This post is a response to the dialogue (1,2) between friends Mike and Alex regarding the literal interpretation of Genesis, particularly concerning the age of the earth and its significance for the rest of the Christian life. At the heart of this debate is the issue of hermeneutics, or how we interpret scripture. Alex argues for a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1 (resulting in belief in a six 24-hour day creation process and also a ~6000 year old earth), whereas Mike argues for perhaps a more cultural interpretation, in part to reconcile the majority of scientific work regarding the age and development of the earth with scripture. My intention is to step back a moment from the immediate task concerning the Genesis debate and examine scriptural interpretation on the whole. If I’m lucky, my intention will at least be communicated successfully.
Biblical literalism has grown in seeming reaction to modernity. Ironically, it is captive to the demands of the very thing which it opposes. As a product of the Enlightenment and the development of the notion of knowledge being ascertainable with mathematical precision (thank you Descartes), science has largely supplanted all other paths to knowledge as supreme truth-giver. Descartes’ critical principle, that all things must be subjected to critical analysis, that doubt is the way to knowledge, reigns. Consequently, religion has been relegated to the realm of the personal and private, and thus scripture has been opened to the criticism and skepticism of modernity and no longer can be considered valid in making any truth claims. This opening is not in and of itself negative, for it has forced us to think critically about that in which we believe (and as a child of modernity, I value critical thinking). However, the reaction manifested in literalism essentially buys into this paradigm shift, that science is the supreme means to certain knowledge. Or rather, it is this redefinition of knowledge as mathematically-precise certainty that poses the problem. So the literalist camp seems to say, in essence, “our Bible lives up to these demands because every statement in scripture is scientifically and historically factual.” (If I am misrepresenting the thrust of literalism in the latter half of this statement, please inform me.) This is not necessary and even dangerous.
It is not necessary to buy into this way of thinking, because ultimately it is impossible to maintain such thinking. The logical end of Cartesian thought is complete skepticism. This very critical principle must itself be doubted and tested, but eventually we come to the point where we have nothing certain against which to analyze and criticize. Then certain knowledge is unattainable. Of course, this is an impossible way to live, as we must have faith in some things, or suspend criticism for a time, in order to go on thinking.
But wait, you say, Biblical literalism doesn’t go to this extreme; it upholds the Bible as our reference point for truth. This misses the point. Biblical literalism understands Biblical statements to be akin to bricks in a wall: if too many are removed (proven false), the wall (the Bible and Christianity) will collapse. For instance, if creation is shown to have occurred over eons as opposed to 6 days, the Bible is false and no longer trustworthy. Or perhaps if the existence of Adam and Eve is doubted, then the entire foundation for the Christian story crumbles because there is no basis for original sin. These kinds of problems stem from faith in the system of certainty which is false. The truth of the Bible will not collapse if it is not scientifically and historically accurate. Knowledge is not something which can be obtained or communicated in this purely objective manner, as Descartes would have us believe.
The point is that a literal interpretation of scripture gives science the monopoly on truth and knowledge. However, scientific truth is not necessarily as supreme as we might believe and certainly is not the only means to knowledge. All knowledge requires interaction between subject and object. While this may lead us to believe that all knowledge is subjective and therefore unreliable for the wider world, Michael Polanyi overcomes this in showing that we can interact with objects and make truth claims “with universal intent”, which will be validated upon their ability to lead to further truth (Newbigin 43). This helps us to close the gap between the objective and subjective which was widened in Cartesian thought.
Gaining knowledge necessarily requires faith and doubt. However, faith must come first in order for us to have any foundation from which to proceed. But faith in what? you ask. The Bible? Not primarily. Lesslie Newbigin shows us the flaws in literalism and points us toward him in whom we must put our faith:
“The manner in which Jesus makes the Father known is not in infallible, unrevisable, irreformable statements. He did not write a book which would have served forever as the unquestionable and irreformable statement of the truth about God. He formed a community of friends and shared his life with them. He left it to them to be his witnesses, and – as we know- their witness has come to us in varied forms; we know about very few of the words and deeds of Jesus with the kind of certainty Descartes identified with reliable knowledge. To wish that it were otherwise is to depart from the manner in which God has chosen to make himself known. The doctrine of verbal inerrancy is a direct denial of the way in which God has chosen to make himself known to us as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(Newbigin 89)
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Christ is our foundation. Christ is the lens through which we view the world. The Bible is a necessary part of this, but it must slug it out with the Church for second place after Christ. The Bible is our primary means of learning what Christ has done; this cannot be denied. But knowledge of Christ comes only in his revelation to which we must listen and obey. We certainly learn by reading. We learn so much more by following.
All this to say, God has revealed himself to us in Christ. We learn about him from the Bible, from the Church, from obeying, loving, following, observing and interacting with human beings made in his image and all of creation. We don’t have to cling to scripture so tightly that we suffocate the truth within it. We do have to cling to scripture with Christ at our side, always guiding and always revealing.
Work Cited
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence. Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
11 Comments
July 20, 2008 at 7:21 pm
couldn’t of said it better myself!
July 23, 2008 at 2:35 pm
All right, I think I understand what you are saying here. The point here is basically that Biblical literalism professes that scripture is true by virtue of being scientifically verifiable, whereas you are claiming that scripture’s truth is derived from looking at Christ? That there are more types of truths than just those that are verifiable by naturalism, and that some of them can’t be known with certainty?
I like the idea of evaluating truth claims by testing if they lead to further truth. What would an example of this be? My question for this “test” would be: if the validity of the first claim is in doubt, how do we verify the second claim?
I’m also not entirely sure about the second paragraph and your analysis about Descartes’ “critical principle”. I know Descartes primarily as a mathematician, not a philosopher, so my confusion is certainly due to my lack of knowledge, not your explanation. I’d like to know more about how Cartesian thought apparently leads to skepticism.
My apologies for all the confusion. I’m starting to wish I had taken a philosophy class. Maybe when we get back to school you can give me a crash course?
-M
July 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Mike, I think your basic analysis of the gist of my post is correct. What I mean by truth claims being validated by leading to further truth is that in the scientific realm some truth will lead to further discovery. I’m stealing all of this from Newbigin so maybe I should just quote him: “the truth of the claim either will or will not be validated depending on whether or not it leads to further truth. A valid truth claim will lead to new discovery – often to discoveries undreamt by the scientists themselves”(43). Now of course this might fall apart if the original claim is in doubt or false, in which case it would seem that all further discovery would be false as well. Newbigin goes on to say that the entire scientific endeavor is not one claiming some indubitable truth every step of the way, but on working toward the “fullness of truth.” Of course this is the way science operates, hypothesizing, collecting data, forming theories which hold until something comes along to disprove them. Newbigin’s point is that the knowing/believing dualism is not as wide a chasm as modernity has us believing because “knowing always involves the personal commitments of the knowers, for which they are prepared to risk their careers as scientists”(43).
Regarding my second paragraph, the problem with the critical principle is that if applied to itself it unravels, because we can’t trust the critical principle itself. I’d love to learn more about this too because all the info I have comes from Newibigin, although he obviously has me convinced. I would like to take more philosophy courses, and unfortunately I am in no position whatsoever to attempt giving you a crash course. I just read things that interest me.
Thanks for your trenchant thoughts.
July 24, 2008 at 5:31 pm
So from what you said, it would seem that it is impossible to find an absolute truth. For if we found a “truth” in order for it to be true there would need to be truths or discoveries that stemmed from those truths, but in order for those truths to be true, discoveries would have to stem from them and on and on. So it seems from what you have stated that we are always on this quest to discover truth but we will never actually be able to completely find it. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this what you are saying, that no truth is ever certain?
July 25, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Alex.
Essentially that is what I’m saying, that in general “truth” is not certain, at least if we understand certainty in the way Descartes appeared to. Perhaps a better word than “certainty” is “confidence.” Knowledge always requires some kind of personal commitment of faith, at the very least to have some point from which to jump off.
As for absolute truth, it seems to me that this is a concept that has emerged as a result of the Enlightenment, going hand in hand with Cartesian certainty.
I do believe that we are always on a quest for truth. I happen to believe that truth to be Christ. Of course, as I have said earlier, he is the starting point for thought, the lens through which we view the world. But our picture of Christ is never perfect, and there is always further knowledge to be gained. Such is the Christian life: constantly seeking to know and follow God and building upon what we already know of him. Sometimes we have to throw out what we thought we knew about him in exchange for a truer picture. True knowledge of God, then, would come when fully in his presence, or at least that’s what I imagine. Let me know what you think.
July 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I guess this is where I get confused, you say that we must base our thinking on Christ. All truth statements stem from Christ as the foundation. Okay I agree. But how can you say this and then turn around and say that the Bible may not be completely true, the very place were we learn who Jesus is. At what point do we draw the line in the sand that dictates were the bible is true and where it might not be accurate. You wrote:
“Biblical literalism understands Biblical statements to be akin to bricks in a wall: if too many are removed (proven false), the wall (the Bible and Christianity) will collapse.”
What if some of these bricks pertain to Jesus. What if it is proven that it wasn’t a virgin birth, he didn’t walk on water, didn’t feed the five thousand, didn’t ride on a donkey, or wasn’t raised from the dead. If any of these bricks are removed, I see the foundation collapsing. Christ is the cornerstone. It seems odd to me to claim that part of the Bible is foundational, namely the passages concerning Jesus and some passages can be shown to be half true, ie false, by using knowledge founded on the scriptures about Jesus.
July 28, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I think the key to this conversation is the word “true.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say “completely true”, do you mean scientifically and historically accurate? That is not what I mean, and at no point do I think the Bible is untrue. What I mean by true is not nicely defined, unfortunately, and perhaps this destroys any credibility I might have. And perhaps my definition points to an understanding of relative truth. Truth must be defined in the context of scripture (as opposed to other areas of study). I understand scripture to be revelatory of God’s identity. This allows for the possibility of non-factual events in scripture. Sometimes stories represent the truth better than a blow by blow account of factual events. For instance, Jesus often spoke in parables, stories which don’t need a basis in factual history but nevertheless reveal truth about God.
Regarding bricks in a christological wall, I fail to see the necessity of them. If it were somehow proven that there was no virgin birth, how many Christians would suddenly have a crisis of faith? I would hope not many. And I seriously doubt many people would believe the “proof” anyway. There are far more important things than the virgin birth, Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey, etc., such as God’s incarnation, death and resurrection. These are beyond scientific proof. Yet we believe them anyway. This is faith; this is confidence. It is not certainty, not indubitable fact.
August 2, 2008 at 7:42 am
These are the thoughts of a humble nursing student, posted at the behest of Peter. And Pete, I took out that word ‘first,’ because I agree with you.
I was just thinking about knowledge in general, and i know a million philosophers have already figured this all out, but I was just musing. I know that our primary goals as Christians are to love God and to love each other. It’s hard to love someone without knowing them right? Then how do we go about knowing God?
I know that a lot of people would say just read the Bible, God tells you all about himself in there. And it’s true, God reveals his character and his plans for humanity and his heart for the world. but you can hear all about somebody without knowing them personally. Perhaps the Bible is there to teach us about God, but the Church is there for us to experience and fully come to know him. It says in 1 John that if we love, then we are born of God and we know him. If we do not know love, then we do not know God. Love demands a lover and a beloved, a giver and a receiver. The Church is the place where we can experience fully loving others and receiving the same love in return. It’s a great picture of the trinity, because there God is, in constant loving relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit. We are part of the church, albeit an imperfect reflection of what it was meant to be, but nonetheless we can come to fully know and experience who God is in relationship with other people.
All that to say, I like what you said about the Church and the Bible slugging it out for second place after Christ. John also writes that if we love one another, then God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. God is love. So we find that there is no loving without knowing God, and there can be no knowledge of God without loving relationships within the Church.
August 23, 2008 at 10:13 pm
It is pretty clear that we all have a definition of truth or how to find truth that not all of us agree on. So I would like to define what I think the Bible says about truth and how to find it. I think we are all trying to say the Bible is the authority but it has authority in different ways based on your interpretation. My view is as follows:
The Bible is the final authority not only in matters of faith and practice, but it is authoritative on any subject to which the Bible addresses itself. Anything the Bible affirms to be true is true. It is not only true in matters of faith and practice; it is true on every issue to which it speaks. If it says something about science, it can be trusted. If it says something about geology, it can be trusted. If it says something about archaeology, it can be trusted. If it says something about sociology, it can be trusted. Every subject to which the Bible speaks and which it affirms as true, is true. The Scripture is the final authority as to truth on all the subjects it addresses. The two verses that I think best highlight this fact are 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.
2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” -ESV
When the text says breathed out by God and then applies it to all scriptures, is it even possible for them to be false? If they were then the Bible is worthless because then the all knowing God doesn’t know the truth.
2 Peter 1:21 “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -ESV
This verse shows that God is always the source of revelation and not man. When the prophets or writers did speak it wasn’t by their authority but by Gods.
I just finished a book by Donald Chittick called “The Puzzle of Ancient Man.” One of the best books I’ve read all summer. It was filled with a lot of philosophy and the excerpt that follows I thought applied to our discussion.
“The Scriptural doctrine of creation ex nihilo has important philosophical and practical consequences. The list of consequences is a long one and to enumerate all of them would take more time and space than is appropriate here. We do, however, want to provide at least two examples. They will serve to illustrate the point that there are important consequences and further implications to any teaching about origins.
By way of illustration, let us look at two consequences of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. This doctrine leads directly to the idea that there are such things as absolutes, and that there is a genuine, actual, and real external reality. External reality is not an illusion but real. It was created by the Creator. Therefore, the reference point for any absolute is the Creator Himself. Even those who deny the existence of absolutes and deny the existence of external reality are trapped by their own assertions. They insist it is absolutely true that there are no absolutes. Even while insisting that there are no absolutes, they want others to believe that their statement about absolutes is absolutely true. It is apparent that such an instance violates the law of non-contradiction which is the foundation law of correct thinking. In addition, those who insist on no external reality are confronted with absolute external reality in their daily living. If they are to continue living, they must behave as if there is an absolute external reality even while denying it. Even though one could deny the law of gravity for example, jumping from a cliff would not negate reality and the consequences of the jump. We all live in the Creator’s world even if we would wish to deny it. He sets the rules, not we who live in His world. The Creator is the absolute reference point.”
There must be absolute truth and that truth comes from the creator who has revealed himself to us. The Bible should be our standard for truth and not man’s ideas.
August 24, 2008 at 9:26 am
I think we are talking past each other. Perhaps we’ve nearly reached the limits of fruitful discussion in this format. However, I will attempt to make my thoughts a little more clear.
As you quote, “the Creator is the absolute reference point.” With this I can agree. I generally find the term “absolute truth” lacking in utility, because it constantly needs explanation and definition. However, if I had to use the term, then Christ is the absolute truth. He who has created and is re-creating the world and all those in it who seek such re-creation is the absolute truth. That Christ is true, that he has humbled himself for the purpose of calling us back into fellowship with him will remain true regardless of what anyone says about him or scripture. This we accept in faith for multiple reasons, most likely including the testimony of scripture which we believe to reveal truth about God.
My question from before remains: why must scripture be perfectly factual to be true? All scripture is God-breathed – what does this mean? Did not Christ breathe out parables not based in actuality? Do we call those things false? No. But they are also not true in a historical and scientific sense.
Sometime we must discuss this in greater depth in person because it is near impossible to explain the minutiae of our thoughts in this format. My emphasis is on Christ as our foundation, as absolute truth, before the Bible.
One more thought: even literalists do not take scripture absolutely literally. We do not believe the prophets to telling of future events exactly as they will happen. Rather, their prophecies are symbolic of what will happen. Do we believe there will there be a rampaging dragon in the end times? Was Christ lying when he said “one stone will not be left on another”? Of course Christ was not lying. So we use our judgment even within a literalist framework to discern the truth contained in scripture. We interpret because it is absolutely absurd to take everything perfectly literally; it is an impossible and futile discipline to maintain. But the moment we step away from perfect, unwavering literalism we open the door to myriad interpretations through which we must use our judgment to sift. Is Christ actually a shoot and Jesse a stump? Will he have a belt of righteousness and a sash of faithfulness? No. Of course we say that we understand what the text is saying here, what it is symbolizing. But we’ve stepped away from strict literalism in doing so.
The point is that our perspectives are not so different. We both take certain things literally and other things figuratively. However, we disagree on the extent of the literal and the figurative in these cases. We both must judge and discern and interpret. When we come to different conclusions we attempt to reconcile. For now I think that is the best we can do.
July 21, 2009 at 8:33 pm
[...] Versus Certainty 1 08 2008 This is a somewhat delayed response to / analysis of the discussion going on between Peter and Alex regarding biblical truth and its relation to scientific certainty. [...]