Rosenhouse on Religion

Jason Rosenhouse over at EvolutionBlog recently commented on an article by Michael Ruse about religion and evolution. That article was fine — I agree with Ruse’s point, but Rosenhouse misses the mark when it comes to religion.

For example, he writes

I agree with what Ruse is saying here, and I especially like that last paragraph. But I also think the fundamentalists have a point in protesting the willingness of people like Ruse to interpret the Bible metaphorically. The creation story in Genesis sure reads like history. There’s nothing in the text itself to suggest that it is anything but a description of actual historical events.

Nothing to suggest otherwise? How about two creation stories, clearly contradictory with each other. The second begins in Genesis 2:4 with Adam all alone, before the rest of creation and without Eve (this if read even close to literally). Yet we’ve just been told they were both made on the same day, at the end of a long process of creation. Now fundamentalists reconile this by simply claiming that the second story of creation is simply a “close up” of day seven in the first, with the creation of Adam and Eve. This simply isn’t tenable, and I’ll refer you to an old testament professor and “Why’s [He’s] Not a Creationist” for a good explanation of the whole thing.

And how about the rhythmic pattern of creation? The same pattern each day (and it was good), culminating in a day of rest… I’m no scholar or revolutionary for recognizing that this is poetic, even using devices of literature, rather than a literal history.

Jason continues:

To many Christians, Ruse’s suggestion seems like substituting fallible human judgments for the holy word of God. After all, why would God present his Word in a form so vague and malleable that it must be reinterpreted in the light of every new scientific discovery to come down the line? And if you concede that the Bible is routinely wrong in scientific matters (as all sensible people should concede), then why does it retain any worth when addressing moral or historical questions? If the merits of its empirical statements must be assessed on the basis of outside sources of knowledge, why shouldn’t we also assess it’s moral claims on the basis of non-Biblical sources? Either the Bible is the holy and inerrant word of God, or it is an ancient document written by people with no more claim to authority than any other document that has survived from that time. It’s hard to find a logically consistent middle ground.

Here’s a strawman. I can say the same thing about other types of literature. “And if you concede that Shakespeare is routinely wrong in scientific matters (as all sensible people should concede)…” So who’s wrong? Shakespeare or the way I’m trying to read Shakespeare? The problem is the same as it’s always been. Some (okay, many) Christians look to the Bible and attempt to derive answers for all kinds of scientific questions from the text. Jason is all too happy to accept that view of the Bible and club them over the head for it.

I don’t have a problem that the Bible is “routinely wrong in scientific matters.” I think it’s a gross error to hold ancient writers accountable for not saying something they were never trying to say in the first place. (Meaning that the intent or purpose of the writers has never been the same as our modern pursuit of science). Jason seems to think that the good book can’t be the holy word of God and an ancient document with the types of errancy common to ancient documents, both at the same time. My view of inspiration (and regardless if we’re in the minority — many other Christians as well), is not that God came down and literally penned the letters, or manipulatively controlled the person who did, but rather speaks to us through this ancient literature.

As far as judging the Bible on it’s moral claims, all I can say is that this is precisely why I’m a Christian. Perhaps the only reason. Jesus raised from the dead? Ehhh, doesn’t do much for me. I frankly find it hard to believe — that is until I put the gospel to the test. I believe that the gospel has the power to transform lives. Especially broken, really screwed up lives. (Which I believe to be all of us, in one area or another). This foundation — that I’ve struggled to follow the moral claims of the Bible and found them to be surprisingly powerful — is the “proof” I base my belief on.

Not only do I understand that this “proof” is simply unacceptable to many, I respect their freedom to make this decision. But I’m always disappointed when the same polite respect is not returned — thus my quibble with Jason’s post. It was a far cry from his excellent recent article on the state of intelligent design research, a topic on which I’m happy to agree whole-heartedly.