[Potemkin]

I don't disagree with this. In fact I am quite sure you are correct. I do not find this idea to be inconsistent with my Christian beliefs. Indeed I think it gives me comfort and supports my belief. (Not all would find this belief to be acceptable.) My belief is that science and religion need not be in conflict. I believe that when a story from our religious past clearly contradicts real science, then we ought to look at that belief and see what it means. Did Jonah live in a whale for three days? If not what are we to learn (if anything) from the story?

The problem is that, in the past, people firmly believed that religious faith was entirely consistent with logic and what we now call 'science' (ie, natural philosophy). And, in fact, there was every reason to think this - after all, hadn't Thomas Aquinas demonstrated that the Christian theology was entirely consistent with the philosophy of Aristotle? All was well (more or less) until the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries, which is when religious dogma began to clearly diverge from all other branches of human knowledge, and began to find itself in contradiction to them. Modern believers now either have to reconcile themselves to a (rather tortuous) non-literal interpretation of Scripture, or they have to abandon logic and reason in order to retain their literal faith in Scripture. The latter is often called 'Fundamentalism', but in fact there is nothing 'fundamentalist' about it at all - it is actually a new thing, which only began to emerge in the 18th century Enlightenment, as its shadow. The medieval Scholastics would never have rejected logic or science in order to preserve their faith, yet this is exactly what many American 'Fundamentalists' (and not just Americans) often do.

[Rich]

Not to mention single and/or without children. It also helps when the religion in question has solid standards that it sticks to.

Well that counts Mormonism out then. At least until the LDS is willing to denounce that piece of racist garbage Brigham Young.

[Drlee]

The problem is that, in the past, people firmly believed that religious faith was entirely consistent with logic and what we now call 'science' (ie, natural philosophy).

Why is that a problem? People in the past used to believe that the earth was flat and that the body was ruled by the four humors. We have moved on. The Bible used the term "ends of the earth" but that did not collapse religious beliefs.

All was well (more or less) until the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries, which is when religious dogma began to clearly diverge from all other branches of human knowledge, and began to find itself in contradiction to them.

It does not diverge from ALL other branches of human knowledge nor is it in contradiction to ALL of them. Only when one bases one's faith (sticking with Christianity for the moment) on a literal interpretation of the Bible does one need to feel in conflict with science at all.

Modern believers now either have to reconcile themselves to a (rather tortuous) non-literal interpretation of Scripture, or they have to abandon logic and reason in order to retain their literal faith in Scripture.

I find the literal interpretation of Scripture to be the tortuous path rather than the other way around. I believe that most Christians are to my way of thinking. Certainly there are many Christians who take the literal approach. Their faith is, in my opinion, on shaky ground. Rules and roadmaps are convenient for new or immature believers. Indeed that is often what they come looking for. This is why the fundamentalist religions find it easier to recruit than do the more 'liberal' and mainstream belief systems. Let me tell you a story.

I am not Roman Catholic. I do though occasionally attend afternoon services at a Benedictine Monastery. Part of the service is the taking of communion. I do not do this. The Roman Catholic belief is that one ought not to participate in that unless one is a Roman Catholic. (There are other rules as well but for brevity sake well stop there.) During one service this old bull-nun walked over to where I was sitting in the back and whispered that I should go ahead and participate. When I whispered back that I was not Catholic, she said, "neither is God. Go ahead. I won' tell anyone." The point of this story is that this nun (a kind and generous old soul if there ever was one) would never have said that to a young person or a new convert. She was old enough and wise enough to discern that I would know exactly what she was saying and why. So here is a woman who represents the most orthodox of Christians. She is a cloistered nun from a fairly austere order who obviously realizes that religious teachings have a place but need not be cast in iron. Is her faith diminished by her not embracing a rigid adherence the Roman Catholic Church teachings on the Eucharist? Not at all. Her faith is enhanced by personal discernment. This is not to say that she plays fast-and-loose with orthodoxy. Rather she understands its purpose and that it is a tool to build faith not the finished product.

The medieval Scholastics would never have rejected logic or science in order to preserve their faith, yet this is exactly what many American 'Fundamentalists' (and not just Americans) often do.

Yes they do. It is a pity to observe. Many if not most mainstream Christians regret this.

[Potemkin]

Why is that a problem? People in the past used to believe that the earth was flat and that the body was ruled by the four humors. We have moved on. The Bible used the term "ends of the earth" but that did not collapse religious beliefs.

Tell me, when you read the description of God creating the world in Genesis, do you believe it as being literally true, or do you regard it as being merely a myth? If you regard it as a myth, then in what way does that myth fundamentally differ from, say, the Sumerian myth concerning the creation of the world? If it has only symbolic or mythic meaning for you, then why is Genesis more true or more important to you than, say, the Sumerian myth, which also has symbolic and mythic meaning?

It does not diverge from ALL other branches of human knowledge nor is it in contradiction to ALL of them. Only when one bases one's faith (sticking with Christianity for the moment) on a literal interpretation of the Bible does one need to feel in conflict with science at all.

I do not believe in the literal truth of the Sumerian description of the creation of the world, yet I believe it has mythic and symbolic resonance. Does that make me a follower of the religion of the ancient Sumerians?

I find the literal interpretation of Scripture to be the tortuous path rather than the other way around.

Actually, the literal interpretation of Scripture is the religious equivalent of Alexander hacking through the Gordian Knot with his sword. Far from being tortuous, it is extremely straight-forward, perhaps egregiously so. Reading Scripture as being merely a set of beautiful and 'symbolic' myths which should not be taken literally - which should not be actually believed - is what is tortuous. You believe, and yet you don't believe.

I believe that most Christians are to my way of thinking. Certainly there are many Christians who take the literal approach. Their faith is, in my opinion, on shaky ground.

No doubt, they themselves would say the same about your faith.

[quetzalcoatl]

If it has only symbolic or mythic meaning for you, then why is Genesis more true or more important to you than, say, the Sumerian myth, which also has symbolic and mythic meaning?...

...You believe, and yet you don't believe.

More important because it's part of my cultural heritage and childhood memories; it's a plank in my identity. It's more important because this particular myth binds me to a particular community. Whereas Sumerian myth, no matter how fascinating, does not. So as a non-Christian I am part of the community and yet not part; I am believer in my cultural DNA and a skeptic in my mind. So I suppose, like Drlee, I believe and yet I don't believe.

[Drlee]

Tell me, when you read the description of God creating the world in Genesis, do you believe it as being literally true, or do you regard it as being merely a myth? If you regard it as a myth, then in what way does that myth fundamentally differ from, say, the Sumerian myth concerning the creation of the world?

I believe it is a myth. In that way it is not much different from the Eridu Genesis. I also believe that God inspires us to know Him in a variety of ways. This myth was instructive and remains so for some people. I can't take responsibility for them. If their way to know God is to stick to this and other mythology then that may be just fine for them.

If it has only symbolic or mythic meaning for you, then why is Genesis more true or more important to you than, say, the Sumerian myth, which also has symbolic and mythic meaning?

It is not more true but it is more important to me because of my history. When I was a child it was the story that explained a part of the world and my faith to me and helped me on my journey to mature Christianity. (I prefer to refrain from launching into another old-guy thing but you may recall my age and understand that this story held far more force in the 1950s than it does today. I was 13 when cosmic microwave background radiation confirmed the Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's single point (big bang) theory as the most likely. Interestingly this theory was more palatable to religious people than was the competing steady-state theory.) I mention this to point out that when I was a child this story helped me understand my faith and I believe that is exactly what it is for.

I do not believe in the literal truth of the Sumerian description of the creation of the world, yet I believe it has mythic and symbolic resonance. Does that make me a follower of the religion of the ancient Sumerians?

No. It makes you human. Who know what will resonate with us. My family has been in the US for 300 years or so. I am of Scottish descent. Scotland the Brave resonates with me. Who knows why? You must acknowledge that given only what I just told you any attempt to understand all of these facts as having any relationship to one another is perilous.

Actually, the literal interpretation of Scripture is the religious equivalent of Alexander hacking through the Gordian Knot with his sword. Far from being tortuous, it is extremely straight-forward, perhaps egregiously so.

If I am understanding you that is exactly the point I am making. The literal interpretation of Scripture IS extremely straight-forward. It is easy. So is singing the A-B-C song. But both are quite useful in instructing the naïve. The problem is when someone never moves on from there. They are stuck on shaky ground. (By the way, for a moment there I though you were going to go all Liebniz on me.)

Reading Scripture as being merely a set of beautiful and 'symbolic' myths which should not be taken literally - which should not be actually believed - is what is tortuous. You believe, and yet you don't believe

But taken as a whole that is exactly what the historical march of Judeo then Christian faith is. It is a journey of discovery. In a way it is sad that Christianity lost the concept common in Judaism of, (would it be called?) 'arguing the Talmud' perhaps? In Judaism there is a tradition of wise old men and young holding complicated and often adversarial discussions about the meaning of their faith. They did and still do fight it out.

Christianity stopped doing this for the most part. Leaving the details of how this happened for another time (you and I both know quite well how it happened historically) Christians have seemed to rather to band together around (sometimes fairly insignificant) doctrinal differences than to face the hard work of developing a deep personal faith.

So. You asked about reading Scripture and the difficulty of deciding what to keep and what to throw away. For me this is not difficult at all. It was until I 'got it'. My shorthand boils down to this. Some scripture is a learning tool. Some is fluff. And some is actionable. Only the last part matters in the long haul. The creation story is beautiful. It can help the new Christian learn. But it is not actionable. It does not call upon us to do anything.

Christianity got easy for me when I decided to accept that I am Christian and not the end process of 10,000 years (or more) of Judeo-Christian history. By this I mean I came to believe that I ought first to look for what is was that Jesus was calling upon me to do. This is really pretty simple. Look:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

I can deal with that. It calls upon me to do stuff. This is not allegory or, for me, myth. It is important and whether or not Moses actually parted the Red Sea is not.

He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Does this mean never to invite your friends to lunch. No. But it carries a message we are to act upon.

Sometimes I have to consider what a verse means to me and how to correctly act on it:

Then the Pharisees met together to try to think of some way to trap Jesus into saying something for which they could arrest him. They decided to send some of their men along with the Herodians[b] to ask him this question: “Sir, we know you are very honest and teach the truth regardless of the consequences, without fear or favor. Now tell us, is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?”

But Jesus saw what they were after. “You hypocrites!” he exclaimed. “Who are you trying to fool with your trick questions? Here, show me a coin.” And they handed him a penny.

“Whose picture is stamped on it?” he asked them. “And whose name is this beneath the picture?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

“Well, then,” he said, “give it to Caesar if it is his, and give God everything that belongs to God.”

In the end, faith is not a team sport. It is a personal thing. Religion is wonderful to the extent it helps one discover, develop and act upon his/her faith. But it is the individual faith that matters most. Once you have that it is natural to want to seek the company of other like-minded people with whom you can act on that faith.

Clearly there are a shit load of people who would disagree with me and proclaim me a heretic. I really don't care much. I think it is probably more profitable for me to argue with an atheist than it is a Pentecostal. And I have a greater chance of succeeding.

Adding this: I just read Quetzalcoatl's comment. I agree with him. Well said.

[Potemkin]

It seems to me, Drlee, that you believe in making life easy for yourself. For some people, wrestling with their faith is like Jacob wrestling with the angel. For you, it's like sitting down and having a cosy chat over a couple of beers with the angel. The Fundamentalists may brutally hack through the Gordian Knot, but at least they recognise that the Knot is there.

[Drlee]

It seems to me, Drlee, that you believe in making life easy for yourself. For some people, wrestling with their faith is like Jacob wrestling with the angel. For you, it's like sitting down and having a cosy chat over a couple of beers with the angel. The Fundamentalists may brutally hack through the Gordian Knot, but at least they recognise that the Knot is there.

Trust me. I tried to make it hard. I toyed with the idea of joining the Roman Catholic church and becoming a Trappist monk. I taught junior high and high school Sunday school. (You know what that must have been like.) I read countless books...Augustine...the Desert Fathers....Thomas à Kempis...Julian of Norwich...Pascal....Merton. You name it. I could talk some serious theological trash. But I couldn't get to what really resonated with me.

Then I started asking which parts of my faith "felt" right. One thing above the others. My work with people in need. I know a Franciscan monk who has devoted his entire life to helping the poor. When he works at the warming shelter in the winter he sleeps on the floor with the homeless guys. He has no time to engage in endless doctrinal discussions. He has the education and the training to do it but not the time. He has moved on. My first night working in that shelter was a life-changing event. They slept inside out of the cold while I stayed awake to make sure they were safe. I recommend it to every so-called Christian. Work with homeless men. Know the frustrations, the danger, the discomfort, the uncertainty and the pain. See that many of them have Christian faith but they still live under the bridge. Sit there and try to decide whether you should work on Sunday or if the creation story is true or not. I guarantee you will get the correct answer. And that answer is, who gives a shit.


Maybe Thomas à Kempas resonated with me the best. How words are kinder than mine:

Leave off that excessive desire of knowing; therein is found much distraction There are many things the knowledge of which is of little or no profit to the soul.”

"A sure way of retaining the grace of heaven is to disregard outward appearances, and diligently to cultivate such things as foster amendment of life and fervor of soul, rather than to cultivate those qualities that seem most popular.”

“On the day of judgment, it will be demanded of us not what we have read, but what we have done.”

I would put it differently. I would say, "Stop bitching about abortion, gay marriage, and whether the world was built in 6 days. Get off your asses and try for once to do what Jesus told you to do. On your day off you can solve all of the theological questions that have plagued the world for centuries."

[anticlimacus]

Tell me, when you read the description of God creating the world in Genesis, do you believe it as being literally true, or do you regard it as being merely a myth? If you regard it as a myth, then in what way does that myth fundamentally differ from, say, the Sumerian myth concerning the creation of the world? If it has only symbolic or mythic meaning for you, then why is Genesis more true or more important to you than, say, the Sumerian myth, which also has symbolic and mythic meaning?

But I'm confused, Potemkin. One would have the same problem even if one took Genesis to be literal--then we still have to choose which literal interpretation (the Sumerian myth or the biblical one) is true. Exchanging these for myths does not erase the issue of multiple religions and religious beliefs--and theologians and philosophers have dealt with that for centuries. The fact that one may encounter the divine through one particular myth is no less religiously powerful than one believing that a story is to be taken literally as opposed to symbolically.

And why are Fundies as you say later, acknowledging a "Gordian Knot"? It seems to me that Fundies read Scripture as an 18th century rationalist would have them read it--not as medieval allegorists would read it. Only by operating in an assumed empiricist rationalist approach, i.e. things are either true or false and truth or falsity is measured by empirical verification, is there any knot to be cut. Fundies seem to, ironically and unwittingly, assume that worldview.

[Potemkin]

But I'm confused, Potemkin. One would have the same problem even if one took Genesis to be literal--then we still have to choose which literal interpretation (the Sumerian myth or the biblical one) is true. Exchanging these for myths does not erase the issue of multiple religions and religious beliefs--and theologians and philosophers have dealt with that for centuries. The fact that one may encounter the divine through one particular myth is no less religiously powerful than one believing that a story is to be taken literally as opposed to symbolically.

Christians believe that the Genesis myth is correct and the Sumerian myth is a fantasy because the Genesis myth is in Holy Scripture and the Enuma Elish myth isn't. End of.

And why are Fundies as you say later, acknowledging a "Gordian Knot"? It seems to me that Fundies read Scripture as an 18th century rationalist would have them read it--not as medieval allegorists would read it. Only by operating in an assumed empiricist rationalist approach, i.e. things are either true or false and truth or falsity is measured by empirical verification, is there any knot to be cut. Fundies seem to, ironically and unwittingly, assume that worldview.

Precisely. This is why I asserted that religious Fundamentalism is not a return to origins or sources (as it claims to be), but is actually something new. It is a reaction to 18th century Enlightenment rationalism, and was made possible by that rationalism. It is, in fact, the dark shadow of the Enlightenment.

[anticlimacus]

Christians believe that the Genesis myth is correct and the Sumerian myth is a fantasy because the Genesis myth is in Holy Scripture and the Enuma Elish myth isn't. End of.

Ok…so what?

Precisely. This is why I asserted that religious Fundamentalism is not a return to origins or sources (as it claims to be), but is actually something new. It is a reaction to 18th century Enlightenment rationalism, and was made possible by that rationalism. It is, in fact, the dark shadow of the Enlightenment.

Agreed.

[Paradigm]

Modern believers now either have to reconcile themselves to a (rather tortuous) non-literal interpretation of Scripture, or they have to abandon logic and reason in order to retain their literal faith in Scripture.

There is nothing new about non-literal interpretation of Scripture. Augustine thought the creation story in Genesis ought to be read allegorically, and suggested that if any part of scripture is found to be in contradiction with empirical evidence, we should question our interpretation of scripture rather than the empirical evidence. Of course, it's also not simply a matter of non-literal interpretation. Some believers (like myself) simply do not take scripture as infallible, but instead read it as a testament of belief from a group of inspired but fallible authors struggling with their faith.

[Potemkin]

Some believers (like myself) simply do not take scripture as infallible, but instead read it as a testament of belief from a group of inspired but fallible authors struggling with their faith.

If that's the case, then where does this leave Protestantism?

[Quantum]

Religion is too intrinsic to the human mind to ever disappear from society and even atheists like Richard Dawkins define themselves as cultural Christians. Religion will just evolve or people will adopt a new religion that is suited to a post-industrial society, like Scientology or a New Age religion.

[Drlee]

If that's the case, then where does this leave Protestantism?

Atheists sure can't let go of their poor argument easily, can they? Take away the inerrancy argument and they are left with....not much.

Why would you think that "Protestantism" is threatened by the belief that the Bible contains allegory and myth along with history and revealed truth? According to Gallup a majority of Americans believe the Bible is not to be taken literally. About 30% interpret the Bible literally. But even that does not tell the whole truth. What do the fundamentalists say about the Bible? Well Biblical scholar from of the largest fundamentalist denominations says this:

“The Bible is primarily a book of religion.” He explains, “To say that the Bible is an authoritative book does not mean that it is authoritative in every field of human thought. It is not an authority in science. It does not claim to be.” Hobbs also writes, “The Bible lays no claim to being a textbook of history, literature, philosophy, psychology or science. Yet it contains true elements of all these and more.”

Is this new? Nope. I found this from the Baptist Union in 1840:

“We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are revealed from God,
and that they contain the only true system of faith and practice.”

This is a far cry from inerrancy.

Sorry Potemkin. What you SAY are common Christian beliefs...aren't. Further. They are not even that common. I think you would be hard pressed even in the Southern US to find many folks who believe even the creation story literally.

[Heisenberg]

If that's the case, then where does this leave Protestantism?

The Protestant doctrine of "Sola scriptura" does not necessarily imply that scripture is infallible; merely that it is the highest authority for the Christian believer. That is, if Church tradition and the Bible are in conflict, then the Bible takes precedent. It does not mandate how scripture is to be interpreted, though. Martin Luther, for example, wasn't a literalist: literalism was a later interpretation of his position. As you said, it emerged as a reaction to the Enlightenment, rather than as the logical consequence of Luther's work.

[Potemkin]

Thanks for the clarification, Heisenberg.

[Rich]

I was 13 when cosmic microwave background radiation confirmed the Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's single point (big bang) theory as the most likely. Interestingly this theory was more palatable to religious people than was the competing steady-state theory.)

That's exactly why I've long been suspicious of Big Bang. It seemed like a demythologised, or perhaps that should be re-mythologised Genesis. This was before it became Big Bang + inflation + dark matter + dark energy + any other giant fiddle factors that I'm not aware of.

[Drlee]

That's exactly why I've long been suspicious of Big Bang. It seemed like a demythologised, or perhaps that should be re-mythologised Genesis. This was before it became Big Bang + inflation + dark matter + dark energy + any other giant fiddle factors that I'm not aware of.

You are suspicious of it because you think it is some kind of Judeo Christian conspiracy? The evidence has been on the table for about 40 years now. Some pretty heavy-hitting atheists have embraced it.

Of course it might not be true. Either way would matter little to Christians. That was not the point of my mentioning it though. I mentioned it to point out that it is probably not a good idea to go too far back in confronting Christians and others with evidence. Much of that evidence is pretty recent.

In any case, the majority of Christians see little or no problem with reconciling their faith with science.

[uggabugga]

The question is why America is becoming atheist and it is suggested by an orthodox priest?

In my experience it is the ultra fundamentalist protestants among us who ask those questions, not representatives of the less known Christian sects whose origins are in the far East. But no matter...

My answer, however, is that we are not becoming less engaged with God but less interested in religions. It seems to me that this is a strong indicator of what I believe and that is that we change over time. Call it evolution if you want. We grow spiritually all the time. When religions fail us we leave them behind. It's easy for the critic then to say that we are becoming non-believers. Can I suggest to everyone that God places our feet on the correct paths via mental stimulation so that we can enlarge our faith in order to discover the higher truths? Does religion support this supposition? Sometimes.

God is eternal. Religions are man made, of the earth, and are not to be found in heaven.