This entry is intended to introduce a cluster of entries on philosophy and religion, leading up to my refusal to accept all scientific rationalizations of the existence of God. In the most rational science of all, that is, in mathematics, we cannot even rationalize the simple fact that two times two makes four, and must introduce a series of axioms, or non-provable postulates, to start up our mathematical engine, in the first place. Having identified (in a previous entry) the presence of the irrational component in the concept of God, we find that, at least for this formal reason, rationalization of God is theoretically impossible. For this reason, we moved that God be accepted by postulation, like this is done with the essential basics in mathematics, which will be the culmination of the God series in this section, giving its principal pronouncement the prominence as the overall section title God, By Postulate!
The preceding paragraph is basically a summary of the series that is starting with this entry (perhaps, it was launched already in the earlier entry Reason And Passion), but first things first, and we shall now proceed with the business of this specific entry.
Whenever religious zealots are quarreling with their secularist counterparts, or either or both of them with common sense (common sense not necessarily in the right!), philosophy ought to be called in as the judge. Not in the sense of pompous pontification, which most philosophers are often mocked for, but in the best sense of thoughtfulness and wisdom, which distinguishes philosophy from all kinds of sciences, yet without having it completely separated from them. In fact, philosophy is the thoughtful component of every human endeavor (like in philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, etc.), and it is in this capacity, that she is now being called to our service.
The rather small matter of religious fundamentalism, as defined by the so-called “literal” interpretation of the Bible, becomes large when viewed as a matter of principle, getting us back to “Definitions, Definitions, Definitions!”
The distinction of literal and figurative interpretations of the Bible is rather lame, because the word literal is insufficiently defined. There can be no such thing as literal literalcy between two different languages, or two different points in time, to say nothing of its complete absence between two different usages, either by two different speakers, or by the same speaker at different times, or in different states of mind. And this is talking about some simple unsophisticated situations of everyday usage, whereas the Bible offers us the depths of complexity and an unrivaled challenge to our understanding.
It is reasonable to suggest that the right word to apply to the Scriptures would be cryptic, and the Book of Daniel clearly emphasizes this quality of the Bible, when it says that certain things will be understood only by those for whom they are meant to be understood, and then only when they are meant to be understood. The cryptic nature of the Bible is further brought out by the explorers of the so-called Bible Code, which, whether we accept their practical suggestions or not, does not change the basic fact of heavy symbolism and cryptology in it. Therefore, I think that those who insist on the literal interpretation, known as fundamentalists, are probably promoting their own reading of the text, or the reading of their school of exegesis, and cannot be credited with authenticity of interpretation by any stretch of interpretation.
Incidentally, the heavily charged word ‘Logos’ of St. John’s Gospel cannot even be approached, so as to be understood, without studying the significations of this word in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, and I doubt that most of those second-tier, derivative exegetes, quoted as Scriptural authorities in the churches of today, have delved that deep, anyway.
A few words in this regard about the never-ending controversy between the proponents of Creation versus the Evolution. I see little merit in the proponents of Creationism setting themselves up as an alternative to Evolution. The Story of Creation in the Bible is far too cryptic to make their claims in any way legitimate. For instance, it is outright silly for them to interpret the Six Days of Creation as our own cycles of twenty-four hours, when Time itself was created in the process of Creation, and when both duration and extension are matters of very complicated nature, and, of course, the Bible itself gives us a clue that one day to God is countless years to man, or something like that. (As an amusing interjection, I suggest that, in explanation of deism, as distinguished from theism, in modern quasi-theological-quasi-philosophical usage, the “Seventh Day” of God’s rest has stretched over the post-Creation remainder of Time, thus accounting for His alleged non-participation in human affairs.)
In this regard, there is only one point of interest, where Evolution can indeed be challenged, or, at least, our focus of attention may be rightfully placed. If the Inspiration of Man is a deliberate act of God, as literally described in the Bible, how can we reconcile, or harmonize it (I am by no means suggesting that this cannot be done!) with the extremely lengthy process of brain development, as suggested by the Evolution theory, in which incremental changes in the "animal" brain eventually produce a new quality in the human brain. (To clarify my point, I am not talking about the crude caricature of Darwinian man descending from the monkeys, but only about the different “animal” stages of the development of homo sapiens proper. In other words, was Adam some kind of pre-Neanderthal, or what?) This must be the central question of our interest, and not the stupid argument about how many years ago God rolled up His sleeves, having decided to create the world.
The preceding paragraph is basically a summary of the series that is starting with this entry (perhaps, it was launched already in the earlier entry Reason And Passion), but first things first, and we shall now proceed with the business of this specific entry.
Whenever religious zealots are quarreling with their secularist counterparts, or either or both of them with common sense (common sense not necessarily in the right!), philosophy ought to be called in as the judge. Not in the sense of pompous pontification, which most philosophers are often mocked for, but in the best sense of thoughtfulness and wisdom, which distinguishes philosophy from all kinds of sciences, yet without having it completely separated from them. In fact, philosophy is the thoughtful component of every human endeavor (like in philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, etc.), and it is in this capacity, that she is now being called to our service.
The rather small matter of religious fundamentalism, as defined by the so-called “literal” interpretation of the Bible, becomes large when viewed as a matter of principle, getting us back to “Definitions, Definitions, Definitions!”
The distinction of literal and figurative interpretations of the Bible is rather lame, because the word literal is insufficiently defined. There can be no such thing as literal literalcy between two different languages, or two different points in time, to say nothing of its complete absence between two different usages, either by two different speakers, or by the same speaker at different times, or in different states of mind. And this is talking about some simple unsophisticated situations of everyday usage, whereas the Bible offers us the depths of complexity and an unrivaled challenge to our understanding.
It is reasonable to suggest that the right word to apply to the Scriptures would be cryptic, and the Book of Daniel clearly emphasizes this quality of the Bible, when it says that certain things will be understood only by those for whom they are meant to be understood, and then only when they are meant to be understood. The cryptic nature of the Bible is further brought out by the explorers of the so-called Bible Code, which, whether we accept their practical suggestions or not, does not change the basic fact of heavy symbolism and cryptology in it. Therefore, I think that those who insist on the literal interpretation, known as fundamentalists, are probably promoting their own reading of the text, or the reading of their school of exegesis, and cannot be credited with authenticity of interpretation by any stretch of interpretation.
Incidentally, the heavily charged word ‘Logos’ of St. John’s Gospel cannot even be approached, so as to be understood, without studying the significations of this word in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, and I doubt that most of those second-tier, derivative exegetes, quoted as Scriptural authorities in the churches of today, have delved that deep, anyway.
A few words in this regard about the never-ending controversy between the proponents of Creation versus the Evolution. I see little merit in the proponents of Creationism setting themselves up as an alternative to Evolution. The Story of Creation in the Bible is far too cryptic to make their claims in any way legitimate. For instance, it is outright silly for them to interpret the Six Days of Creation as our own cycles of twenty-four hours, when Time itself was created in the process of Creation, and when both duration and extension are matters of very complicated nature, and, of course, the Bible itself gives us a clue that one day to God is countless years to man, or something like that. (As an amusing interjection, I suggest that, in explanation of deism, as distinguished from theism, in modern quasi-theological-quasi-philosophical usage, the “Seventh Day” of God’s rest has stretched over the post-Creation remainder of Time, thus accounting for His alleged non-participation in human affairs.)
In this regard, there is only one point of interest, where Evolution can indeed be challenged, or, at least, our focus of attention may be rightfully placed. If the Inspiration of Man is a deliberate act of God, as literally described in the Bible, how can we reconcile, or harmonize it (I am by no means suggesting that this cannot be done!) with the extremely lengthy process of brain development, as suggested by the Evolution theory, in which incremental changes in the "animal" brain eventually produce a new quality in the human brain. (To clarify my point, I am not talking about the crude caricature of Darwinian man descending from the monkeys, but only about the different “animal” stages of the development of homo sapiens proper. In other words, was Adam some kind of pre-Neanderthal, or what?) This must be the central question of our interest, and not the stupid argument about how many years ago God rolled up His sleeves, having decided to create the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment