(June 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm)Darwinian Wrote: But doesn't that go against the teachings of Genesis? I take it that you interpret this part of the bible in a non literal, poetic sense. If that is the case, how do you know that the whole bible isn't intended to be taken that way.
Basically, how do you pick and choose which parts to take as gospel and which not, if you'll excuse the pun..
Pun excused!
It's a good question. If I'm willing to say Genesis is not literal, how do I refute someone who says that the resurrection isn't either?
To answer this, I will assume that miracles happen. I know that's a big assumption, but it should enable me to explain things from my point of view, and we can always discuss it in another thread.
I decide which parts to view as literal in various ways. One is literary analysis - e.g. the Psalms are written in a poetic style, and so don't need to be taken literally (although you can still learn a lot from them).
Another way, and the one I'll focus on, is based on types of evidence. The evidence against the resurrection runs as follows: We have never in our lives observed someone rising from the dead. Therefore, people do not rise from the dead. But I believe in miracles, so I can say that God intervened and the normal laws of nature do not apply (I'm putting this crudely, I know, but it saves lengthy exposition).
The evidence against a literal reading of Genesis runs as follows: Genesis says that the earth was made in 7 days (etc.), but we have evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Genesis cannot be taken literally.
The difference between the two is this: With the resurrection, we have inferential evidence against that kind of event occurring. With Genesis, we have evidence against that specific event having occurred.
With the resurrection, the evidence says 'This kind of event is extremely unlikely', to which I can reply that there may have been a miracle.
With Genesis, the evidence says 'In this instance, there was no miracle' (at least , none of that kind).
So when there is evidence against a specific event having occurred the way a literal reading of the Bible would have it, then I'm inclined to take that as showing we shouldn't read it literally. When there is evidence against an event of that type, but not the specific event itself then I have no problem with a literal reading.
So no amount of still-dead dead people will convince me that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Show me the bones of Jesus (I don't ask for much!) and I have a problem.
Remember, this is an explanation of my beliefs, not an argument for them. I am fully aware that as an argument it closely resembles a colander.
Cleanthes
