There are no answers in Genesis

[Fake Messiah]

Because the literal was, and still is, the least important way to approach scripture.

Just the contrary, Genesis must be taken literally by Christians because Jesus having himself tortured and executed for a metaphorical sin committed by a non-existent individual would be barking mad.

Take Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, for example. He claimed in the 20th century that literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis should be abandoned in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. And what happened to him? In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements. This was the first of a series of condemnations by a range of ecclesiastical officials that would continue until after Teilhard's death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 warning of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cautioning on Teilhard's works. In 1981, the Holy See stated that they did not change the position of the warning issued by the Holy Office on 30 June 1962, which pointed out that Teilhard's work contained ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors.

[emjay]

I just meant that what's most important to me to evaluate as a claim to truth, for the sake of my own beliefs, is only the author's original intent.

I certainly don't mean to criticize, if this is what most interests you about the texts. It's a fascinating question.

I'm sure you know how difficult it is, since we can't really know the answer. Ancient writers didn't operate under the current academic rules about sticking to one's own genre, and properly attributing sources, what's original, etc. After Plato died lots of people wrote "dialogues of Plato" containing what they thought he would have said if he'd had more time, and signed Plato's name to them. It took centuries to work out which ones are by the man himself, and there is still disagreement. 

One source I read suggested that the Genesis creation stories were written quite late, during the time of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and were intended as founding myths to solidify religious coherence in the face of competing myths from nearby competition. As you know from the OT, Hebrews were continually tempted away to nearby faiths due to more popular festivals, less strict commandments, etc. So it's quite likely that the 6-day creation and Adam and Eve were relatively late and intended as national foundation myths, like the tall tales Americans tell about their Founding Fathers. (I don't think this has been proven; it's one theory among others.) 

So there are a large number of interlocking problems: was it written when they claim it was written? Was it re-edited to get a different meaning later on? 

Did the original author even intend it as a claim to truth, or as something more like a "speech act"; an act which, by speaking something, something is made to change? Such acts may not be evaluable in terms of truth or falsehood. 

Anyway, you could have a good long career working on these issues, and I'm sure people have. It's not irrelevant by any means.

To be fair, I didn't mean it in any high brow academic sense, just at face value; just as I read it when I was a child growing up with Christianity, and now as an adult that doesn't read the Bible very often. Granted in the past I have read books about the historicity of Jesus and/or the history of the Bible itself... but a long time ago, and I don't remember much of what was said, but yes I accept that face-value is probably not the most accurate approach to reading the Bible, but I have to admit, I do find it surprising to find a theist (or however you class yourself... maybe we can create a new classification (if it doesn't already exist) 'agnostic theist'?; someone who believes there's a God, but doesn't know which, or doesn't know the nature of which) advocating technical analysis of the Bible, because in my experience, that only tends to further cement my atheism. But then, I think that brings us back to the crux of what this whole discussion is about, namely what we each respectively get from reading the Bible. Clearly... and interestingly... it's very different...

If you're saying that there are far reaching consequences from the views that have built up around those original texts, some allegorical, some not... basically all the different schisms of Christianity and all their negative affects on the world... then I don't dispute that and in that sense agree with you and Belacqua that that is indeed important, practically if nothing else. 

Yeah, I don't think we're fighting at all. More a question of which part interests us. 

To me, the Book of Job, for example, can be analyzed textually to try to figure out when exactly it was written, and in what context, so we can make educated guesses about what its original authors may have meant. 

But the significance of the Book of Job for history, for the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Western thought in general, doesn't rely on that original intent. Like it or not, the Book of Job now consists of the original text plus all of the influential interpretations which have come since, including those of Blake and Jung. It's impossible for 21st century people to read it as ancient people did. 

Maybe we could compare it to those guys who dress up and do Civil War reenactments on weekends. They can learn a lot about what really happened, and can refine the accuracy of their uniforms, placements on the battlefield, etc. But there is no possible way they can experience what those soldiers experienced. What the modern guys do is a different thing. Likewise, 21st century readers can't experience a text the way the old guys did.

This is not just my crazy idea, either. Mostly I am thinking here of Roland Barthes and what he said about the "death of the author," which (like so many ideas in literary hermeneutics) is taken into the secular from Bible hermeneutics. The idea is just that once the text is "out there," and becomes the property of its readers, it is no longer limited to what the original author had in mind. This is not to say that every interpretation is equally good -- just that the text becomes an open-ended source of dialectic and debate, not an authoritative list of facts.

Yes, I certainly agree that interpreting old or ancient texts in light of modern biases is likely to lead to much getting 'lost in translation', though I admit it had largely slipped my mind. But this 'death of the author' idea again I think speaks to the crux of this discussion, which I think needs a little bit of analysis...

Presumably we both start with the same question 'does God exist?' (or even 'does a god exist?')?
From there can we, or do we, agree that there are only two ways to answer that question:
1. personal experience - what we experience in our own minds
2. indirect experience, ie through [accepting or rejecting] the claims of others

If we've got this far I think we're probably already starting to diverge on what we mean by each of these things...

Starting with personal experience:

For me, the concept of [divinely] inspired, even potentially, is very difficult. Since I believe the brain and psychology to wholly explain at least the content of our experience (ie not experience itself... that - discussion of the nature of consciousness - is something else) that leaves little room for external influence, or at least such influence I'd consider unfalsifiable and therefore unreliable and untrustable, and thus certainly not informative in any reliable way regarding the original question, does [a] god exist. For instance, if I have an idea, even a novel, unexpected, or unwelcome idea, I'd attribute that to my subconscious ticking away, combining and recombining what I've already learnt... ie nothing new under the sun, just a recombination of existing components... that's my general view. Likewise if I see a 'sign' stand out to me, such as the oft-quoted 'Jesus in a piece of toast', then prior bias and/or what I've recently been thinking about fully explains to me that phenomenon, just as it does with a Rorschach test. So someone already grappling with issues of religion (ie thinking about and thus priming it) sees a cross stand out to them in the stars or on a piece of toast, that to me would not be grounds enough to believe in God, but for many people it is, yourself perhaps included?, I don't know.

For you, I can only speculate. I don't think I've ever seen you talk about signs, but you do talk about 'inspired' a lot. So that already seems a great divergence between our views; to you [externally] 'inspired' seems to have great importance, but to me, it's very dubious and uninformative towards the question because it's inherently unreliable and unfalsifiable.

Moving on to indirect experience:

For me, given my view of my own personal experience, and the unreliability of the concept of external inspiration within, you can imagine how much weight I give to those sorts of claims from others. Basically then, that avenue, of personal experience - inspiration, signs, etc - is closed to me as a way of answering the original question, leaving only concrete testable claims as something that would satisfy and help answer that question for me, and the truth or falsity of which speaking to the credibility of the 'claimant' especially as a mouthpiece for god, if such is the claim.

For you, again I can only speculate. For you, the importance seems to lie in the ideas themselves rather than their authenticity (or original ownership). Is that because the question 'is there a god?' is already answered for you (ie by Aquinas' arguments etc)? And all this search for 'inspiration' is just about honing in on the nature of that god? Basically if you're not looking for, and informed by (regarding the original question), concrete claims in the Bible, or any other text (since you've said elsewhere that in this regard, you're accepting truth from multiple sources, or that there can be multiple truths), what are you looking for?

---

Basically, as much as you found my perspective bizarre... I find yours, and by extension Neo's (ie that a literal reading is least important... to me it's the most important, because it, and it's attendant concrete claims, is the only avenue left that could convince)... equally strange. But that's not a judgment, just a statement of fact... and it's interesting trying to analyze and work out the differences.

[Angrboda]

Why did theologians, for centuries, take the Genesis account literally?

Because the literal was, and still is, the least important way to approach scripture.

I'm so glad that God has chosen to visit this forum to tell us what's what. We'd be lost without him.

[Jehanne]

Why did theologians, for centuries, take the Genesis account literally?

Because the literal was, and still is, the least important way to approach scripture.

Once again, you can't explain why Bishop Ussher was widely praised by churchmen, both Protestant and Catholic, can you? No one chided him for having been "too literal" in his interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Why not?

[The Architect Of Fate]

As i said before it's not to be taken literally when it's obvious nonsense then it becomes ultra literal when they need it to be to condemn stuff they don't like.

[Belacqua]

Presumably we both start with the same question 'does God exist?' (or even 'does a god exist?')?
From there can we, or do we, agree that there are only two ways to answer that question:
1. personal experience - what we experience in our own minds
2. indirect experience, ie through [accepting or rejecting] the claims of others

Oh my, this is a big jump. 

I don't think I address the question of whether God exists or not. I certainly don't know the answer.

Generally what I do on this forum is provide counter evidence of the extremely shallow objections made by many atheists. Many false claims are made about history, and many arguments against theology are shallow and silly. So generally what I do is talk about the poor quality of the arguments, rather than my own conclusions. 

That said, the two categories you give make sense. One can know things from personal experience or through reading the claims of others. 

Though I think you'll agree that personal experience in and of itself doesn't constitute knowledge. An experience has to be interpreted, and the way we interpret things depends very much on the claims of others. So nothing is pure here. An experience that one person interprets as mystical union with God will be interpreted by another as a temporary aberration in brain chemistry. 

For you, I can only speculate. I don't think I've ever seen you talk about signs, but you do talk about 'inspired' a lot. So that already seems a great divergence between our views; to you [externally] 'inspired' seems to have great importance, but to me, it's very dubious and uninformative towards the question because it's inherently unreliable and unfalsifiable.

I agree that there's a great deal going on in the mind, including the subconscious mind. Things which some people will interpret as signs or inspirations, others will attribute to different, more mundane sources. 

Moving on to indirect experience:

For me, given my view of my own personal experience, and the unreliability of the concept of external inspiration within, you can imagine how much weight I give to those sorts of claims from others. Basically then, that avenue, of personal experience - inspiration, signs, etc - is closed to me as a way of answering the original question, leaving only concrete testable claims as something that would satisfy and help answer that question for me, and the truth or falsity of which speaking to the credibility of the 'claimant' especially as a mouthpiece for god, if such is the claim.

Yes, this is pretty much the same. We are aware that different people will attribute their experiences to different sources. 

For you, again I can only speculate. For you, the importance seems to lie in the ideas themselves rather than their authenticity (or original ownership).

There are many ideas in religion which I find wise and beautiful. This doesn't mean that I've signed up to the whole religion, or its conclusions. 

Like it or not, for a very long time most serious thought concerning the mind, morals, and aesthetics were carried out in religious frameworks. It would be a great waste to throw all this out and start from scratch. (In fact I think the influence of religious thought remains strong in most atheists whether they're aware of it or not, so we can't really avoid it.)

 Is that because the question 'is there a god?' is already answered for you (ie by Aquinas' arguments etc)? 

Absolutely not. I do not know.

And all this search for 'inspiration' is just about honing in on the nature of that god? Basically if you're not looking for, and informed by (regarding the original question), concrete claims in the Bible, or any other text (since you've said elsewhere that in this regard, you're accepting truth from multiple sources, or that there can be multiple truths), what are you looking for?

Well, in a non-supernatural way I think it's good to be inspired by the wise writing of people from all traditions. I'm not sure if there can be "multiple truths" if this means that contradictory claims can both be true. I certainly think that thinkers from outside our own recent tradition can challenge us to think more carefully about things we take for granted -- economic, political, aesthetic, ethical -- and at the very least show us that what seems so obvious that it requires no thought is actually contingent on temporary conditions. The worst thing would be to be stuck in a little narrow range of beliefs and spend your time stamping out anything which falls outside this acceptable range. (And one sees this happen a great deal.) 

The world is rich and beautiful in its diversity and I would hate to be one of those people who spends his time attacking difference. Especially if it's difference of which I have a very shallow understanding.

[arewethereyet]

Presumably we both start with the same question 'does God exist?' (or even 'does a god exist?')?
From there can we, or do we, agree that there are only two ways to answer that question:
1. personal experience - what we experience in our own minds
2. indirect experience, ie through [accepting or rejecting] the claims of others

Oh my, this is a big jump. 

I don't think I address the question of whether God exists or not. I certainly don't know the answer.

Generally what I do on this forum is provide counter evidence of the extremely shallow objections made by many atheists. Many false claims are made about history, and many arguments against theology are shallow and silly. So generally what I do is talk about the poor quality of the arguments, rather than my own conclusions. 

---

That said, the two categories you give make sense. One can know things from personal experience or through reading the claims of others. 

Though I think you'll agree that personal experience in and of itself doesn't constitute knowledge. An experience has to be interpreted, and the way we interpret things depends very much on the claims of others. So nothing is pure here. An experience that one person interprets as mystical union with God will be interpreted by another as a temporary aberration in brain chemistry. 

For you, I can only speculate. I don't think I've ever seen you talk about signs, but you do talk about 'inspired' a lot. So that already seems a great divergence between our views; to you [externally] 'inspired' seems to have great importance, but to me, it's very dubious and uninformative towards the question because it's inherently unreliable and unfalsifiable.

I agree that there's a great deal going on in the mind, including the subconscious mind. Things which some people will interpret as signs or inspirations, others will attribute to different, more mundane sources. 

Moving on to indirect experience:

For me, given my view of my own personal experience, and the unreliability of the concept of external inspiration within, you can imagine how much weight I give to those sorts of claims from others. Basically then, that avenue, of personal experience - inspiration, signs, etc - is closed to me as a way of answering the original question, leaving only concrete testable claims as something that would satisfy and help answer that question for me, and the truth or falsity of which speaking to the credibility of the 'claimant' especially as a mouthpiece for god, if such is the claim.

Yes, this is pretty much the same. We are aware that different people will attribute their experiences to different sources. 

For you, again I can only speculate. For you, the importance seems to lie in the ideas themselves rather than their authenticity (or original ownership).

There are many ideas in religion which I find wise and beautiful. This doesn't mean that I've signed up to the whole religion, or its conclusions. 

Like it or not, for a very long time most serious thought concerning the mind, morals, and aesthetics were carried out in religious frameworks. It would be a great waste to throw all this out and start from scratch. (In fact I think the influence of religious thought remains strong in most atheists whether they're aware of it or not, so we can't really avoid it.)

 Is that because the question 'is there a god?' is already answered for you (ie by Aquinas' arguments etc)? 

Absolutely not. I do not know.

And all this search for 'inspiration' is just about honing in on the nature of that god? Basically if you're not looking for, and informed by (regarding the original question), concrete claims in the Bible, or any other text (since you've said elsewhere that in this regard, you're accepting truth from multiple sources, or that there can be multiple truths), what are you looking for?

Well, in a non-supernatural way I think it's good to be inspired by the wise writing of people from all traditions. I'm not sure if there can be "multiple truths" if this means that contradictory claims can both be true. I certainly think that thinkers from outside our own recent tradition can challenge us to think more carefully about things we take for granted -- economic, political, aesthetic, ethical -- and at the very least show us that what seems so obvious that it requires no thought is actually contingent on temporary conditions. The worst thing would be to be stuck in a little narrow range of beliefs and spend your time stamping out anything which falls outside this acceptable range. (And one sees this happen a great deal.) 

The world is rich and beautiful in its diversity and I would hate to be one of those people who spends his time attacking difference. Especially if it's difference of which I have a very shallow understanding.

---

[The Architect Of Fate]

Generally what I do on this forum is provide counter evidence of the extremely shallow objections made by many atheists.

Then you do it poorly 

[Belacqua]

For you, I can only speculate. I don't think I've ever seen you talk about signs, but you do talk about 'inspired' a lot. 

One issue here is that (I'm frequently told) I'm only supposed to talk about the anthropomorphic Sky-Daddy God which modern American Christians on TV seem to believe in. This is of no interest to me. 

For the God of Classical Theism, which is entirely different from the Santa Claus God, inspiration works very differently. And this sort of thing, whether we conclude in the end that it's supernatural or not, is wise and beautiful. 

So the Official God of the Atheist Forum is an active force who will give you a sign by reaching down and putting a picture of Jesus on your toast. Wisely, no one here accepts such a thing. 

Dante's experience with Beatrice is the most famous example of the non-Santa-God type of inspiration. 

For Dante (as for all Christians coming from a Neoplatonic tradition) all good in the world originates in God and, if we love it, inspires us to return our love to God. Because of his particular character and dispositions, Dante was particularly struck by Beatrice's goodness and was inspired by her. He could experience something of the goodness of God through her example. The point here is that she was not a saint like Catherine of Siena or a local celebrity like Simonetta Vespucci. She was not particularly noticeable except to Dante. 

In cases of inspiration like this, there is no active input from God, who is (for Dante) impassible and ideal. The way inspiration works is that some aspect of his goodness happens to grab us and cause us to see the world differently than we did before. It opens our doors of perception and shows us that things could be different and better, and that material objects in this world point to something ideal. 

This type of inspiration is frequently cited in the mystical tradition. It also takes on an important role in the aesthetic thought of the German Idealists, who are less explicitly Christian about it, but nonetheless give great weight to the experience of inspiration. And I take this type of inspiration very seriously. Obviously I won't talk about personal experiences on this forum where mockery is the norm, but I do believe there is something real going on there.

[emjay]

@Belacqua

Just so you know, all these passive-aggressive remarks you make against atheism and this forum aren't lost on me, I just choose for the most part to try and ignore them. But for the record, in case it matters to you, it makes me feel uncomfortable talking to you when you're talking this way, whether I personally am included included in those attacks or not... I persevere for the sake of a potentially interesting discussion... but just so you know where I stand, I do feel it ruins, or at least taints, what would otherwise be a perfectly civil, interesting, and pleasant conversation. Obviously it's your prerogative what you do, but just stating how I feel for the record.