Nyborg’s a scientific racist who also argues that men are mentally superior to women and whites to blacks. The religion thing is part and parcel of that, as is the Nyborg/Lynn study, which “found”, shockingly, that African countries had the highest religion and the lowest IQ.
No. I meant the rise of Literalism. Now, that was a reaction to a fear of science, but there are hundreds of commentaries over thousands of years in which different people discussed the meaning of the texts. It was only with the rise of Literalism that anyone bothered to try to harmonize the contradictions.
No one tried to “burn” Augustine when he set out his views on Genesis. No one burned the works of the Jewish Philosopher Philo or the Jewish writer Josephus when they commented on Genesis. In fact, their books were kept in circulation in Christian countries throughout the entire period that you want to claim everyone was supposed to be fearful.
If you have an example of a writer being threatened for publishing a “wrong” interpretation of Genesis based on a literal reading, you are free to post it. Otherwise, you appear to simply be making assumptions based on a total lack of facts. We certainly have examples of people who were punished, even killed, for heretical views, but strangely, given your assertion, none of them actually were charged for holding views that you claim would have gotten them punished. That strongly suggests that such persecution was never one of literalism vs imagery, but was rooted in separate causes. There is no record of anyone being persecuted for challenging the literal nature of scripture.
(Before you rush in with Kepler and Galileo, I will note–and you will ignore–that the actual opposition to their writings was rooted in their challenge to Aristotelian philosophy and they were challenged by a (powerful) minority of church leaders while a number of church authorities actually supported their investigations.)
Is all that out of line with what other scientists doing studies on IQ found?
That’s almost the same thing I wrote in post #12.
They sure put the fear if the inquisition to Galileo though didn’t they?
So basically you are saying they burned you alive not believing the right things in the Bible, but not the exact right things I was talking about?
Sure Galileo was put in the Inquisition because of heresy against Aristotle.:rolleyes:
Anyway here’s what you were hoping to head off with that bit of reverse psychology.
The discussion is Literalism. Nothing you have posted indicates that Literalism was the actual prevailing belief in the bible. Your personal crusade to attack religion or Christianity is not really relevant to the actual topic of this thread.
So, you really are unaware that the primary opposition to Galileo’s claims were based on an Aristotelian/Thomisitic cosmology? I am not surprised. The initial attacks on Galileo’s claims came from the Dominicans, who felt it important to defend Aquinas from all challenges. The Jesuits initially gave Galileo an open hearing, arguing his math and his arguments, (that Galileo got wrong), without getting worried about Scripture. (The Franciscans–who were not admirers of Aquinas–pretty much stayed out of the feud.) Invoking Scripture was simply a way for Galileo’s opponents to try to squelch discussion. One reason that Galileo’s trial was overturned a few years ago was that no one actually found any doctrine of the church or Scripture that he had violated. His conviction at the second trial, (the one that actually produced a conviction), was based on the discovery of a letter that ordered him to remain silent on this issue–a letter that appears to have been a later forgery and not the actual declaration of the first trial.
It’s a fair cop. Sorry. I’ll try to be nicer, next time.
Thanks, your post addressed my question and concern very well.
You’re looking at a document which, if not exactly a legal document, is written with a very legal mindset. You have to read it very literally. That is how it is intended to be read–for its literal content and its logical implications.
Put the two passages together, and you get the consistent conclusion that not every statement an author authors is intended as a teaching by that author. No surprise there.
Most of the times I’ve encountered literalist beliefs in Christians, they’ve gone hand in hand with Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arose as a response to 19th/20th theologians such as Schweitzer and Bultmann who, influenced by the rise of science and its apparent disproving of some Biblical passages, adopted a non-magical, demythologized view of Christianity. See Wiki’s article on Fundamentalism for its origins (and, hey, there’s a section on Fundamentalist Atheism). So, when I (and, I presume, many other Christians) hear the term “literalist”, we’re thinking “Fundamentalist”, because they’re the main source of promulgation of the literalist agenda. Before the advent of Fundamentalism, as has been mentioned here, literalism was one of many possible approaches, and the main question was when and where in the scriptures it should be applied.
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread as time permits, find it interesting, as well as the various viewpoints constructive when kept civil, and appreciate those who have been doing so. I’m still learning more of what biblical literalism means. I found Wikipedia helpful. Briefly, in various parts it says:
“Literalism does not question that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author’s intention.” And that it does not “mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor). Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.”
“Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined.”
I’ve read from one scholar that says allegory is in various parts of the bible, but many are using allegory where its writers clearly didn’t intend for it to be, saying that it’s one of the worst forms of interpretation. I’ve read from others that said Origen was the worst offender of the earliest church fathers of this method. Today, one of the most colorful interpretations of one pericope was Charles Manson’s rendition of Revelation 9, and how he thought it was talking about him and the Beatles. Obviously, no scholar, but not sure how many go about reading Revelation.
Wikipedia says Augustine is said to have “wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor. But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Jesus’s mother Mary.” And, he too, estimated the age of the generations in the bible, and came up with a short history not quite that of 6,000 years which fundamentalists of today would be quite happy with. He had an excuse to believe in it though, today’s fundamentalists don’t.
A contrasting difference that several have already noted is the difference today of many liberal Christians being tolerant and accepting of science, while the literalists had to go out and invent their own version. There was no need to do this throughout much of Christianity’s history, since so little in science was still known, but after Darwin, it seems the greatest insult to the literalists, is that we evolved.
The best I can make out in this day and age, I think more Christians than ever have serious doubts about the miraculous stories being literally true, Moses parting the Red Sea, Noah and the flood, Jesus’ miraculous virgin birth, other miracles, quite a few I think question his divinity, etc; I think the verdict is still out with the resurrection. These are the type of Christians that I can’t imagine existing during its early history, since it was a very credulous time to be living in. It seems from about Constantine’s time and on there were certain things the church required you to believe, and other things it didn’t care about. Punishment for heresy could lead to death.
Augustine, if he was an intelligent as many Christians say he was, would certainly be in the moral liberal camp of Christianity today, or could have just as easily went the way of ex-Catholic priest, Joseph McCabe.
It’s in line with what, basically, racist scientists have found. Lynn and Rushton and all that. A lot of the IQ studies are pretty strongly flawed, sponsored by white supremacist groups like the Pioneer Fund, and have serious methodological problems.
Prevailing? I was just looking to show that it existed a long time ago and is not a NEW phenomenon. If you look back a post number ONE, you can see that I did so. I just checked what razncain said and it seems Augustine was a young earth creationist too.
Them’s all nice details Tom, but do nothing to change the fact that Galileo was threatened with torture for the heresy of thinking and saying that the earth orbited the sun. I understand they were Catholic just like you, so that you want to put as nice a spin on it as possible. For a non-Catholic spin check out Russell:
Oh, Galileo’s conviction was overturned after 400 years? Well then, that makes it OK I guess. Maybe in another 400 years the One True Church can look back overturn their prohibition of condoms in AIDS infested Africa, which if I am not mistaken is based on some Bible verse you Catholics still take literally.
Great, and that document says the Bible was written by God and is without error. Billy Graham couldn’t have said it better.
I don’t see your conclusion at all. Let me quote it in context:
No, it still looks to say what I said it said. Maybe you Catholics would do better if you never wrote anything down.
What do non-racist scientists find when they study IQ?
You’re just wrong. First of all, the whole discipline of Science is based on “continually having the things… held as true disproved by science.” That’s how scientific advancement works, by starting with a theory and disproving (or proving) it. If people started with the idea that the earth was 6000 years old, and then abandoned that idea when science proved otherwise, well, that’s what rational people do. There is nothing foolish about believing in a 6000 year old earth when there was no evidence to the contrary.
Liberal Christians embrace science, because we believe that it tells us more about the universe which gives us more insight into God. Far from “retreating as science advances”, we rejoice in scientific progress.
I can’t figure out what you mean by this, but there are millions of examples of science proving earlier scientists wrong. That doesn’t make scientists hypocrites nor does it mean they are constantly retreating. You praise scientists for adapting to scientific discoveries, yet you condemn Christians for doing the same thing.
*(By the way, I object to the implication that science and Christianity are at odds. There have always been plenty of scientists who were and are Christians and vice versa.)
+1
Sure and the idea of the Bible is that God had some hand in writing it, some say He wrote it Himself, so it’s right from the start. Sort of the opposite of science. It’s observation and experiment vs. authority. Did you know Russell’s book “Religion and Science” is free on youtube? Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12xJ5iJWb3c&list=PL6AB7334AEED4BDC9
That’s all great, people started out with a literalist interpretation of Genesis then moved to a metaphorical one as science showed the literal words were wrong. My problem is when liberal Christians start revising their history and say the literalist interpretations are a new thing.
I’m that’s what you all tell yourselves. The problem arises when you still think you have sufficient reason to believe in a literal resurrection and literal divinity of Jesus.
The methods are at odds, but people can compartmentalize.
But you’re supposing that all Christians start with the premise that the Bible is authoritative in a historical and scientific sense, and then we reluctantly back off that when proven wrong. That’s not the case.
But we’re referring to literalism as a rejection of science or historical evidence, which IS a newish thing. And we’ve already showed you that even back way before the enlightenment, important Christian theologians were stressing the importance of the metaphorical and anagogical meaning above the literal meaning.
Why is that a problem? If there is scientific evidence that contradicts Jesus’ divinity I’ll embrace it.
No need to compartmentalize; there is no inherent contradiction.
No, I was just supposing that a good number of Christians start with the premise that the Bible is authoritative, it’s modern liberal Christians have said this was just a recent phenomenon. Maybe you missed the thread title.
Only because history and science proving the Bible wrong is newish. Christians were taking the Bible at face value long before that.
That’s great, but a number of them guys were young earth creationists who stressed the literal meaning of scripture quite frequently.
Have you heard of medical science and what it has to say about mammals coming back to life after being drained of blood for 3 days? Have you heard of physics and how the surface tension of water can not support a man walking upon it?
Keep telling yourself that.
People have known these things for thousands of years.
People, then and now, who believe that miraculous events actually occurred know that the events are miracles.
And you believe in miracles, why? Because some book describes them, literally?