I have run across this claim in a few settings recently. It is not very helpful to the Christian position, nor is it even remotely persuasive to the skeptic.
First of all, it sounds like back-pedaling. As if the person saying sees an error and is trying to justify the Bible’s inability to be accurate. (Curiously, this phrase is often followed by “but the Bible is scientifically accurate” which seems to make the first worry useless. If the Bible is scientifically accurate, who cares about it being a science textbook or not.)
It looks like this:
Skeptic: The Bible claims that rabbits chew cud.
Christian: The Bible is not a Science Textbook.
It sure looks as if the Christian is agreeing that the Bible is inaccurate as to what is scientifically correct, but is trying to explain it away.
However, this does not help the claim that the Bible is super-natural. If the defense for why the Bible is wrong, is that humans were writing with the best knowledge they had at the moment—what makes this different than any other human work? What makes that particularly divine?
The point is not whether Moses knew about cud-chewing rabbits, but the fact that God would have known. If God is involved, shouldn’t it have at the least the knowledge of what humans know now? Sure, God can know more than us, but wouldn’t he know at least as much as us?
Or the order of light being created before the sun. Or flowering plants before the sun. Or birds before animals. Or how many animals would have to fit in that Ark? I am not holding the Bible to using the same scientific language we do today. Just because the Bible does not break out animals into mammals and reptiles, for example, does not make it inaccurate. It can classify animals as it chooses. But not make them do things they do not do, or appear when they do not appear.
What other types of textbooks is the Bible not?
As I have discussed, it is not historically accurate when it comes to Exodus. Can we also say, “The Bible is not a history book”? It has its numbers jumbled in various places, can we also say “The Bible is not a mathematics book?” It has some questionable ethical schemes—“The Bible is not a moral guide”?
What is left? Is it various humans providing their individual insights as to God’s relationship with humans? What is unique about that? What is divine there? Wouldn’t we expect in a human work to see variations and errors, based upon each human’s limited knowledge? Isn’t that what we see?
Or do we do even better as humans? A science textbook has no pretensions to be an English textbook. Yet it is written grammatically correct. If we saw misspellings in a science book, so we shrug it off with “Well…it’s not an English textbook.” Nope. We call them “errors.” An English textbook will use mathematics in the numbering of pages and chapters. If it skipped from Chapter 4 to Chapter 12, would we ignore it under the premise it is not a math book?
If God wanted to write an allegory of the creation of the universe—is it so difficult to do so by having the sun come before the light? Why is God getting the excuse for what appears to be human error?
No, the Bible is not a science book. But by being less knowledgeable in science than we are, it sure appears to be non-divine. Otherwise we seem to know more than God did 2600 years ago.
Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically wrong? Then how does that support divinity? Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically correct? Then why make excuses as to how it is not a science book?
Friday, June 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gee whiz Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteCan't you give "God" a break?
It's not that "God's Word" is wrong, just that "His ways are not are ways..."
There was light before the sun because God was present and he is the light of the world.
And rabbits do chew their cud, but only on days when the sun stops revolving around the earth.
Seriously though, it would be easier for those who believe in bible inerrancy, be it scientific or otherwise, if they realized it's not "God" who is wrong, but their beliefs.
"Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically wrong? Then how does that support divinity? Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically correct? Then why make excuses as to how it is not a science book?" (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteWho made science the measuring stick? I don't think it neccesarily is - but if this is what it needs to be - then I need to get a science degree to understand it (or discredit it).
SocietyVs: Who made science the measuring stick?
ReplyDeleteUh…you did. Remember our recent conversation on Exodus in which you initially claimed it occurred either in the 15th or 13th Century BCE based upon science?
And after I indicated that science showed that those dates are not possible, based upon other science, you amended your claim to an Exodus in 2200 BCE? However, this is quite contrary to 1 Kings 6:1.
I am sorry, SocietyVs, but we can’t switch from a topic in which you rely upon scientist after scientist in order to bolster the history record in the Bible, and when that fails, end up in a scientific response that counters the Bible and come here and ask the question “Who made science the measuring stick?”
Either you did in our previous discussion or (and I hate to use the term, but it fits) this has become a double standard where if science backs up the Bible you gladly embrace it, and when it does not you abandon it.
Shouldn’t I presume that bias has clouded your ability to respond in this regard? If you aren’t staying consistent….
I would agree that the Bible is not a science textbook. I would think that very fefw books from that time would ever qualify as 'science.' For starters, the things we can scientifically do today would get us labeled as sorcerers and then unpleasantly killed, no doubt.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't see how anyone can rationally claim that the Bible is a science textbook, given that the Bible focuses on the fact that God is mysterious and seperate, and requires something beyond the five senses in order to understand him. Science stays in the physical realm.
"Uh…you did. Remember our recent conversation on Exodus in which you initially claimed it occurred either in the 15th or 13th Century BCE based upon science?" (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteWhoa, whoa Dagoods before you make a call like this upon me - it would be nice to be a scientist first - as it is I am not. I made claims about some of the views that are out there and stated by various people about the archaelogy & history they have uncovered - and I merely presented these things as possible explanations for the Exodus to say 'this is not quite the finished piece of excavation yet'. What is worth noting - none of that research is actually 'mine'. But you said there was 'no proof' for the Exodus (your claim not mine - so you brought science into the discussion as a basis) and I related some others do not agree with you - including me - and this based on the same framework you have built this presupposition on. I am not a scientist - and I neither have made that claim about the bible you say 'i do'.
"And after I indicated that science showed that those dates are not possible, based upon other science, you amended your claim to an Exodus in 2200 BCE? However, this is quite contrary to 1 Kings 6:1." (Dagoods)
Interesting...not once did I say anything of the such about a Exodus event in 2200 BCE - I presented some ideas from around the Christian realm (some people that study it) - and Jewish realm (rabbi's) - and nothing more. As for the date, I made no such claim about that...I merely presented some ideas and stated this might have evidence - as for when - of I have to make a stand - I'll take the Jewish one I posted on my blog.
"but we can’t switch from a topic in which you rely upon scientist after scientist in order to bolster the history record in the Bible, and when that fails, end up in a scientific response that counters the Bible and come here and ask the question “Who made science the measuring stick?”" (Dagoods)
Damn rights I can and I did. You are the one presenting the idea about scientific underpinnings that the bible has to stand up to - not me - and I am merely relating the point back in the same lingo. For me the historical records are 'not all in' (something I did say) and further excavation is being done - of which I wait for the evidence in accordance with what you propose about an event (the exodus)..science is not my field whatsoever - but I merely find it a way to enter into discussion with you on terms you speak in (ie: scientific proofs). You claim a 'failure' and I don't - potatoe - potado - but it shows a level of belief/choice about something you neither can defintively close (not being an archaelogist either). So don't put your hang-ups on me.
"Either you did in our previous discussion or (and I hate to use the term, but it fits) this has become a double standard where if science backs up the Bible you gladly embrace it, and when it does not you abandon it." (Dagoods)
Wait...double standard? About what exactly? Is not science something we cannot close anyways (not exactly a definitive thing since things change in it)? Is not this the common idea within science - hypothesis - then tested - then foound true or false? My claim holds no double standard in it - I related points about the Exodus from other scholars who think there is evidence - that book is not quite closed to them. However, you are willing to close that book and make a call 'Exodus is a myth or something similar' - and what makes your claim better than theirs...science?
But as for science I merely engaged in the conversation with you about the historical evidences and nothing more - but for some odd reason this became a double standard? I have never ever claimed to use the bible as a science book - but I do think it is subject to archaeology & history and it's evidences - if that makes me look at this as a science book then I guess we have a double standard. That being said I also hold history books to the same standard (and there has been history about people groups that has been perverted and changed) - does mistakes in them remove the history? No. What's wrong with saying this - nothing. But you make claims that 'I am wrong' on the basis of your decisions about the evidence - well - that leaves me little room for discussion or anything of any relevance to be perfectly honest - you figured it out already. But don't claim I am holding a double standard because you want to 'put that on me to discredit me' - cause that's a little under-handed.
"Shouldn’t I presume that bias has clouded your ability to respond in this regard? If you aren’t staying consistent…." (Dagoods)
Well if it's consistency you desire from me - that's your judgment call about the things I write and pre-suppositions about my views of life, history, science, religion, etc. Your always going to try to find a loop-hole about what I say now - how grand that is for me. Your claiming my bias is clouding my judgment - and yours isn't? Even worse it's about me and my character (very subtly slipped into the convo)? I am going to say this definitively for all to hear 'I stated a viewpoint about the Exodus and you disagree with me concerning the evidences - and that is really all it is (and vice-versa)'. But again, if the bible has to be definitively defined right here and right now - the evidence is not totally in - and we have to continue to wait (that's my simple claim regarding science). You take a doubting position that I do not - why? Choice and belief about the evidence - simply put and nothing more.
But irregardless my claim still stands as written - who says this whole book has to stand up to science? I do not have a science degree and yet I can still discern the stories as they are and get inetrpretations of the stories...simply put. I do not make a claim that everything has to stand up to science - cause that would be misleading on my part...but merely history and archaeology - and these are parts of science (but again only parts - which are both subject to interpretation themselves thus clouding judgement irregardless). So if you see inconsistency in me - this is quite inevitable considering the tools we work with - but as it is - I see nothing inconsistent about my stand on the issue at hand - that book(s) and letters are not toally subject to scientific proofs altogether - but if someone wants to make that claim (never once came out of my mouth) then so be it - they can deal with that.
SocietyVs,
ReplyDeleteI guess I am puzzled. You asked, “Who made Science the Measuring stick?” as against the Bible. My impression was that, in our previous discussion, you were utilizing articles, written by people within their field of expertise (some very loosely) in order to bolster the Bible.
It appeared to me that your method was one of using science to confirm/deny the Bible. In fact, you left it open that it would require later discoveries (that we did not have enough, yet) in order to prove Exodus.
So when you asked “who made Science the Measuring Stick?” I was genuinely surprised, given the length and depth of research of our last discussion. I apologize if my response was offensive to you—I did not mean it to be.
Now, however, you have given two statements, in addition to what I perceived as your previous method:
SocietyVs: I have never ever claimed to use the bible as a science book - but I do think it is subject to archaeology & history and it's evidences… (Emphasis added
More: I do not make a claim that everything has to stand up to science - cause that would be misleading on my part...but merely history and archaeology - and these are parts of science (but again only parts - which are both subject to interpretation themselves thus clouding judgement irregardless).
If the Bible has to “stand up” to history and archaeology and is “subject to” archaeology & history (which you agree are parts of science) isn’t that making science the measuring stick? Do you understand why I am confused?
You are correct that you never explicitly stated a date in which you claim Exodus occurred. When we first raised the issued, you linked to a number of sites (five, to be precise) of which I took the time to read and review each one. All of them, as I recall, used either the 15th Century or the 13th Century date.
Is it that incredible that I presumed you were holding to one of those two dates? Seriously, SocietyVs, am I supposed to review your links and presume you do NOT hold them to be supportive of your position? In fact, now you claim these are the “proofs” upon which you rely! Are we playing some sort of bizarre game?
Then you asked (as near as I can tell) exactly one Jew as to what the entire Jewish position is and received (as near as I can tell) exactly one reply—and you feel you have now heard the entire Jewish position? If I told you I asked one Christian what the Christian view was on the historicity of Jesus, do you find that sufficient for me to claim that I am aware as to the entire Christian position on the subject?
Humorously, that position is based upon a radical re-dating of Egyptian chronology that is incorrect. And not proposed until the mid 20th Century C.E. Did the Jews not have a position on the dating of the Exodus until only 50 years or so ago?
And this new position has a date of 2200 BCE. It makes claims as to statements in Midrashic books. I have never been able to find support for those claims. (I’d heard this one before.) I asked if you could find me the portion they are talking about. I even gave you the Book on-line! Yet…no response.
It is THAT bias, SocietyVs, that is frustrating. Sure, I agree that I have biases as well. We all do. But don’t you want to do better? Don’t you want to become more? Rather than merely googlewhack some website—don’t you want to research the underlying claims? If this article says, “the Book of Jasher says…” don’t you want to look up the Book of Jasher to see if it says what the person is claiming?
Don’t you want to read both the pros and cons of the radical re-dating, to see the arguments from all sides? To see what everybody whether Christian, non-believer, Jew or skeptic is saying about these claims?
Honestly, SocietyVs, I have hopes that you can do better. What I see (and I am just being straight with you here) is a Christian that believed Exodus happened. When confronted by a skeptic, the only articles I see are those that support your original belief. Which is O.K.—that is what we as humans do. But I ask questions, I pointed out problems—where did “2%” come from? What is “the area”? How large is it? How far have they dug?
I didn’t ask these questions for information—I already know the answers. I asked it on the hopes that YOU would go and look it up for yourself. Question your own position. Research it. Learn. Grow. Don’t find what you want and stop. Dig. Tear it apart. Prop it back up. Dissect it.
True…I cannot make anyone do this. It is their choice. I can hope, though. I guess my penchant for discovery and trying to look at all sides of an issue is a “hang-up” I put on others. You are right—not everyone wants to.
More: My claim holds no double standard in it - I related points about the Exodus from other scholars who think there is evidence - that book is not quite closed to them. However, you are willing to close that book and make a call 'Exodus is a myth or something similar' - and what makes your claim better than theirs...science?
No, SocietyVs, the book is “closed” to them, too. They think it actually happened. They are not “waiting on some evidence”—they, like you, are already convinced it is history. They are hoping for confirmation of their belief.
This is a fairly common tactic in debate. There are certain words that somehow people think mean the argument is better. Like being “balanced” is claimed as better. And one of those words is “open-minded.”
For example, I often see the claim that Intelligent Design is a “better” claim because they are “open-minded” to the possibility of God, whereas the naturalist is not. ‘Course, the naturalist could equally claim that their argument is “better” because they are “open-minded” to the possibility of no god, whereas the theist is not. ‘Round and ‘round we go—since there is “open-mindedness” on either side of the equation, as long as we define what “open-minded” means.
Yep. I am close-minded as to certain things. Freely admit it. I am close-minded to the fact the earth orbits the sun. Being “open-minded” about the possibility of geocentricism does not make the argument for geocentricism any better. I am close-minded to the claim that pyramids make razor blades sharper. Again, being “open-minded” to that possibility does not make the arguments any stronger.
I am close-minded to the Jesus Myth theory—that there was no personage at the base of the claims about Jesus. Would you say, SocietyVs, that since all the evidence is not in (and never will be) that we should hold a wait-and-see approach as to whether Jesus existed? That we should be “open-minded” about the possibility Paul completely made up Jesus?
The reality is we are ALL open-minded and close-minded. The question is whether we are willing to set aside our bias (as much as possible), grow and learn and most importantly—be willing to change upon learning new information.
"So when you asked “who made Science the Measuring Stick?” I was genuinely surprised, given the length and depth of research of our last discussion" (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteBut it also is a fact I am not a scientist - so if this all hinges upon scientific fact(s) - then I really have no basis for saying anything irregardless - not being in the field afore discussed (thus the links in the 1st place - and I read them and they offer a lot of stuff to look over). But I can say history and archaeology may back up the claims (which I agree can happen and think it should stand up to) - but this is one aspect of the Tanakh - not the whole story (it is in the literature - theology field also). So even if it plays as a pseudo-history of sorts (then I guess we need to look into that) but it also relates a message - which is not subject to the sciences.
I think looking into all aspects makes sense to do - but for me to rule all the info is in and finalized - I have to refuse. Sorry if I hold to the opposite side as you - but the written word of those stories is also a proof of some sort isn't it? If we disagree there then so be it - but it still stood the test of time to make it to my bookshelf - and this book may also hold various theories (ex:myth, literal) but the view that holds more water currently in major opinion is the more literal area...I have to peruse that also.
"isn’t that making science the measuring stick? Do you understand why I am confused?" (Dagoods)
'Parts' of science being the keyword and if history is a science - it is more of a social science...and archaeology is about found pieces of evidence (observable) - which is also subject to it's own set of interpretations. But I think the bible does make claims to historical events (this is obvious from reading it) so I have very little problem with those aspects being discussed...but that does not make my position a 'scientific one' but one that agree's it is subject to the finds in those sciences. But chemistry, biology, and mathematics isn't really going to be of any use here - also sciences. So for the claim 'scientific textbook' well...it is not true. If anything it is a theological book framed in history (not my claim - that's in the Tanakh and Gospels clearly) - so science is part of the claim (I am open to that). But again, the facts of the case (for the Exodus) are still being hashed out - and good people on both sides hold to varying opinions - I look at the evidence and I leave the option open for an Exodus (I could be wrong - but that is quite alright - the evidence is still yet to be finalized).
"In fact, now you claim these are the “proofs” upon which you rely! Are we playing some sort of bizarre game?" (Dagoods)
Yes in some weird way - we are. I merely pointed out there is people on the Exodus side who think it happened and they are yet to nail down the date - but the Jewish position I got was 15th Century - since the book also claims these dates - which isn't altogether implausible. I am to make a bold case on a date all the while the links I provided are still arguing about this same thing (these being people who have studied it in depth)- I am not dead sure on that issue to be exact...but neither are they. The only realistic position is to say 'I am not sure - but my guess is the 15th century' - since this is corroborated by pieces of evidence and the Jewish position (again it is one position - but it is a few rabbi's holding it) - but again we will learn more in the future.
"Humorously, that position is based upon a radical re-dating of Egyptian chronology that is incorrect. And not proposed until the mid 20th Century C.E. Did the Jews not have a position on the dating of the Exodus until only 50 years or so ago?" (Dagoods)
Honestly, it was a site of a few rabbi's and can be questioned by the Jewish community (it is on-line) - so there is some merit it is an older position (holding to the literal dating within the bible) - which I have to imagine is the current widely held view - but if I need to survey a whole nation on this - likely won't happen.
It's not a new position about the dating - but a few scientists are trying to make senses of the dates with science - and they call for a re-dating of periods of the evidence - it's interesting but thrown as a theory - which is not widely held - but also not totally dis-proven. It's raising questions to dating and about the Exodus - if its disagreed with (okay) then so be it - but it's a perspective.
"But don’t you want to do better? Don’t you want to become more?" (Dagoods)
Better...more...of what? I am open to the claims you made and offer simple rebuttals - take them leave them discard them - but again, I am no scientist so I have to rely on someone else here concerning the evidence - I will weight the options as presented. I heard your side - I read it - considered it - and then thought 'is it true?'. Not everyone thinks so - and the evidence is not final - I say - I'll wait and see.
"they, like you, are already convinced it is history. They are hoping for confirmation of their belief." (Dagoods)
Convinced...hey I got questions about the Exodus too and I readily admit not all the proof is in - that's a little different than claiming this is 100% true (historically speaking). I like the Exodus story personally - but if we need more proof for it to be totally true/false - alright so be it - but then we can have some patience concerning the evidence at least. That's simple for me.
"Would you say, SocietyVs, that since all the evidence is not in (and never will be) that we should hold a wait-and-see approach as to whether Jesus existed? That we should be “open-minded” about the possibility Paul completely made up Jesus?" (Dagoods)
Well first off, the claim Jesus never existed is a newer one from the late 1800's to now - a theory they are still perusuing and is nowhere near concensus on the evidence - but if some writer's think so - interesting. I have read those gospels and letters in very plain english (and even studied the greek) - I am yet to see where this mythology is taught exhaustively within the writings. Why couldn't Paul just say 'this is a myth like Saturn and the unknown God you worship on Mars Hill? But he is better than them.' Theses books (gospels) point to a real person that lived, walked, talked, boated, broke bread, cried, etc...Now I am more than willing to look at the proofs for this 'mythology' but again - this has never been the dominant position within the faith. Does it means it is untrue - no - but they need to have a lot of their papers together to make this add up squarely. Why does that position male more sense than a real person?
"The reality is we are ALL open-minded and close-minded. The question is whether we are willing to set aside our bias (as much as possible), grow and learn and most importantly—be willing to change upon learning new information." (Dagoods)
I agree and I am examining all these angles in my free time - but I have to admit this takes some sweet time chalking up the proofs - we make decisions where we will - and that's all we can do at this point. If this is ancient history we are purusing - well - were gonna have to have patience - maybe something will come to light to conclude all of this - but as of right now - I am having a tough time seeing that conclusion right now (based on the evidence I have seen). But it's science - give it time - things will change.
I'll say AMEN to that post, DagoodS. I know you and I draw different conclusions, but this is one thing I can agree wholeheartedly with you on.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine to say the Bible is a book about God with some scientific/historical mistakes in it. (It just means you've got a Bible that is no more trustworthy than any other book - maybe less so since people's "knowledge" of God tends to be a lot less verifiable and occasionally a great deal more wonky than their knowledge of other things) But if the Bible is a book BY God, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
If the Bible has mistakes in it, then either God makes mistakes OR we can't be sure of the Bible's teachings about God.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the greatest curses of postmodernism.
We can't "let God off the hook" on science and then trust implicitly what he says about history. Thanks for making this point so succinctly, DagoodS.