On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:49:44 -0800, penitent leper
<bastaschs@peak.org> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:16:56 GMT,
(William)
wrote:
Both Harry Potter and the Exodus account describe events that may or
may not have occurred in the real world.
No. Potter describes - and purports to describe - fictional events
only. It does not claim to be an authentic record of a real
experience of spirit/god/the divine. Sacred literature claims to
describe authentic reactions to authentic encounters with the divine,
and whether or not the Exodus occurred in "objective" spacetime is a
secondary consideration to the story's merit and meaning.
Let's try and get this clear. Both 'Harry Potter' and the Exodus
describe events in the real world. They either describe events that
actually happened or they describe fictional events. If the writer
specifically states that the events are fictional and should never be
taken as literally true then they probably are not literally true. If
the described events are also wildly unlikely to have happened and no
current world view relies on them being literally true then it would
be perverse to try and take them as literally true
The Harry Potter stories fit the above (although I'm not sure about
the specific statements that they are not to be taken as literally
true)
The Exodus account, however, does not fit the above on any count.
About the only reason that Christians are prepared to label it
fictional is that they are embarrassed about it's contents if it was
taken as literally true. They are embarrassed about the morality of
what the Lord allegedly commands the Israelites to do (slaughter men
women and children for something their parents did). They are
embarrassed by the lack, or conflicts, of evidence for the Exodus
itself.
They seem prepared to see the events (and the many other described
events in the OT) as fiction even though that renders much of their
doctrines based on these events as empty.
Someone has to decide whether
they did, in fact, occur in the real world. If they describe events
that took place in the real world then they have value in themselves;
The real world is more than the atomic swirl proposed by
reductionism - which, it turns out, is founded on an invisible
subreality that behaves more like spirit than like Newtonian matter.
You've been reading to much post modernist thinking. The "invisible
sub reality" of modern science is the most robust and rigorously
tested explanation of the real world we have ever had.
If they are not literally true then they can be mean whatever you
like. That's the beauty of fiction - it doesn't have to relate to
reality.
False, on two counts:
1)Even truth is susceptible to varying interpretations. So your
implication that "literal truth" is not susceptible to varying
meanings and subjective interpretation is invalid.
Whether something is describing objective reality or a fictional
reality is very different from the question of whether our perceptions
of objective reality are accurate or not. If some description of the
world is to be taken as literally true (ie it describes an event that
occurred objectively) then the more information you are given the
closer to the objective truth you get. If it is not to be taken as
literally true then all the information in the world does not help you
to get to the objective truth; you have to decide whether there is an
objective truth somewhere in it and you have to decide what that truth
might be. Unless the writer cashes in, all that is open to
interpretation.
Sacred literature is not about accessing "the objective truth".
It's about accessing subjective "soul" truth. As such it is
unquantifiable, and it doesn't need to be.
But where these writings describe things that purport to happen in
objective reality they have to check out. If they are wrong about what
you can check then why should you take the slightest notice of them
when they talk about things you can't check?
OK. So you decide whether an account in the bible is describing real
events on the basis of whether it fits the evidence or not.
No, I'm saying that we differ on the definition of "real" if you're
confining "real" to quantifiable objective events.
I'm saying that even non-objective, non-historical, non-literal
biblical events can be powerfully true even if - and especially if -
they are mythical and subjective.
You are not making any sense. If something is not literally true and
did not happen objectively in history then that is a pretty powerful
case for it not being true. Sounds like you are just making words mean
what you want them to mean.
I'm saying that _some_ of the Bible depicts external material
events, such as the seven socioreligious roles I listed for the
historical ministry of Jesus. I am also saying that if there was some
way of invalidating the list, these narratives would still have
meaningful symbolic value.
If there are problems they are myth
It's not defined by "problems". Such "problems" are artifacts of
materialistic/reductionistic modern thinking, e.g., "JC couldn't have
walked on water, so it didn't happen". The point is, even if it
didn't happen, the KIND OF STORY THAT IT IS - its literary genre -
determines its meaning and its value. In the case of JC walking on
water, the meaning is, as J Crossan has said, "Face the storms without
Jesus? Forget it. But face the storms with Jesus? That's the way to
go." The meaning of the story is not dependent on an external,
historical miracle of water-walking. The story is dependent on the
Christian experience that familiarity with Jesus is life-enhancing.
I've covered that in my other posts.
[snipped similar]
So you decide whether something in the bible is to be taken as
literally true on the basis on whether or not it can be verified
objectively. That is a very noble approach.
No, it can't be verified objectively. It can, however, be compared
and contrasted to known categories. When this is done, very good
reasons emerge for taking points 1) thru 7) seriously. That's not
objective verification, but it is extremely suggestive of historical
probity.
As far as "nobility of approach" - it's no more or less noble than
what goes on in thousands of laboratories daily. It's just basic
truth-seeking. But it also acknowledges that not all truths are
susceptible of being objectively verified - nor should they be.
Objective verification is the only method we have to sort out the
false claims about reality from the genuine ones. If you were charged
with a crime where the 'truth' of your guilt was not objectively
verified you would expect the charge to be thrown out.
Unfortunately it turns out
that a lot of the bits that relate to the real world
The real world which includes both objective external reality and
inner subjective reality.
have big
questions marks over them so are better not taken as literally true.
That's all very well but why should we then take as literally true the
bits that cannot be checked (eg the supernatural).
The supernatural - in whose favor I have not yet uttered one single
argument - cannot be verified objectively. The best that could be
done is to verify its effects.
If the effects are verified objectively then that would be sufficient.
The supernatural is a spirit realm.
Unlike matter, spirit, which is nonmaterial, cannot be quantified.
However, its putative effects could at least theoretically be
quantified. Its effects: quantifiable. Its ultimate cause:
nonquantifiable - "god" could have done it, or maybe not. Any
interpretation of a supernatural event would be guesswork, an attempt
to fill in the gap that begins where the evidence leaves off.
But it wouldn't have to be if there was proper verifiable evidence for
the spirit, or for the supernatural, or for God.
And why should we
accept the truth of any of the myriads of 'interpretations' when the
clear reading is said not to be literally true?
Because nonliteral truth is our birthright, just as is literal
truth.
You'll have to explain what non-literal truth is. If it is (as you
seem to be saying) that truth claims that we cannot test have any
value then you will to show what that value is. If you make enough
untestable truth claims about reality you may eventually hit a valid
one but how would you (or we) distinguish that one from all the rest?
That is the crux of the issue.
William
.
