Interpreting the bible

Call me simple (most apologists call me simple, or worse), but I think there are three ways to look at the bible (or any other "holy" book). Either it's literally true, or it has got to be interpreted or there's an incomprehensible ontological argument I frankly don't understand.

The, "it's literally true", argument is quite simplistic. It's quite wrong and it deserves all the ridicule in the world. But! It's a brave stance based on the actual historical way people looked at the bible. Once upon a time people believed that the cosmology of the bible (etc) was correct. Only after the advent of the scientific method has this view been reluctantly abandoned by most religious folks.

The, "it has got to be interpreted", argument has several problems, in my opinion. For instance, nobody knows which interpretation is the correct one which explains the multiple denominations. Another problem is the cherry picking of parts of the bible that are considered to be literally true. Some say that Mary was literally a virgin and others say she was not. The biggest problem, I think, is the fact that it's a tacit admission that the bible got it wrong.

Lastly, there's the ontological argument which, if I understand correctly, boils down to: "Blah, blah blah, loads of complicated words ... therefore god", but maybe it's really "Blah, blah blah, loads of complicated words ... let's call 'reality', 'god' because reality exists ... therefore god".

The last person who used the ontological argument in a convo, basically said that "god is abstract" (gods is something that happens in the brain) and abstractions can cause things to happen in the real world. So, math is an abstraction. You can use math to calculate stuff, therefore math affects the real world.

This is an interesting argument, but it doesn't hold water. Math is an abstraction of reality. Gods are an abstraction of irreality. It is not the same.

Gods can perform miracles. Whatever thoughts you have, whatever deeds you do based on those thoughts, you cannot perform miracles. This is the difference between math and gods.

As always, comments are welcome.

Photo: il pensatore tormentato (prex79)

Comments

  1. Unknown9 September 2018 at 02:06

    Ontological argument gets bad press even in Geisler's Cosmological conclusions from Jastrow much better. Point noted about various interpretations of Genesis. There is always textual criticism to get to the best possible view, I mean if Jesus says something about Genesis, then that would be the prevailing view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elholandesdelacasa10 September 2018 at 09:44

      Scratch my head. Jesus? Dead guys don't say anything about Genesis.

      Delete
  2. Unknown9 September 2018 at 03:33

    I think the main idea is to just to read the Bible for itself and not be overly concerned about the interpretations of others. There are big claims for Biblical texts, such as that they will last forever like in Isaiah or the Messiah's quote that the heavens and Earth will pass before one stroke of the Law, in Matthew's gospel account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elholandesdelacasa10 September 2018 at 09:46

      When you read the bible and you compare the biblical story with our current understanding of physics, it seems clear that the bible is plainly wrong on the creation account.

      It's as simple as that and no amount of apologetics will change that.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies. P1 → C1, ¬C1        ¬
Read more

Abortion

Image
You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g
Read more