The argument about literal interpretations of Genesis are, in reality, a proxy argument that both sides frequently don’t see.  Those who support literal interpretations of Genesis aren’t anti-science – in fact they desperately search for scientific proof for their arguments.  If they were truly anti-science I doubt they would so trouble themselves with trying to find scientific proof for their position.

No, the problem is fundamentally a theological one.  The plain-reading of the Bible indicates that the world was formed (or at least populated) in six days, and the the genealogical of the Bible indicates that it has only been some-odd six-thousand years since the first man and woman.  The moral authority of the Bible is that it is the sanctified word of God – that it is a coherent message from God to man.  You can’t simply ignore parts of it, because at that point it looses cohesion, as people pick and choose which parts to adhere to and which parts to ignore.

Now, you can say that is already the case – no one (or at least very few) adhere to Mosaic law after all.  To which I respond, yes, but that is because of the theological framework created to rationally explain the change (a lot of the laws were rendered obsolete in the New Testament with the death of Jesus).  That is why I find it perfectly acceptable for Christianity to have abandoned the animal sacrifices of the Old Testement (pure animals are no longer needed to stand in the place of men for their sins, as Jesus has done that for all mankind), but the Episcopal Church’s ordaining of gay priests outside of any theological rational isn’t.

Which is what most secularists don’t realize about Christianity is that it is a rational religion.  It is a religion that went through the Enlightenment, and even the more fundamental aspects of it bear the imprint.

And so, going back to Genesis, the average Christian is faced with a dilemma where Creationism is concerned – do they adopt a position that supports the cohesion of the Bible, or do they abandon the Bible for scientific theories?  For many, the choice is obvious – science can and has been wrong in the past.  It is human, and therefore fundamentally open to error.  The errors simply need to be found.  Secularists argue in terms of science, and dismiss the creationists as irrational, which is flawed on both accounts – this is a theological argument, not a scientific one, and the creationists are being rational to a fault.

St. Augustine hit the problem on the head in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis.  The correct answer to the problem is not that the Bible is wrong, or even that science is necessarily wrong, but that the human interpretation of the Bible can be wrong.  Adherents of Creationism are missing the point.  As St. Augustine said, “We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls.”  The point of the Bible isn’t to teach us science, it’s to “nourish our souls”.

We can’t simply ignore what the Bible says, but we can take away the correct message.  The Bible was written for all of mankind, over all the ages.  It has need to appeal to a vast array of cultures and backgrounds, with all assortments of knowledge and ignorance.  Some of the most brilliant and wise men in history have been devout Christians, as have many ignorant and wretched souls.  The Bible was written to nourish all these souls, not just the intelligent or the simple.  It is truly a miracle that it can do both.  But it does mean that it needs to be comprehensible to a pauper in 4th-century Antioch, and I think it’s more reasonable to explain God’s creative majesty in the terms laid out in Genesis than attempt to explain modern evolutionary science.  After all, what is the point of the Creation story?  That God is all powerful, and He created the Earth and it’s inhabitants with much care and consideration.  Sometimes simpler is better.

In truth, this argument weakens both sides.  The Creationist blinds himself to a superior understanding of God’s word, instead descending into legalisms that make him and Christianity look foolish to the outside world.  The secularist becomes dismissive of knowledge that goes beyond what science can tell him, and ignores the wisdom that can be found from Christianity.  St. Augustine realized this, and implored both to be more humble sixteen hundred years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. “

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.”

“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

“We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls.  With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better.  I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself. “

“But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.”

“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord, and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel.”

Excerpt From:
The Literal Meaning of Genesis
St. Augustine
Circa 415 AD

The sheer peculiarity of it has always struck me, so I’ve thought about it quite a bit, to try and understand it.  People accept and believe in it for a reason, obviously, even if that reason aludes me.   So I began to think of the origins of Calvinism.

Calvinism began, as most Protestant sects did, as a reaction to the Catholic Church’s shortcommings – especially that of selling indulgences.  If one were to want to create a theological framework that would prohibit such corruption, one would need to prevent such centralized authority from  ever taking shape.  A large part of the magesty of the Catholic Church came from it’s byzantine (if you’ll pardon the pun) nature – full of legal, procedural, doctrinal, ceremonial, etc, constructs – constructs that the Church instructed it’s followers were very important to their spiritual well-being to respect and follow.  Christians everywhere were dependant on this elaborate framework to be holy and free of corruption – a need that was not being met.

If God was all knowing and all powerful, why were such constructs necessary?  Why did he simply not decide who was worth and unworthy from the get go?  It would certainly be much simpler.  Surely, that is what happens – all those rites and doctrines were really just for show.  Good men need not be constrained by the confines of the doctrine of a corruptible institution out of fear for their souls.  A good man’s true nature will come through regardless of whether or not he followed every established rite or not.  Likewise, an evil man’s nature will not be purged because he went through the motions or bought an indulgence.

This is how I understand Predestination – it’s not that we are trapped into a fate we cannot escape – that we have no control over our afterlife.  Rather, we are free from worrying about it – it simply does not matter.  Whether or not we are deserving of paradise in the afterlife will be reflected how we live this life – it’s not something we need search for.

At least, that is how I’ve come to understand Predestination.  It’s much more plausible to think of it in those terms than what my first reaction was to it.  I still don’t buy into it – I still believe very much in free will.  That being said, however, I think that I can at least understand how Calvinists think about it.

I don’t see how people can say that religion and ethics can be seperated. My religion forms my ethics. After all, what is religion if not a guide for how to live your life?

well, I have a very easy answer to that.

I do not believe in any god or religion…. but (obviously) I still believe in ethics, and the immorality of some actions. I think these two are very much seperate.

if I would have had to take your statement literally, it would mean that non-religious people would have no ethics… no sense of humanity, which is rediculous if you think of it.. if you catch my drift :hmm:

No, if you have no religion then it very much has an impact on your ethics – you simply aren’t bound by the constraints that bound people of various religions. If you don’t believe in a higher authority, then much more is permissible because you aren’t playing within anyone’s rules. That isn’t to say that atheists and agnostics can’t be perfectly civil people, but their ethical framework is simply not bound in the same manner as the religious.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve always felt that athiests and agnostics operate in sort of a self-delusional, jury-rigged ethical framework. It comes down to a basic definition of right and wrong, good and evil. How do you define those? To the Christian, they’re defined by God, because God defines reality. This makes sense within the Christian framework – God is the prime mover, that which created the universe but not of it. The irreligious, on the other hand, have a harder time. What is “good”? Let’s take for instance, the simple concept of murder. No caveats, just the common, general concept of murder. Why shouldn’t you do it? Because it’s “wrong” or “bad”? What makes it so? Because you’re causing someone to suffer? Why is that wrong of bad? Because it would create anarchy and chaos if everyone were free to murder people. Why is anarchy and chaos bad? Because I don’t like it. Why is that wrong or bad? (You see, this is where the arbitrary, jury-rigged part comes in) Because my pleasure is as good a motivating factor as anything. Well, what about people you enjoy murder, what makes them wrong and you right? Because it would cause chaos. Why is that bad again? Well, because most of the people in the world don’t like it. Well, most of the people in the world believe in God, why shouldn’t we base our ethical code off that? . . .

And the conversation goes like that, around and around. Many atheists and agnostics argue that their ethics can define good and evil very similarly to their religious counterparts without the need to base it on a higher power, but invariably, if you really dig to the basis of the ethical code, it can’t be justified as anything other than arbitrary (that’s where the self-delusional charge comes in). But even so, regardless of their logical viability, your religious beliefs very much influence your ethical code. It’s just more straight-forward with the religious – they have guiding principles that form them. So when you say that a Christian should separate their ethics from their religion, I really don’t see how you expect that to happen.

oh sure, Im not saying religion doesn’t have an impact on ethics… but, they are definitely not as one.

as for not playing by anyones rules if one doesn’t believe, that is far from true. We have many social, and legal laws that we must obey in our societies. When you violate such a law, you are, eg. thrown in prison.
I don’t believe that the average person that is christened, (or whatever) obey the laws much more then an average person that isn’t. I think you will only see that kind of obedience from the extremely religious people.

moreoever, I do not think that many people take the 10 commandments, for example as strict laws.. but more as guidelines..

I think the concept of ethics is a stumbling block here. Ethics is the rational, logical framework one uses to make moral choices. As I illustrated previously, when one makes a moral choice, ethics answers the question “Why is this the ‘right’ choice? What makes the alternative the ‘wrong’ choice?”

Now, you make a valid point in that many people don’t put a great deal of thought into their ethics. Most people are just trying to get by from day to day. You say that many people adhere to social and legal laws because to do otherwise is to incur a penality that many do no want to endure, eg. thrown in prison. But that doesn’t necessarily make it right.

Deitrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran priest in Germany in the 1930′s. He was an intellectual in addition to being a member of the clergy, and was well regarded internationally. By the mid-30′s, he and a number of his associates saw the writing on the wall with the rise of the Nazi party. Many of his German associates had fled abroad, and he had many open invitations to come to America to avoid the dark times Germany was entering into. But he stayed, to fight against the evil he saw infecting his country. He went so far as to become a double-agent in WWII, feeding false information to the Germans. He was eventually discovered and in 1943, sent to prison. Two years later, as the remanants of the German war machine was crumbling around him, Hitler, in one of his final acts, order Bonhoeffer tried and executed.

Bonheoffer was a man of great moral courage, and I think most people would agree that what he did was a “good” thing. Now, many would make a different choice than Bonheoffer, but does that mean that his risking his well-being (a risk that turned into a sacrifice) can’t be considered “good” by those people? Are they hypocrites? If not, does that mean that ethics can transcend the need to preserve one’s own happiness – indeed even their own existence?

So then, what are “ethics”? You’ve articulated a position that I believe to be less defensible than you think it is. When I say atheists aren’t bound by the same rules that are associated with, say, Christianity, we can use your example to illustrate that, taken to it’s logical conclusion, you aren’t.

Now, you say that “We have many social, and legal laws that we must obey in our societies. When you violate such a law, eg. you are thrown in prison.” The implication here is that so long as you do not violate the law, social or legal, what you are doing is perfectly fine, but if you violate either of them, it then violates your ethical code. This is the thinking that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned the West against after fleeing from what he termed the “lawlessness” of Soviet Russia:

I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society based on the letter of the law and never reaching any higher fails to take full advantage of the full range of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relationships, this creates an atmosphere of spiritual mediocrity that paralyzes man’s noblest impulses.
. . .
And what shall we say about the dark realms of overt criminality? Legal limits (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also some misuse of such freedom. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency —- all with the support of thousands of defenders in the society. When a government earnestly undertakes to root out terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorist’s civil rights. There is quite a number of such cases.

This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man —- the master of the world —- does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)

Furthermore, such thinking does not dictate how one who is not constrained by social or legal “laws” should act. Was Stalin wrong, being that he dictated what the “laws” were? Was it possible for him to be wrong?

To a Christian, the answer is obvious and easy – of course he could be and indeed was wrong, he violated the moral code set down by the ultimate authority, that is, God. To an atheist, Stalin’s actions are harder to condemn from a rational framework – what authority is there to appeal to? No, to an atheist, they must come up with a way to condemn Stalin without resorting to appeals to a moral code granted by a higher authority – they must create one. And at that point, isn’t that the same as what Stalin did? Again, you can refer to my “dialogue” (if calling it such isn’t too presumptious) in my previous post.

Ethics is the application of reason to morals in order to create a logical framework. It’s one thing to say, “Thou shall not kill.” It’s another to apply that to a situation where the moral clarity of the dictate becomes slightly less so (ie, “It it moral for me to kill someone trying to kill me?”). That is why we have ethics – to bring reason to morality. And that is why you cannot seperate religion from ethics – one’s religious beliefs necessarily create the bedrock from which one’s ethics are formed. Just because not everyone can act 100% rationally all the time doesn’t mean that ethics founded on an ideal are irrelevant – it simply means that we’re all human.