Bible Review
It's been over a month and I really want to devote more time to this. This is fun reading and commenting on the Good Book(s), and I want to give the same treatment to other works because I'm sure it'll be equally fun. But first, a little interlude...
An Interlude
Before I start Chapter 2 of Genesis, I wanna explain myself a bit. I spent several posts on Chapter 1, and most of that time I talked about the claims of creationism and the capability of the Bible and science. I did that because, well, it's the thing that's most important to me when it comes to the first chapter of the first book of the Bible. It's what I've been most exposed too and hence what I'm most interested in. Creationists and Biblical literalists love to claim that the work is strictly compatible with known science -- except evolution of course which is evil and wrong and against God's plan. In reality, not only is the body of knowledge garnered from science NOT compatible with Genesis without some major interpretations, it seems to me that God doesn't even a master plan. As I said before when discussing Genesis 1:2:
I suppose one could say this is when he's making his great plan for Creation, but he's already made things. So the other answer is that, according to this, God didn't start things off with everything perfectly planned. He's deciding what to do as he plays around in his sandbox. I think that really fits with the character of God in the Bible, as he acts like a another character in the story, reacting to events that happen. So, unless he's play-acting, God doesn't have an ultimate plan from the start. That opens the door for free will and all sorts of fun things.
God obviously has an ultimate goal in mind -- the good people who followed his rules are rewarded in the end and the rest are SOL -- but everything isn't preplanned down to the last detail. He made things up as he went along, and the stuff he liked he called "good". This could even mean that plenty of other things occurred that God labeled "bad" that either he disposed of or went away through their own inadequacies or as a result of bad timing. Funnily enough, that train of though bares a (extremely) superficial resemblance to Darwinian natural selection, so maybe evolution isn't so ungodly after all. (Again, it's superficial, evolution is FAR more nuanced than "survival of the fittest.") (And also interestingly this can counter Ken Miller's arguments against a tinkering God to describe his rejection of intelligent design, but I don't think the Discovery Institute would like their logic being used to support what they've been fighting against from the get-go. But boy it makes me laugh *devil horns*)
Now some may say I'm reading it wrong and that I'm losing the message through the clutter created by the weirdos that rational Christians which make up most of the faith categorically reject. Well, ignoring the polls that say nearly half of the people in this overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian country are creationists, I'll do something hypothetical and fun. I'll outline my beliefs if I were ever to become a Bible-believing Christian and still hold science as near and dear to my heart as I do now:
Still, I'm not Christian and a few of those points (like the second and fourth ones) ruffle my atheistic feathers a bit (I can't prove that anything supernatural acts through the natural so why believe it? And if I explain away the rest of the Bible as fable, why can't I do the same for the Genesis Chapter 1?). But by definition there's a conflict of interest. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a god, while a Christian does. Of course there has to be some leeway for God to slip into, so given that I believe the above is a reasonable position for any Christian who reads and believes their Bible to take.
There's a myriad of other positions though, and I've briefly touched on that before. For example, creationism or intelligent design in their broadest definitions simply mean "God created", and science is left to discover all the details regardless of what the Bible says. But to include the Bible in some context in what they believe while keeping science in the picture, like I am in this hypothetical scenario, I believe the above is a plausible belief system.
But please read this disclaimer:
I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR VIEW ON THE BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY, RELIGION, AND SCIENCE. THAT IS FOR YOU AND YOUR PLACE OF WORSHIP TO DECIDE.
Everyone's faith is a little different. General characteristics bind people to a particular following and church sure, but everyone thinks differently on particular matters, including the relationship between science and religion. Churches will adopt a certain stance, but you don't have to agree with it exactly or at all. If you think it works a little differently, then believe that way. Or if you like your church's position, that works too. Whatever, I care not. You can choose a myriad of ways to believe and still maintain an honest relationship with science and reason.
All of this is the subject of another blog post I want to write where I'll explore the issue further, especially in relation to atheism, naturalism, NOMA, people who proudly proclaim the religion and science are compatible, and a recent issue involving the National Academy of Sciences and their stance of science and religion, and the reactions to it. But not now. I've got a Bible to get back to reading.
An Interlude
Before I start Chapter 2 of Genesis, I wanna explain myself a bit. I spent several posts on Chapter 1, and most of that time I talked about the claims of creationism and the capability of the Bible and science. I did that because, well, it's the thing that's most important to me when it comes to the first chapter of the first book of the Bible. It's what I've been most exposed too and hence what I'm most interested in. Creationists and Biblical literalists love to claim that the work is strictly compatible with known science -- except evolution of course which is evil and wrong and against God's plan. In reality, not only is the body of knowledge garnered from science NOT compatible with Genesis without some major interpretations, it seems to me that God doesn't even a master plan. As I said before when discussing Genesis 1:2:
I suppose one could say this is when he's making his great plan for Creation, but he's already made things. So the other answer is that, according to this, God didn't start things off with everything perfectly planned. He's deciding what to do as he plays around in his sandbox. I think that really fits with the character of God in the Bible, as he acts like a another character in the story, reacting to events that happen. So, unless he's play-acting, God doesn't have an ultimate plan from the start. That opens the door for free will and all sorts of fun things.
God obviously has an ultimate goal in mind -- the good people who followed his rules are rewarded in the end and the rest are SOL -- but everything isn't preplanned down to the last detail. He made things up as he went along, and the stuff he liked he called "good". This could even mean that plenty of other things occurred that God labeled "bad" that either he disposed of or went away through their own inadequacies or as a result of bad timing. Funnily enough, that train of though bares a (extremely) superficial resemblance to Darwinian natural selection, so maybe evolution isn't so ungodly after all. (Again, it's superficial, evolution is FAR more nuanced than "survival of the fittest.") (And also interestingly this can counter Ken Miller's arguments against a tinkering God to describe his rejection of intelligent design, but I don't think the Discovery Institute would like their logic being used to support what they've been fighting against from the get-go. But boy it makes me laugh *devil horns*)
Now some may say I'm reading it wrong and that I'm losing the message through the clutter created by the weirdos that rational Christians which make up most of the faith categorically reject. Well, ignoring the polls that say nearly half of the people in this overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian country are creationists, I'll do something hypothetical and fun. I'll outline my beliefs if I were ever to become a Bible-believing Christian and still hold science as near and dear to my heart as I do now:
- Out of all the interpretations of the days of creation, the Framework Interpretations is my choice. By saying that these are categories made by the human authors of what of created instead of a timeline of what was created when, it can fit with whatever science discovers and theorizes. The Sun and the Moon weren't created after the Earth formed, but were just chucked into the bin of "celestial objects". Birds didn't develop before reptiles, but were in the "non-land animals" category. And so on. What God REALLY did is what science sheds light on.
- God messed around with the Earth after creating the universe via the Big Bang. Life developed and marched on through evolution as science understands it as a natural consequence of God's creation, but he may have interloped occasionally to keep the process going. Cataclysms like extinction events for example were mitigated by God acting through his creations. It was only much later that God decided he might make an intelligent creature, but since that probably would've happened anyway as another consequence of his creation, God directed the process in a certain way he deemed "good" for whatever reason.
- More over though, there's no grand plan. God didn't write script where we merely recite our lines, meaning some people aren't programmed to be faithful while others are sinful. God has an ultimate goal that we should work towards, but it's our choice to follow it our not. We are responsible for our own actions. This explains why there's suffering in the world. It's our doing, not because God wrote it in the script.
- Nearly everything else of the Bible are fables for moral guidance, but not necessarily God's intent. Humans wrote the Bible, and hence edited it to suit their needs. Hence the Bible cannot be taken as literal and inerrant, so stories of Noah's global flood or the crumbling walls of Jericho are just stories of faith. God's real intent for humanity may still be found in the Bible, but are probably better ways of finding that out. Allowing science to explore human behavior and study our nature is the best way to uncover our commonalities, and maybe that way God's goal can become clearer. Though really I think it's just being a nice and considerate person most of the time.
- Everything I just said is subject to change according to new evidence I acquire. I'm human, I don't know how God thinks or works, and hence I should always be willing to change my views. Being humble is not only a Christian virtue, but an essential component of science. (I'd love to see some creationists admit they could be wrong.)
Still, I'm not Christian and a few of those points (like the second and fourth ones) ruffle my atheistic feathers a bit (I can't prove that anything supernatural acts through the natural so why believe it? And if I explain away the rest of the Bible as fable, why can't I do the same for the Genesis Chapter 1?). But by definition there's a conflict of interest. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a god, while a Christian does. Of course there has to be some leeway for God to slip into, so given that I believe the above is a reasonable position for any Christian who reads and believes their Bible to take.
There's a myriad of other positions though, and I've briefly touched on that before. For example, creationism or intelligent design in their broadest definitions simply mean "God created", and science is left to discover all the details regardless of what the Bible says. But to include the Bible in some context in what they believe while keeping science in the picture, like I am in this hypothetical scenario, I believe the above is a plausible belief system.
But please read this disclaimer:
I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR VIEW ON THE BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY, RELIGION, AND SCIENCE. THAT IS FOR YOU AND YOUR PLACE OF WORSHIP TO DECIDE.
Everyone's faith is a little different. General characteristics bind people to a particular following and church sure, but everyone thinks differently on particular matters, including the relationship between science and religion. Churches will adopt a certain stance, but you don't have to agree with it exactly or at all. If you think it works a little differently, then believe that way. Or if you like your church's position, that works too. Whatever, I care not. You can choose a myriad of ways to believe and still maintain an honest relationship with science and reason.
All of this is the subject of another blog post I want to write where I'll explore the issue further, especially in relation to atheism, naturalism, NOMA, people who proudly proclaim the religion and science are compatible, and a recent issue involving the National Academy of Sciences and their stance of science and religion, and the reactions to it. But not now. I've got a Bible to get back to reading.