Re: AIG says it like it is

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 13:38:58 EST

* fail to see why there is any relevance between a religious belief having a
millenia old tradition and the validity of its reinterpretation as a
religious faith in light of current scientific knowledge?
Perhaps your 'point' could benefit from some explanation as I fail to see
the logic.*

The 'point' is that the hypothetical about the Green Slug sets up a strawman
because it assumes a certain interpretation of the scriptural text in
question is the only valid interpretation. There is no reasonable way to
undersand the Green Slug myth in the hypo except that it was intended as a
"literal" description of an "actual" Green Slug opening its guts to form the
universe. But if the Green Slug myth were set in a religious and
theological tradition that for millenia had provided other intepretations of
the myth, including non-"literal" ones, the dilemma between accepting the
myth as truth and accepting current scientific knowledge as truth would be a
false one. This would be the case even more so if the myth were set in a
theological context with a rich understanding of how nature, scripture, and
truth relate.

Obviously, the Green Slug hypo is supposed to illustrate that "science"
falisfies the Christian religion. That is only the case, however, if your
understanding of Christian doctrine and theology is so impoverished that
only a YEC-like reading of Genesis is permitted and the entire doctrinal
structure of the faith rests on that one reading of that one text. You
don't think that's the case, do you Pim?

(BTW, check out Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God" for an excellent critique
of strawmen like this that atheists like Richard Dawkins like to employ
against religion and Christianity).

**

On 2/7/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I fail to see why there is any relevance between a religious belief having
> a millenia old tradition and the validity of its reinterpretation as a
> religious faith in light of current scientific knowledge?
> Perhaps your 'point' could benefit from some explanation as I fail to see
> the logic.
>
> *David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> If we assume the Green Slug cult has a similar millenia old tradition and
> such, then the reinterpretation of the Green Slug myth in light of current
> scientific knowledge is perfectly consistent, coherent and valid. Which is
> exactly my point.
>
> On 2/7/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > David, it seems to me that you are trying to avoid dealing with the very
> > good question based on the analogy by looking for areas that are irrelevant
> > to the issue but which may suggest that the analogy is limited. of course
> > any analogy will be limited but the real question cannot and should not be
> > avoided. Let's for instance presume that the Green slug has a similar
> > milennia old tradition of reception and interpretation etc etc.
> >
> >
> > *David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In short, the Great Green Slug hypothetical bears no relationship at all
> > to the Biblical texts, the millenia-old traditions in which the te xts have
> > been received and interpreted, and the theology in which the creation myths
> > in those texts are contextualized. It's a silly little hypothetical
> > designed to knock down a straw man.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 7 13:40:08 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 07 2006 - 13:40:08 EST