|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God.
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even your explanation of why you had to use an analogy, misses the purpose of an analogy - to illustrate the same concepts in a different context. If you change the CONCEPTS as well as the context, the whole thing falls over. You can only make a valid analogy relating to interpretation by looking at other forms of interpretation. Not by suddenly deciding to look at 'copying' and trying to persuade us, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it has anything at all to do with the concept of interpretation.
Well we differ on how analogies work then. If all we can do is move from interpretation in one field to interpretation in another field then I'm lost as to why we would ever need an analogy at all.
Whenever we discuss models of the atonement we are using analogies. Does the CV model only work if Jesus was actually fighting with the devil?
IMO you are mixing up weak and strong analogies. I've being using weak analogies (as I have fully admitted) in attempt to move the discussion on. What I'm hearing is that you will only accept analogies that fit all your axioms. If that is the case then there isn't much point continuing the conversation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To repeat myself, you can't prove that the bible is infalliable any more than you can prove that a scientific theory is true. All you can do is check whether the bible is falliable. And two directly contradictory accounts of creation in the bible, neither of which appears compatable with the Universe is more than sufficient.
I thought it would come down to this. You are trying to use the sticks of YEC and genocide (issues debated endlessly on the ship elsewhere) to beat up the evangelical doctrine of scripture.
I, like many Christians (not just evangelicals), are quite happy to see Genesis 1 and 2 as complementary. I don't see what this has got to do with infallibility.
I'm more than happy for anyone to check whether the bible is fallible or not. I probably agree with most of the ways you would check that.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even your explanation of why you had to use an analogy, misses the purpose of an analogy - to illustrate the same concepts in a different context. If you change the CONCEPTS as well as the context, the whole thing falls over. You can only make a valid analogy relating to interpretation by looking at other forms of interpretation. Not by suddenly deciding to look at 'copying' and trying to persuade us, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it has anything at all to do with the concept of interpretation.
Well we differ on how analogies work then. If all we can do is move from interpretation in one field to interpretation in another field then I'm lost as to why we would ever need an analogy at all.
Whenever we discuss models of the atonement we are using analogies. Does the CV model only work if Jesus was actually fighting with the devil?
IMO you are mixing up weak and strong analogies. I've being using weak analogies (as I have fully admitted) in attempt to move the discussion on. What I'm hearing is that you will only accept analogies that fit all your axioms. If that is the case then there isn't much point continuing the conversation.
The conversation has, at least twice, gone like this:
Johnny S: Here's an analogy.
Justinian/orfeo: That's a terrible analogy.
Johnny S: Well, that's why it's an analogy!
If the only analogy you can come with is a recognisably lousy one that even you think is 'weak', don't use it. Come up with a better one. Come up with one that actually succeeds in bolstering your argument instead of making you look confused about concepts.
Useful definitions of 'analogy' from our very own Macquarie Dictionary:
1. an agreement, likeness, or correspondence between the relations of things to one another; a partial similarity in particular circumstances on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
5. Logic a form of reasoning in which similarities are inferred from a similarity of two or more things in certain particulars.
[Latin analogia, from Greek: originally, equality of ratios, proportion]
Here's a basic tip: if there isn't the correspondence between relations that enables a comparison to be made, it's not an analogy.
[ 01. December 2010, 23:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here's a basic tip: if there isn't the correspondence between relations that enables a comparison to be made, it's not an analogy.
Believe it or not I do get that.
And what is clear from this discussion is that you would not accept any analogy because you disagree with my position in the first place. I'm coming up with 'weak' analogies because there is no such thing as an infallible document in any other setting.
There's no point in discussing then is there?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I disagree with parts of your position. Other bits I agree with - although you might have to go back a couple of pages to see that, because we haven't been focusing on those bits. Remember, I agreed with the proposition that the Bible is infallible.
Where we part ways is on the effect of interpretation. The thing that I and many others are trying to say is that the nature of the act of interpretation doesn't depend on the qualities of the thing being interpreted. The act of interpreting is similar whether it's interpreting the Bible, a Tolstoy novel or a 2nd-rate pamphlet published by the mad old man down the street. The fact that the Bible is infallible is, in my view, utterly irrelevant to that point.
So the reason I find your analogies unhelpful is not because there aren't any other infallible documents around, but because I think you're wrong to think that the infallibility is even relevant.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought I'd given justification for why I consider Scripture to be infallible. I hope you don't mind if I repeat what I thought I had already said. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture is a rallying call for taking Scripture seriously, it's a high standard for Scripture that calls us to attempt an equally high standard for interpretation of Scripture. It says that simply reading the Bible because it gives us good feelings, or taking verses that reinforce our preconceptions, or ignoring sections that make us uncomfortable is simply not good enough. It's a belief that Scripture is a trustworthy document, and it's a call for us to have faith in the God revealed in a trustworthy manner in those pages.
But what you are saying here is that the bible is treated as infallible because it is beneficial (in the opinion of some?) that it should be treated as infallible. So biblical infallibility doesn't exist in its own right but rather it is a result of a human interpretation of human need, and a human desire to elevate the value attached to the bible. It's a reversal of causality.
There are I suppose two ways to view the question.
One is, as you say, to consider Biblical Infallibility to be a beneficial theory imposed by human ideas.
The other is to say that the Bible actually is infallible, and that that is beneficial to how we get to know God through it.
I'm not entirely sure how one could prove one or the other. But, it makes sense to me that if I find the concept of Biblical infallibility to be helpful then it's simplest to simply assume that that is the case.
I could offer an analogy .... but perhaps shouldn't!
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
For me to believe the bible to be infalliable then I would need to believe that the creator of the physical world was so uncertain about his creation that he provided two directly contradictory accounts. And that very simply isn't what I see in the beauty of Creation. Therefore I conclude that it was not the Creator who dictated the bible.
For a start, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that God "dictated the Bible". The formation of the Bible was a much more subtle process than mere dictation, one that fully involved human authorship and yet (IMO) retained an infallibility consistent with being the creation of an infallible God. Second, the two creation accounts in Genesis are only directly contradictory if you interpret them as accounts of how creation happened, as some form of objective scientific historical account. If you accept them as mythical poetic stories teaching important theological truth then they become wonderfully complementary and synergistic. You can't disprove the infallibility of Scripture by pointing out the fallibility of interpretations of Scripture - because AFAIK no one here is arguing for the infallibility of their interpretations of Scripture.
quote:
here is why I think that most inerrantists are intellectually lazy. We do not get given objective rules. We need to work out how to apply the principles.
And, I entirely agree with this. Although as we're discussing infallibility rather than inerrancy it isn't relevant to this discussion. As I've repeatedly said, infallibility is a call to do the hard work of Biblical interpretation, to work out the principals and how they apply today. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture should result in the exact opposite of intellectual laziness.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I disagree with parts of your position. Other bits I agree with - although you might have to go back a couple of pages to see that, because we haven't been focusing on those bits. Remember, I agreed with the proposition that the Bible is infallible.
Where we part ways is on the effect of interpretation. The thing that I and many others are trying to say is that the nature of the act of interpretation doesn't depend on the qualities of the thing being interpreted. The act of interpreting is similar whether it's interpreting the Bible, a Tolstoy novel or a 2nd-rate pamphlet published by the mad old man down the street. The fact that the Bible is infallible is, in my view, utterly irrelevant to that point.
So the reason I find your analogies unhelpful is not because there aren't any other infallible documents around, but because I think you're wrong to think that the infallibility is even relevant.
Well I'm really confused now. It feels (well, to me at least) that you've just summarised my position!
I thought I was the one saying that the act of interpreting was pretty much the same whatever document you were approaching.
Or at least I meant to. Oh dear. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To repeat myself, you can't prove that the bible is infalliable any more than you can prove that a scientific theory is true. All you can do is check whether the bible is falliable. And two directly contradictory accounts of creation in the bible, neither of which appears compatable with the Universe is more than sufficient.
I thought it would come down to this. You are trying to use the sticks of YEC and genocide (issues debated endlessly on the ship elsewhere) to beat up the evangelical doctrine of scripture.
The problem is that infalliability as you have so far described it would appear to be a truly meaningless concept. It is not ever approachable because interpreters are flawed. It is not ever testable because if it fails all that means is that the apologetics aren't good enough. All it appears to be is a word that says the bible contains wisdom. Well yes. The bible is not morally infalliable if it supports slavery or genocide. It is not literally infalliable if it comes up with counterfactuals - those are failings to understand the real world. So what does your word infalliable mean?
The Principia Discordia is infallible.
quote:
I, like many Christians (not just evangelicals), are quite happy to see Genesis 1 and 2 as complementary. I don't see what this has got to do with infallibility.
It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For a start, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that God "dictated the Bible". The formation of the Bible was a much more subtle process than mere dictation, one that fully involved human authorship and yet (IMO) retained an infallibility consistent with being the creation of an infallible God.
What does that even mean? That the bible is a flawed creation of flawed minds and flawed hands that contains much wisdom is granted. But what do you mean by infalliable? Can it lead people astray? Yes and it does. Are there good things strongly supported and only weakly opposed by the bible? Yes. Abolition springs to mind. So what does infalliable mean?
quote:
You can't disprove the infallibility of Scripture by pointing out the fallibility of interpretations of Scripture - because AFAIK no one here is arguing for the infallibility of their interpretations of Scripture.
What does infalliable mean? That it is too perfect to ever be understood? As you describe it it is a meaningless concept when applied to the world.
quote:
And, I entirely agree with this. Although as we're discussing infallibility rather than inerrancy it isn't relevant to this discussion.
And this I don't understand. How can an error-strewn doccument be infalliable?
quote:
As I've repeatedly said, infallibility is a call to do the hard work of Biblical interpretation, to work out the principals and how they apply today. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture should result in the exact opposite of intellectual laziness.
It possibly should. But where it isn't intellectual laziness, it seems to be a call to intellectual backflips and the attempt to prove that black is white.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Well I'm really confused now. It feels (well, to me at least) that you've just summarised my position!
I thought I was the one saying that the act of interpreting was pretty much the same whatever document you were approaching.
Or at least I meant to. Oh dear.
To be fair, you arguably DID say that. But you also keep clinging to the idea that the infallible text of the Bible makes a difference by being a standard against which the non-infallible interpretation can be compared.
Which doesn't make sense. It's a category error. All interpretations of all texts can be 'compared' to the text in one sense, but the process of comparing is not affected by your views on the merits of the original text.
An accurate interpretation of the meaning of Mein Kampf has the same value, as an intepretation, as an accurate interpretation of the Bible.
The only thing that the infallibility of the Bible does in this context is tell you that it's worth interpreting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
I didn't pick you for a fundamentalist creationist Justinian. That's how they argue. Once again the similarities between fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists is enlightening.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing that the infallibility of the Bible does in this context is tell you that it's worth interpreting.
Only thing? That's pretty big isn't it?
I'm not going to devote my life to wrestling with interpreting Mein Kampf.
However, if the bible is infallible then it is worthwhile since I'm getting closer to an accurate portrayal of God. I think that is hugely significant.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing that the infallibility of the Bible does in this context is tell you that it's worth interpreting.
Only thing? That's pretty big isn't it?
I'm not going to devote my life to wrestling with interpreting Mein Kampf.
However, if the bible is infallible then it is worthwhile since I'm getting closer to an accurate portrayal of God. I think that is hugely significant.
Yes, I agree it is pretty big. But I did say 'in this context'.
It's a reason to interpret. But it's not an aid to interpretation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not an aid to interpretation.
I don't recall saying that it was.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not an aid to interpretation.
I don't recall saying that it was.
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
I didn't pick you for a fundamentalist creationist Justinian. That's how they argue. Once again the similarities between fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists is enlightening.
I'm not. I do not believe the bible to be infallible. I believe you can have respect for a text without making up properties about it like "infalliable" or "inerrant" and putting it up on a pedestal for the purpose of bibliolatory. The religious text I regularly return to is the world's furthest thing from either - it gets revised every few years (Quaker Faith and Practice).
You, however, appear to duck the question every time it is raised about what infalliable means other than that it is a property of the true bible which we may never understand properly. And if we get it wrong it's our fault rather than the bible's.
To me, that's a mendacious version of the YEC approach. The YECs at least treat the bible as infalliable and mean it rather than always blame the interpreter for flaws in the text. Absolutely nothing you (or Alan) has said indicates otherwise. It's a an attempt to have your cake and eat it - if a flaw is ever found in the bible then it was clearly the fault of the interpreter and you still get to keep the bible on that pedestal.
Drop the attempt to have your cake and eat it and I'm more than happy to treat the bible as a book by generally wise and good people preaching about things within the context of the time and society. And making human mistakes at times. Some of what humanity has to offer when guided by glimpses of the Light. Claims of infalliability or inerrance are both both stem from the same heart as YEC - bibliolatory. And while the YEC bibliolators are wrong, those claiming infaliability and rejecting YEC have placed themselves in a different category. Not Even Wrong.
On a tangent, this is exactly what Dawkins was writing about in The God Delusion.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
On a tangent, this is exactly what Dawkins was writing about in The God Delusion.
Funnily enough I've just finished another chapter of Hugh MacKay's book What makes us tick? As an Australian social commentator it is compulsory reading as part of my Aussie enculturation.
In the chapter about belief he quotes James Wood favourably: "Nothing more clearly shows that atheism belongs to religious belief, as the candlesnuffer does to the candle, than the rise of so-called atheism." MacKay then goes on to roundly dismiss Dawkins (and others) for barking up the wrong tree.
I read The God Delusion some years ago and it won't surprise you that I concur with MacKay. It might surprise you just how many other people agree though.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Funnily enough I've just finished another chapter of Hugh MacKay's book What makes us tick? As an Australian social commentator it is compulsory reading as part of my Aussie enculturation.
In the chapter about belief he quotes James Wood favourably: "Nothing more clearly shows that atheism belongs to religious belief, as the candlesnuffer does to the candle, than the rise of so-called atheism." MacKay then goes on to roundly dismiss Dawkins (and others) for barking up the wrong tree.
I read The God Delusion some years ago and it won't surprise you that I concur with MacKay. It might surprise you just how many other people agree though.
Of course you agree with MacKay. And it really doesn't hasn't surprised me that people take what they can since I read Eagleton's criticism cited approvingly by a number of people. When it is very clear that if Eagleton has done any more than flicked through The God Delusion, he doesn't bring that into his critique. Dawkins is training his guns on people like you. From what you've just written MacKay is giving you a reason to be able to dismiss the condemnation. It's not hard to guess which you are instinctively sympathetic to.
That said, is his critique anywhere on line? There are many criticisms that can fairly be thrown at that book.
Edit: And I note you still aren't answering the question as to what is meant by infalliable. Other than a meaningless honorific given to the bible that some people, like me, make the mistake of taking seriously.
[ 03. December 2010, 12:06: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
Given what passes for art criticism, is it even possible to write an essay that is complete bollocks? Poe's law seems to have a corollary in the art world...
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
That's easy. It's obviously easier if you can see the thing.
But the Bible isn't locked away either. I can read it. Reading the Bible is not the same as understanding it, though. Seeing a painting is not the same as understanding it.
The equivalent of having the Mona Lisa locked away would be if I was not able to read the text of the Bible for myself, and had to rely on other people's claims about what it said.
See? THERE'S an analogy!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I think pjkirk is on to something here. I hate modern art.
And it feels (to me at least) that Orfeo has tricked us into a Tracey Emin exhibit at the Tate Modern.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the Bible isn't locked away either. I can read it. Reading the Bible is not the same as understanding it, though. Seeing a painting is not the same as understanding it.
The equivalent of having the Mona Lisa locked away would be if I was not able to read the text of the Bible for myself, and had to rely on other people's claims about what it said.
See? THERE'S an analogy!
That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
Reading is not the same as understanding but they are extremely closely related. In fact, to go out on a limb here, you can't have the latter without the former.
If the bible is not infallible then the text is not out in the open - because then all we have are some words to read but we have no idea how closely they cohere with reality. Then it really is like the painting is locked away. We are reading a review of the painting but we cannot look at the painting to draw our own conclusions.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the bible is not infallible then the text is not out in the open - because then all we have are some words to read but we have no idea how closely they cohere with reality. Then it really is like the painting is locked away. We are reading a review of the painting but we cannot look at the painting to draw our own conclusions.
Look out of your window. That's reality. Your computer. The sky. The ground. The window itself. All real. As is that feeling in your chest when you look at someone you love. Or someone you hate. The text is all there in the open if you care to look and study.
The Bible is not the painting. The bible is one particular book of essays about the painting compiled by a group of often but not always wise people. The painting itself is where you live. And you can look at that and study that to draw your own conclusions.
And for the record "The Bible must be infallible because the consequences otherwise are unthinkable" is not a good argument for the Bible actually being infallible.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the bible is not infallible then the text is not out in the open - because then all we have are some words to read but we have no idea how closely they cohere with reality. Then it really is like the painting is locked away. We are reading a review of the painting but we cannot look at the painting to draw our own conclusions.
But without knowing which interpretation is right, we don't know in what way it coheres with reality. For instance does Gen 1-3 cohere with reality as a myth expressing a valid theological concept? As straight history? As a fairy tale? As an acid trip? All of those "cohere with reality" in some way. But until we know which of them is the correct interpretation, we don't know which mode of coherence with reality the text has. Without the infallible interpretation we are right where you say we are if we say the Bible is not infallible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
It really, really isn't.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
It really, really isn't.
No, Johnny, it isn't.
We know if a copy of a painting is an accurate representation of the painting. We can compare, quantify differences, etc. It's a COPY, not an INTERPRETATION.
We have no way to judge the quality of an interpretation. This is where your analogy fails. This is why people likened it to an essay about a painting - we can't say if they are right or wrong without intervention by the painter. Well, we don't have that intervention by God, if it exists.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Here's one: we don't know if the Mona Lisa is an accurate depiction because we don't have the woman who modeled for it. But, let's say, we have 20 other artist's impressions of her face, some of which are similar to the ML but different in significant ways, and some of which wildly divergent -- but then others are a lot like those. Unless we have someone who can definitively say, "this one here is the one that captures what she really looks like," then we are at sea; we can't determine what she really looked like.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's one: we don't know if the Mona Lisa is an accurate depiction because we don't have the woman who modeled for it. But, let's say, we have 20 other artist's impressions of her face, some of which are similar to the ML but different in significant ways, and some of which wildly divergent -- but then others are a lot like those. Unless we have someone who can definitively say, "this one here is the one that captures what she really looks like," then we are at sea; we can't determine what she really looked like.
Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
I think we are sometimes talking at cross purposes on this thread because, for the sake of continuing this already tortuous analogy, I'm always talking with the historical Mona Lisa in mind.
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
I am not making all the claims about interpretation that you (plural you) think I am though.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
Sure, what God wants to convey is the Mona Lisa. You then have various versions that were made by painters with cataracts wearing drunk goggles and the original is being shaken up and down.
You don't have the original to compare to, though. The only way you have to judge how close you are to the original is simply by what's in fashion at the moment. Yeah, you know there should be a face, but you don't know if God paints like a Rembrandt, Vermeer, or a Picasso.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
I think we are sometimes talking at cross purposes on this thread because, for the sake of continuing this already tortuous analogy, I'm always talking with the historical Mona Lisa in mind.
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
I am not making all the claims about interpretation that you (plural you) think I am though.
If that's what you think I said, I said it all wrong. In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's one: we don't know if the Mona Lisa is an accurate depiction because we don't have the woman who modeled for it. But, let's say, we have 20 other artist's impressions of her face, some of which are similar to the ML but different in significant ways, and some of which wildly divergent -- but then others are a lot like those. Unless we have someone who can definitively say, "this one here is the one that captures what she really looks like," then we are at sea; we can't determine what she really looked like.
Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
I think we are sometimes talking at cross purposes on this thread because, for the sake of continuing this already tortuous analogy, I'm always talking with the historical Mona Lisa in mind.
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
I am not making all the claims about interpretation that you (plural you) think I am though.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
For all the pages I've been involved in, this was a thread about the nature of the Bible. Not about the nature of God (as revealed in the Bible).
If you want to talk about how the Bible reveals God, that is a question at a different level of abstraction to how we go about understanding the meaning of the Bible, with completely different answers.
Now you want to suddenly tell us that you were talking not about a painting, but the figure represented in the painting? Well, forgive me but that just proves how bloody crap you are at analogies. Take a look on this page when you talk about a painting being locked away. No mention of the the actual thing the painting represents at all. Not until Mousethief brought it up. And then suddenly it's what you've been talking about all along.
The most irritating thing about this for me is that I actually agree with... probably about 80% of your views. But I spend this thread watching you duck and weave and fuse one concept into another, apparently without realising you're doing it, and it's tiring.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
Well, in my analogy, the picture is the infallible representation of the woman. Although, to slightly alter the analogy I'd say that actually the Bible is more like a gallery of different pictures of the Mona Lisa, some of which try to present her physical appearance others attempt to show her character and personality, which taken together are an infallible representation of the actual woman.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If that's what you think I said, I said it all wrong. In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
Okay - I didn't think you were saying that exactly, what I meant was that it got me thinking from another angle.
So, how would the infallible meaning of the bible differ from a representation of God then?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The most irritating thing about this for me is that I actually agree with... probably about 80% of your views. But I spend this thread watching you duck and weave and fuse one concept into another, apparently without realising you're doing it, and it's tiring.
That's right Orfeo the golden rule of discussion is to always assume that the other person is either a) stupid or b) cynically avoiding facing up to the obvious contradiction of their position. (Under no circumstances ever assume that they might be wanting a discussion.)
The silver rule for discussion is then to assume that one is 100% correct about everything and any fault in communication must come entirely from the other side.
Finally the bronze rule is that debate is actively improved by the occasional sideways glance towards the person holding the gun towards your head forcing you to post.
After all that is how all con evos post isn't it?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Arg, too late to edit!
Scrub that last post - sorry Orfeo. It is late and I shouldn't have posted it out of frustration.
I think I'll just bow out of this thread now before it gets even more heated.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm looking at what everyone else has posted too, Johnny. And everyone else's posts keep making sense. Even if I don't agree with them, I can still understand what their position is.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That's right Orfeo the golden rule of discussion is to always assume that the other person is either a) stupid or b) cynically avoiding facing up to the obvious contradiction of their position. (Under no circumstances ever assume that they might be wanting a discussion.)
Everybody would've been gone 4 pages ago if they were taking this tack.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Thank you, Johnny S, for your swift retraction of your post - you saved yourself a hostly knuckle-rap ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
