings in the books of the Bible.
Randy "A. The Bible is a hoax (and therefore completely untrue) perpetuated by the supposed followers of God/Christ.
B. The Bible is the product of some mass delusion (and therefore cannot be relied upon to be true)
C. The Bible is true."
I agree with every part of your post, except this part. I love CS Lewis, but his description of "lunatic, liar or lord" (which your statement is a version of) has always seemed really, really over-simplistic.
Some other options
D. The Bible is true from the perspective of the writers, but would not pass a "literal truth" test by today's standards. In the pre-scientific age, even a shooting star could have spiritual significance.
E. Parts of the Bible are fact, parts are invented.
F. The Bible contains "spiritual" truth displayed in physical metaphor patterned after works such as the Aenied, etc. For instance, the birth narratives of Jesus might be Christian writers' attempts at finding a pagan audience through descriptions of Jesus' godly conception.
G. some writers of the Bible were given a mix of good and bad information from different sources.
H. probably a lot of other options.
The bible contains many different books - some of a historical nature, some fiction and allegory, etc. It was written by many people. We should remember that the "god-breathed" reference is from a New Testament letter referring only to the Old Testament (Sacred Writings). There were no Gospels or New Testament yet. Plus this "god-breathed" statement is the writer of 2 Timothy's personal opinion. Does it really reflect any objective authority on to texts written hundreds of years earlier? Of course, any statement of authority from inside the source of authority is not too relevant. We all know this. But my point is that, if the writer of 2 Timothy is wrong in this instance, then why does that mean something written 600 years earlier in Genesis is wrong? Or why does it mean that the next paragraph of 2 Timothy is wrong?
The "all or nothing" approach to the Bible is unfounded - yet it is something that conservative Christians and many atheists have in common. It's the same as viewing whatever is published in the Oklahoman as all truth or all fiction. And if an Oklahoma editor claimed, hypothetically, that everything ever published by the Oklahoma was true, that would have absolutely no bearing on whether that statement was true or not. It should be considered in the same way that every other story would be considered.
The Bible is a phenomenal book - it's almost unbelievable to me that it exists, as it traces a people's history (whether directly or indirectly) over so much time. I think it's amazing that it is so well-preserved. To interpret it in a super simplistic fashion - as if the writers were merely conduits for divine revelation out of their control, is to miss most of the beauty, the humanity, the truth lying therein. This is a book where the writers are frantically struggling to make sense of what was happening to the state of Israel in light of their views of God.
I think it will be really enjoyable to dig in to it. Thanks for the chance, Randy, and enjoy your time out of town.
I am kind of excited because I don’t think I have done a legitimate Bible study in a while. When I was younger, I “read” this book really wanting it to make sense. The reason why I use quotes is because I think I was more skimming and praying than reading. It felt like I was doing something good. But it never really made much sense – looking back, this is expected because I think I was interacting with the book and treating it as a sacred symbol rather than reading it with critical thinking skills.
As I matured, I revisited the Bible, but not with the same reverence that I once held. While I was revisiting the Bible, I was also looking into the Koran, some of the Buddha’s teachings, learning about Hinduism through sources that were far from primary, Judaism, etc. I was trying to figure out what is going on with all this religion business! Having somewhat of a background to place the Bible upon, I saw that it was not the only game in town. This allowed me to read it while applying more critical thinking than I had before. Since then, I would not say that my study of this book has been wildly extensive, but I have given it plenty of attention. I expect to learn quite a bit about this book in the next 40 weeks.
As we study this book, are we planning on starting off with any assumptions about its truth or sacred value? Or are we going to treat it like text spoken and written by Homo sapiens until we have reasons that necessitate us to think otherwise?
I agree the Bible is wrought with metaphor. It is difficult to discuss matters such as creation, morals, God, etc. without the use of metaphor. One question that I foresee is what criteria are we to use when judging whether a particular passage is to be taken as metaphor or as it is written literally? Because the whole book is not to be taken as metaphor alone, we have to decide when it is appropriate and when it is not – all while avoiding doing this for reasons of mere convenience (if it is truth that we seek). Surely accompanying passages and the book as a whole will prove helpful here, but there is so much disagreement (within sects, between sects, and elsewhere) on how some passages are to be taken. It is going to be interesting to try to sort all of this out.
As stated, your view of the Bible seems (to me) surprisingly narrow. I guess I will see how you have come to this view in the weeks to come, but surely there are more ways to interpret the Bible than “lunatic, liar, or Lord” (to use Lewis’ words).
Have a great vacation. And since it has been a while since I last said it, I appreciate this blog and I am having a good time commenting. Thanks.
We've had this conversation before, but...
"D. The Bible is true from the perspective of the writers, but would not pass a "literal truth" test by today's standards. In the pre-scientific age, even a shooting star could have spiritual significance."
But, they didn't write about shooting stars. They wrote about direct interactions with God.
"E. Parts of the Bible are fact, parts are invented."
And since we know not which parts are which, what difference would it make?
"F. The Bible contains "spiritual" truth displayed in physical metaphor patterned after works such as the Aenied, etc. For instance, the birth narratives of Jesus might be Christian writers' attempts at finding a pagan audience through descriptions of Jesus' godly conception."
This is simply not consistent with the rest of the Bible. You can take any one passage and make a number of assumptions, but when you put it all together, the message is rather clear. More importatnly, the Bible is self-described as truth, unlike the Aenied.
"G. some writers of the Bible were given a mix of good and bad information from different sources."
...who claimed the be in direct contact with God. See "liar/lunatic".
Skyhook,
I don't think it is important to the discussion to assume that the Bible is flawless. Instead, let's assume that the Bible is somewhat like an encyclopedia. I this it is fair to assume that the authors believed that what they wrote was truth. That keeps us from having to look to the original Greek to see whether Paul was crouching or standing on the road to Damascus and allows us to focus on the issues.
My narrow view of the Bible comes from reading the Bible. It's a text about the "one true God" and His son:" The way and the truth and the life." Regardless of whether you believe the Bible to be true, the message of the Bible is difficult to miss.
The Pentuach is believed to have been written by Moses (a man who spoke to God on more than one occasion). The gospels are direct accounts of Jesus (a.k.a. God) and the apostles. The majority of the New Testament was written by Paul (a man who was enlightened by God and to whom God spoke directly). So, the Bible's major authors claim to take direction from God. The C.S. Lewis quote concerns Jesus, but the sentiment is the same. When you write that your words are divinely inspired, you're telling the truth, you're lying, or you're delusional.
As a sort of "eye test", apply the standard to my writings. If tomorrow, I posted that God was literally guiding my fingers across the keyboard, what would you think?
Steven, be honest.
"One question that I foresee is what criteria are we to use when judging whether a particular passage is to be taken as metaphor or as it is written literally? Because the whole book is not to be taken as metaphor alone, we have to decide when it is appropriate and when it is not – all while avoiding doing this for reasons of mere convenience (if it is truth that we seek)."
I foresee this as a difficulty as well. There will always be Biblical passages that can be interpreted in several ways. I can only promise you that I will be honest in my assessment. The good thing is that idioms can usually be discerned by comparing to other texts (via resources... I don't speak Hebrew or Greek). Another thing that the Bible does well is carry themes throughout. If you see a term enough times in enough context, you can more easily decide its meaning. I'll be as explicit as I possibly can on why I believe certain passages to mean certain things. Steve will argue adamantly in opposition to whatever I say, and I'll be interested to see where your judgment falls.
Should be fun.
I have to agree with Steven that to say the Bible is absolute fact or absolute fiction is way too simplistic for all the reasons he mentioned in his post.
We could use Randy's assessment of A,B,or C for his own writings on this blog too, and say that either Randy's comments are TRUTH, he is CRAZY, or he is a LIAR. I don't think it is in any way that simple. I can't judge Randy's writings as absolute truth, but that certainly does not make him a liar or crazy.
I do look forward to hearing your thoughts Randy. I know I can learn from you. This is your blog. My ears are perked, ready to listen! Thanks man!
John-
Randy doesn't claim to be writing the very words of God so we do have more options than A, B, and C for his writings. It's the claim of God breathed that leads us to only having A, B, and C as choices with the Bible.
If Randy claimed that his every word was directly guided by God, that these words weren't his at all but instead God's words, yes you could judge it that way, and I think you would.
I, Kristin, am being guided by God right now in writing this statement.
The statement above is:
a. true
b. false
If B:
a. I am crazy
b. I am lying (either intentionally or unintentionally)
I would add more, but I agree with all of Randy's responses to Steven already. It's funny that we agree on everything in this blog. We disagree on almost everything else!
In case you are having trouble, here are the answers to the questions above:
1. b
2. b
Randy: “But, they didn't write about shooting stars. They wrote about direct interactions with God.”
This was just a point to show that people saw the world differently than we do today. This was a spirit-haunted world. The sky was actually the firmament - a solid dome holding back waters which lay above it. Heaven was just beyond. The stars were beings with bodies, since they moved. Mentally ill people were demon-possessed. The earth was flat, standing on pillars, etc. Assuming that statements concerning the natural earth are just figurative idioms is to read their words through our more current point of view. When the author of Revelation mentions the “four corners of the earth”, I think he probably thought the earth had four corners. but who knows? As Skyhook alluded to, the literal/figurative interpretation can be switched easily as there’s no standard way to employ one or the other.
Randy: “And since we know not which parts are which, what difference would it make?”
I’m not quite sure of your point here. I’m just suggesting that the Bible should be looked at critically, like any book. Is there another book a reasonable person would decide to interpret as 100% lies, crazy ranting, or perfect truth?
Randy: “the message is rather clear. More importantly, the Bible is self-described as truth, unlike the Aenied.”
THE BIBLE doesn’t claim to be “god-breathed”. The writer of 2 Timothy claims that the Old Testament is “god-breathed.” How is that essentially different than you or I looking at the Bible and making claims about it?
Randy : “...who claimed the be in direct contact with God. See "liar/lunatic".”
I certainly am not trying to discount the possibility that there were “liars” or “lunatics” involved with the writing of all or portions of the Bible. An assumption on my part that A, B, or C is never true, is as arbitrary as your assumption that A, B or C ONLY can be true. So, I’m not discounting the possibility. It’s difficult to know the many authors’ motivations, assumptions about the world and God, mental stability, morality, etc.
That said, let’s look at others who claim to speak with God. Signs on our highways claim that God is speaking “Don’t make me come down there.” Pat Robertson often claims direct revelation from God - prophetic statements about terrorist attacks and so forth. People and pastor’s in churches, synagogues, mosques, shrines, monasteries and temples around the world claim revelation all the time. The books of the Bible were revelations (however we interpret that process) that were written, edited, and over time, endorsed by the Jewish people.
The Bible has certain passages that are presented as the very words of God. But if I’m reading Job, I tend to view it as a story, not as literal truth. Did the writer “sit in” on conversations between God and Satan? Did God or an angel directly report the conversation to Job’s author? Did the author spend time in deep meditation and emerge with the conversation fully formed? Was this a folk tale that the writer captured and recorded? The books of the Bible were written, edited and compiled over a long period of time. Many of the themes are quite consistent, as writers of newer books were well acquainted with older books and built on their themes. If authors of Isaiah present their ideas as the words of God, is that a moment where we must interpret it literally?
Randy, we’ll have to disagree on who is making a better attempt at intellectual honesty. I admit that a weakness of mine is to be a bit contrary when perhaps I don’t need to be for the discussion, but I think that I agreed with every point in your post except one. And I don’t seem to be alone.
That said, I can only identify with your frustration. I'm sure we both see the other as having "blinders" on in certain ways. We'll just have to maintain patience with each other if we hope to have some meaningful exchange. When I look at your view, I realize that it won't change immediately. It would be too damaging to the psyche. But I can feel that perhaps I am planting some seeds that will one day come to fruition. PLEASE VIEW ME THE SAME WAY. Plant your seeds with me. I think this viewpoint can help in achieving patience in these discussion. I am not naturally a patient person, but I'm getting better, I hope.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a little heated passion in the debate. I just don't like it when my own "passion" makes me unhappy
I look forward to discussing the two creation stories in Genesis!
I am now beginning to think that my excitement for the Bible study might have distracted me from a leap that is taking place: from the “cause” of the universe ~14 billion years ago to focusing on a collection of books written across several generations, roughly 2 millennia ago.
At this point, why do we even need to pick up such a cobbled together text? Surely tradition and geographical accident are not being put forth as reasons? I have not seen why it is reasonable to consult such an ancient text, much less the reasons why we should narrow our consultation to one text.
What would you say if a university physicist reached the edge of what science has to offer in trying to explain, say, dark energy, and then decided to consult some text written about Incan happenings thousands of years before? You might feel like I feel right now. I am not saying that you don’t have reasons; I am asking if you would lay out the reasons before jumping so far ahead. (I know this is not a perfect analogy, but try to see where I am coming from.)
I guess the best way to express what I feel right now is “why”? In our search for truth, I have not seen any good reasons as to why it is necessary for us to turn to such an exclusive selection of texts. What questions are we needing answered and why should we expect to find the answers in one book (or one story) rather than another?
"Is there another book a reasonable person would decide to interpret as 100% lies, crazy ranting, or perfect truth?"
Only ones whose authors claim to be writing the words of God.
Regardless of whether more than one author used the phrase "God-breathed", the authors I mentioned quote the "Lord God Almighty". They quote Jesus and cite direct visual evidence of His miracles. These aren't metaphors. What's the argument here? When you say that God told you something, you're telling the truth, lying, or delusional. The other examples you have cited (e.g. The Oklahomam) do not claim to be created by / inspired by / told by God. The Bible does.
"Pat Robertson often claims direct revelation from God - prophetic statements about terrorist attacks and so forth...."
He's either telling the truth, lying, or delusional.
"If authors of Isaiah present their ideas as the words of God, is that a moment where we must interpret it literally?"
We'll get into that. There are things about ancient writings (e.g. they didn't use quotes or even know why exact quotes would be necesarry) that require additional resources. Also, I want to reiterate that I never said we should take the Bible literally. That would be silly.
Skyhook,
As the blog title implies, I'm not really searching for truth... a better understanding of the truth, yes, but I've weighed the arguments on both sides and have decided to further explore that which makes the most sense to me. So far as I remember, my physics teachers did not pick up books on alchemy before explaining quantum mechanics. There are a multitude of reasons I believe in the truth of the Bible, and I'll do my best to outline them for you.
There is evidence, too, contained within the text of the Bible that we'll explore over the coming weeks.
In an effort to clarify again:
I, Kristin, am speaking the very words of God right now.
a. True
b. False (I'm delusional)
c. False (I'm lying either intentionally or unintentionally)
Steven's choices:
d. The statement is true from my perspective but it's not really true. See b.
e. Part of what I'm saying is invented. See c.
f. My statement is an attempt to find a pagan audience and make sense out of spiritual truth but is not actually true. See c.
g. I was given bad information. See b and c. (Since God gave me bad information, he probably wasn't God and therefore I was imagining God- this seems clearly delusional. But I'm also lying albeit unintentionally if I'm spreading false rumors).
h. Like what? Can you give other examples that are not encompassed in these three?
Keep in mind that both Randy and I understand people rejecting the Bible entirely. We also understand people accepting it as God's word. What we do not understand is someone accepting bits and pieces of it as God's word. Because if huge chunks of it are not true (and we don't know which ones) then it cannot be trusted. And that's really the point of this post.
Also, just wanted to add that this is the same if it weren't God we were discussing. If I said that Steven told me there was a pink unicorn in the sky, either:
a. He did tell me this.
b. I'm lying
c. I believe it to be true but it's not, so I'm delusional.
Skyhook- "In our search for truth..."
Keep in mind that Christians (including Randy and I) believe to have already found the truth, which is why we aren't "searching" for it, rather (as the blog title states) trying to lead others to it. You don't have to accept our beliefs (obviously), but just understand that this blog is not about someone's search, rather it's about someone's findings and an attempt to communicate those findings to others.
I, Skyhook, am speaking the words of a being that is not subject to universal laws or physical constraints and whose presence, perception, and power cannot be comprehended, right now. Grass is green. 1+1=2. Love is purple. The circumference of a circle is 2πr.
I, Jim, not Skyhook, but office mate to Skyhook, am speaking the words of a being that is not subject to universal laws or physical constraints and whose presence, perception, and power cannot be comprehended, right now. Grass is green, 1+1=3, Love is purplish blue, but this is really a metaphor, and the circumference of a circle is 2πr+0.000000000000000000001.
I, Stephani, not really Stephani but just a pen name, not Skyhook, not Jim, am speaking the words of a being that is not subject to universal laws or physical constraints and whose presence, perception, and power cannot be comprehended, right now. Grass is reflects some electromagnetic radiation and absorbs some – a wavelength of around 510nm is reflected while 475 is not. 1+1=2, most of the time – but sometimes equals 3. Love does not have color, the others are just speaking in metaphor, except for Skyhook, as he was divinely given information about love’s color. Circumferences are relative.
This is either:
A. True
B. False (delusional)
C. False (lying either intentionally or unintentionally)
Above is a parody that intends to demonstrate that sometimes things do not divide into clean neat dichotomies.
I understand that Randy believes he has already found the truth. He as been diligent in asking us to move with him in a chronological fashion and not to jump ahead. I am just asking that he reciprocate.
This comment thread is starting to have a funky feel to it and I am afraid I contributed to it with my last post. Feel free to skim it or skip over it all together.
"Above is a parody that intends to demonstrate that sometimes things do not divide into clean neat dichotomies."
Except that it does fit in neatly. Much of what you said was false (c). Therefore (even though there is some truth contained), I wouldn't trust any of your above comments as THE authority for how to live my life.
If an author is lying part of the time, why should I trust the author at all?
If tomorrow Randy posted that God was literally guiding his fingers across the keyboard, I would think he is being a bit too credulous. I would think that Randy’s evidence requirement is a pretty weak. And I would think he is putting forth a hypothesis that can encompass any observed finger behavior and that this creates a problem of induction. It would seem plausible to me that Randy is observing the ideomotor effect, but do to his problem of induction coupled with his untestable hypothesis; internally he finds it reasonable to believe in his hypothesis.
I think it would more descriptive to say that Randy is falling prey to logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Even more so, there would be no reason to condemn the entire text of 52 Blogs to Christ as a lie or the work of a madman. Regardless of what Randy says tomorrow, the true statements he has made thus far will remain true. This is because they do not rely on authority (Randy’s or anybody else’s), but upon testable observations that have been strengthened by repeated tests.
AUTHORITY
Kristin: “What we do not understand is someone accepting bits and pieces of it as God's word”
I agree with you on this. I believe that the Bible is the product of man. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t tremendous value in the Bible. Just like the Upanishads, Shakespeare, myths the world over. etc.
I think I am seeing our dilemma more clearly now. Kristin and Randy are interested in finding a source of absolute authority. Therefore the Bible either is that or it isn't. Fair enough.
But Skyhook, John, myself, other commentators here, do not see any reason to regard the Bible, or any other work, as such. That's why there is no problem with finding meaning in it, even if it’s not perfect. We have to judge the work by its content, not its claimed source. If a delusional person tells me the earth revolves around the sun - well, it’s still true. If a person from the ancient world, with an ancient understanding of the world, writes a story trying to explain the world - I may find value in it without trusting its historical accuracy. How would a scribe write down the facts about Abraham for instance? He would go either to previously written sources or to oral tradition. They were quite limited in their research abilities compared to today, and it seems especially obvious when recording words that the writers aren’t simply writing down a transcribed, verbatim conversation. But if the story communicates a spiritual truth, then it can be of great value. If I find a spiritual truth in the Bible, can I not then ascribe that to "God" if I choose to use that terminology?
Simply put, our own personal authority derived from our minds, is always the final judge. Forgive me for putting words in everyone’s mouths, but I want to demonstrate how we all rely on our personal authority. Let me know if this is a fair description of our different views.
Randy and Kristin - our personal authority has led us to believe that the Bible is the absolute authority. Now we subject our personal authority to the teachings of the Bible.
Skyhook, John, Steven, etc. - our personal authority has led us to believe that no work is an absolute authority, therefore we put our personal authority to use when regarding everything.
Reports of visions and revelations are unremarkable in history. That’s why we have to judge them according to their content, which is of far greater consequence than their occurrence.
DELUSIONAL (had to fix a typo)
I’d like to consider the idea of “delusional.” I may have carried Randy’s statement too far, by referencing CS Lewis’ “liar, lunatic, lord” scenario. Lunatic and delusional are certainly not synonymous. Delusional can just mean “a false belief.”
I concede that I think that Pat Robertson is delusional. However, he is not a madman. He is deluded, rather, by incorrect thinking, logical fallacies, etc. He views the world through the lens of a set of beliefs that are unquestioned, therefore he will see things differently than say, Skyhook. Pat may have "good" reasons to report a revelation from God, according to his already accepted belief system. Perhaps a dream of a message from God, or a strong feeling while praying, etc. His interpretation of external phenomena will be very different, because of the lens of his beliefs.
What about Catholics? Many believe the pope is God's mouth on earth, as he is the culmination of 2,000 years of apostolic authority and succession going back to Peter and to Christ. If people believe this, I suppose it could be described as "mass" delusion (pun intended). But no one would consider individual Catholics as delusional people, at least in a clinical way. But they may have a false belief, and are perhaps delusional.
Even today, people see visions of their recently passed loved ones all the time, or experience their presence. Are they in need of mental help? If we believe it was a manifestation of their subconscious grief, does that make it a false vision? Are they lying? We could think they are telling the truth, but if another, unrelated person were there, would they have seen Grandma’s appearance too?
What about a scientist like Newton? His works are incorrect as we read them today. Was he a liar? no. delusional? no. wrong? yes. He didn't claim God, but he claimed logic and science, which are also objective criteria. We know that he did his best, given the available information and world views of his time. But now we see that he had false beliefs. Was he technically delusional?
Surely by this standard, people looking back on us 2,000 years from now will consider us delusional.
What about the scribes and priests in ancient Israel? Did they transcribe God’s direct revelation? Or did they consider themselves in a position of authority concerning religion and God, and therefore able to speak for God (like the pope)? Or did they record the folk tales and myths handed down to them from previous generations? They wrote according to their world view and the available information of the day. Once again, liars? delusional? completely right? even when describing the waters over the firmament?
I consider delusion to be something that we all deal with everyday, so I suppose I can accept this as long as we're not discussing it as clinical, or synonymous with crazy. If delusional simply means “false belief” then surely there are aspects of all our current beliefs which are delusional.
"I think it would more descriptive to say that Randy is falling prey to logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Even more so, there would be no reason to condemn the entire text of 52 Blogs to Christ as a lie or the work of a madman."
But due to Randy's delusion, it would be a bit silly to give credence to his writings as well. If the only statements you are willing to take as truth are the ones you believed to be truth before you even began reading, the work would have no value to you beyond that which stems from sentimental attachment or artistic respect.
The Bible is a work of men who claim to be inspired or led by God. If these men have been deluded, have made up stories to sway their audience, etc, the Bible has no real value except as a piece of literature. I believe we're all basically in agreement with that statement.
So, it would behoove us to see whether there is anything to be learned beyond the stories. Can we find evidence to support or disprove Biblical claims? Does it matter?
I am not sure if I correctly understand your position here. Let us try out a hypothetical to see if I am getting it. Let’s say that Einstein wrote at the end of his life (or at the end of a relevant paper) that he was divinely inspired in his work and that his theories and equations were the literal expressions of Ahura Mazda. Are you saying that due to this apparently delusional statement, we would be silly to give credence to his writings?
A statement like this should not impact our understanding or beliefs regarding Einstein’s equations and theories. This is because the reasons we have for believing are stronger than taking him for his word. We may have learned that Einstein can be delusional, but luckily Einstein’s sanity has no bearings on the truth of his equations.
I think we are touching on why it is a bad idea to take information as true on authority alone. We are also hitting upon why someone else’s personal revelation is poor pathway to knowledge. Especially when compared to the methods a physicist might use, for example.
Randy; "The Bible is a work of men who claim to be inspired or led by God."
True, whether directly or indirectly. Hebrew writers, priests, and scribes took stories (perhaps from oral tradition and pre-existing sources from other cultures) and molded them into their Sacred Writings. The epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian Enuma Elish, and other ancient stories probably influenced them. The Old Testament most likely contains strands of several different writers' versions of stories, which were edited and harmonized together. (The documentary hypothesis)
And several people (alone and/or in groups), claiming to be prophets able to speak for Yahweh, wrote much as well. Perhaps they had good reason to think so, according to their understanding of the world back then. Or not. Who knows? I don't think the world has ever been short on people claiming to be prophets. That's why we have to look at the content and analyze it with our own personal authority. How else would we move forward? Would we accept anything that any "prophet" said as authoritative if it went against our morals?
Randy: ".....Bible has no real value except as a piece of literature."
Is the Bible "just" literature? Maybe. But this only lowers the Bible's status in comparison with viewing it as a perfect, external, solitary source of authority.
Skyhook-
“Are you saying that due to this apparently delusional statement, we would be silly to give credence to his writings?”
Einstein’s writings contain verifiable scientific facts. Therefore, we don’t have to rely on or give credence to his word alone; we can test his theories and find out for ourselves whether or not he was right. (The fact that many of his theories were confirmed/verified by others is why we give credence to him at all).
If the Bible authors had written only verifiable facts then we wouldn’t have an issue here. But they were not documenting scientific theories. They were documenting events, history. They wrote things like, “Jesus said…” We cannot test this or prove this in any way. That is why we must determine/take a position on the issue of whether they were reliable or whether they were prone to delusions, false testimony, etc.
If someone is delusional, it certainly doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong. But it does mean we cannot trust them when what they say is unverifiable and could easily be one of their delusions.
Kristin has hit the nail on the head here. Again, I chuckle somewhat about this need to argue. We do disagree a great deal, but Steven recognizes that the other "less narrow" choices are really just a rewording of the 3 options I gave.
- When you claim divine inspiration, youre claim is either truthful or not truthful (no qualms there, I hope).
- If your claim is untruthful, you either believe your claim or you don't.
- If you believe your untruthful claim, you're deluded.
- If you don't, you're lying.
Sometimes it really is that simple. A deluded person may indeed slip in a great deal of truth; however, as Kristin alluded to, nothing that person says can be assumed to be true.
This is a very enjoyable discussion to read, fyi. I just haven't had much to add to it.
I think I am closer to understanding your position now, thanks for the clarification. My follow up question then turns to the ratio of truth to delusion that we (you) deem acceptable. A brief review of evolutionary/cognitive psychology leaves one with the understanding that the normal human brain is susceptible to delusion. In other words, all humans are delusional in some respect. However, it would be quite extreme to call giving credence to any human’s writing silly. What criteria are we using when judging how much, or what type of delusion, is too much?
Plugging this back into the hypothetical situation where Randy states that God is literally guiding his fingers, can I ask you to answer the question as if you were just a reader of the blog and not the blogger? Pretending you are not Randy, what would you think? Are some parts of the blog to be disregarded while some are to be believed? Which ones?
Also, I am still unaware of why we are turning to this period of history rather than another historical period or even present day.
This comment is mostly for me to gather my thoughts – I’m posting it because…. hey, why not? Hopefully it will allow Randy to evaluate if I am understanding what he is trying to communicate.
My initial reaction to “lying, crazy, or truth” was to think that this is pretty extreme. Especially when applied toward a text that is not a single statement, but a collection of many statements, by many people, across many generations. A collection of works, many of which have been passed by word of mouth and therefore susceptible to the effect that is demonstrated in the children’s game “telephone”. Also a collection of works that has many translations and versions; and has been through editing processes keeping some texts in and leaving some texts out – with some texts being lost along the way. To apply such a broad label to such a diverse collection of texts seems unreasonable to me.
In reading these comments, I have come to realize that it seems we are not yet talking about all the statements in all the books that make up the Bible, but we are only at the level of evaluating a single statement. The series of dichotomies Randy gave in his last post brought clarity in this respect. Essentially, Randy is saying: consistently throughout these books of the Bible, the singular claim is made that this set of text selected as the canon is literally the word of God (or inspired, or breathed, or something supernatural). And that this claim is either true or false. And if it is false, it is intentionally or unintentionally being presented as true.
I guess this has been laid out in previous comments, but the way it was written in the blogpost made me want to apply it to not just the “literal word of God” claim, but to all the statements made by all those people in all of the books across all that time. By saying the Bible is true or it is not, Randy is referring to the central claim of the Bible is the word of God or it is not Even if the Bible is not the word of God, it can still contain true and false statements. If this is what Randy is saying, then I see little to disagree with – but I also do not see much of a point being made.
Basically, my hang up revolves around how far we are to take it if we were to determine “the Bible is literally the word of God” to be a delusion (for example). Certainly this statement would not negate part of a passage that contained accurate information regarding simple mathematics. For example, Genesis 5:3-5. In this passage it is stated that Adam lived 130 years, had a son, and then lived 800 more years for a total of 930 years. Whether this statement comes from a book that is allegedly the word of God or not, 130 + 800 = 930. Now, I am pretty sure that this is not what Randy is talking about. What about the other part of this passage, surely the author(s) are delusional in saying that a human lived for nearly a millennia? Considering this, I am not exactly sure what Randy would have us do with the rest of the Genesis story. I am inclined to believe he would say we should not give much credence to it, but that goes counter to what I believe about Randy’s view of the Bible. This is where I have some confusion. Maybe it will be cleared up by employing metaphor?
My best guess as to Randy’s point is that if the claim “this book is the literally the word of God” is a delusion, then we can deduce that any statements relying of the authority of God’s words are not to be trusted on authority alone. Maybe I am getting it now, I don’t know.
I have also come to see that crazy is not really referring to psychological pathology, but more akin to delusion. And the definition of delusion in use here is “believing in a claim that is not objectively true, unbeknown to you.” I think this also helps me to better understanding Randy’s position. I would further say that every human being that is, and ever was, has been victim to holding delusional beliefs. If the point being made here is that statements that logically depend on a delusional statement are not to be trusted on authority alone then there is not much to argue.
Where I am not so clear is on how we generalize a delusional statement to statements made prior to the delusional statement, or afterwards; especially when the statements are not directly related. I am speaking to the permanence or impermanence of delusion as well as to if it can be departmentalized or not.
In regards to lying, right now I suspect the evidence required to differentiate delusion from lie probably will not be available. For this reason, I am fine with leaving it on the back burner.
I still have areas that I would like to know more about, but I assume there will be plenty of time to explore them. One of these areas revolves around our previous exchange about searching for truth. Randy indicates that he is not searching for truth, but that has already found it (Christ). My interest is not so much in Randy teaching Christ to me, but retracing his search and trying to understand if he found the truth (Christ) by way of science, reason, logic, etc. That is why I sit here wondering why are we turning to this exclusive set of text. If Randy’s reasons for turning to this text were nothing more than tradition and geographical accident, I think this is a point that should be challenged in the way he asked us in the beginning.
Hopefully this rambling wall of text helps somebody. I feel like it helped me.
Certainly every human is to some degree delusional, as we are all subject to false beliefs.
The nature of the delusion that we are discussing, (God speaking to someone), is that it can be more related to a previously existing set of beliefs than to a specific event.
For instance a few months ago, my neighbor told me that God told her to sell her car cheaply to a person in need. By this, I assume that she meant that she prayed about it and then had a feeling of resolution. I doubt she heard a disembodied voice. She often uses the terminology "God put it on my heart" when describing such things.
A non-Christian making a similar decision might describe essentially the same event this way - "I thought about it really hard, and felt it was something that I wanted to do." The non-Christian may have attained the same sense of resolution through thinking about it.
So is my neighbor delusional? I don't think so, BUT if she is, it is not because of the event described above as God speaking to her. It is because of a pre-existing set of beliefs which led her to interpret the event in this way.
So, a scribe, prophet or priest in ancient Israel has certain beliefs which create an interpretation of events. One of these beliefs might be that they are able to speak for God. Actually, as Randy has said, that much seems certain in many instances in the OT. So a "delusional" prophet may not be hearing voices, but may rather operate under the idea that he/she has been given divine authority and can, therefore, speak God's words. Again, I remind us all, that our working definition of "delusional" is just that one has a false belief. Something that we all surely have, contingent on many factors including the level of knowledge during the time in which we live.
I would also suggest that even if a prophet could speak for God, assuming there is a God who operates in the manner Randy is describing on this blog, then even the concept of God in the prophet's mind would have to be delusional in many ways - a finite human would never be able to wrap his/her head around an infinite God.
So whether the prophet is right or wrong, his/her message would hinge on a certain degree of delusion. Of course, if the prophet is right we can get into why God has to speak to one, or a few people, alone, instead of declaring Himself clearly to all humankind at once, but I suppose that's off topic.
This has been an interesting discussion. Trying to "get inside" the world view of an ancient Israelite and determining their motivation is no small task!
Post a Comment