Upload
invincible-balu
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
1/602
would liketo turn as
we would
like to turnas we
conclude
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
2/602
thischapter.The
first of
thesecommontop
ics or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
3/602
problems isa time-
honoured
one,centringround the
idiographic
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
4/602
snomothetic
dichotomy
thatseparates
and unites
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
5/602
the socialsciences at
would like
to turn aswe
conclude
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
6/602
thischapter.The
first of
thesecommontop
ics or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
7/602
problems isa time-
honoured
one,centringround the
idiographic
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
8/602
snomothetic
dichotomy
thatseparates
and unites
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
9/602
the socialsciences at
would like
to turn aswe
conclude
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
10/602
thischapter.The
first of
thesecommontop
ics or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
11/602
problems isa time-
honoured
one,centringround the
idiographic
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
12/602
snomothetic
dichotomy
thatseparates
and unites
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
13/602
the socialsciences at
would like
to turn aswe
conclude
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
14/602
thischapter.The
first of
thesecommontop
ics or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
15/602
problems isa time-
honoured
one,centringround the
idiographic
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
16/602
snomothetic
dichotomy
thatseparates
and unites
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
17/602
the socialsciences at
one and the
one and thesame
time.Acentr
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
18/602
al point ofcontention,
especially
during theearly debate
about
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
19/602
exceptionalismingeog
raphy
(Schaefer1953),this
axis had
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
20/602
been adominant
one in the
human andsocialscienc
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
21/602
es at leastsince theMethodenst
reitin the
German
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
22/602
Staatswissenschaften
during
thesecondhalf of the
nineteenth
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
23/602
century(Strohmaye
r 1997b).Is
geography ascienceconc
entrating on
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
24/602
thespecific,on
difference
and theuniqueness
of place(s)?
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
25/602
Or is itsgoalto uncover
law-like
structuresthat apply
under
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
26/602
observableconditions
and
whichcanbe used for
planning
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
27/602
and othersocially
relevant
purposes?Human
geography
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
28/602
hasfoundmany
different
answers tothese
questions
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
29/602
during thecourse of
the
twentiethcentury and
has
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
30/602
witnessedseemingly
stable
configurations vanish
every so
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
31/602
often.Take,for
instance,the
resurrectionof a concern
for
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
32/602
particularitywithin the
postmodern
paradigm:was this a
return to an
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
33/602
earliergeographica
l practice or
somethingaltogetherne
w and
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
34/602
different?Was it a
child of its
time justlike any
other
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
35/602
epistemological
break and
thusnecessarily
a form of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
36/602
localknowledge (Ley
2003)?
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
37/602
Geographicalvisions23
Mention ofparticularit
yshould
remind us
not to
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
38/602
overlook asecond axis
thatstructur
edgeographic
theories
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
39/602
during thetwentieth
century.Oft
en hiddenbeneath
theidiograp
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
40/602
hicnomothetic
divide,the
differencebetween
generality
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
41/602
andparticularity
isthought by
many to besynonymou
s with the
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
42/602
former.However,one
can well
imagineanomothetic
approach to
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
43/602
particulars,just as
idiographic
concerns forgeneralities
exist.Implic
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
44/602
it in thisdifference,t
herefore,is
little lessthan the
importance
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
45/602
of scale(Marston20
00) or the
reminderthat the
geographies
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
46/602
we observechange
depending
oncontext,fra
me of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
47/602
referenceand point of
view.Both
axesmentioned
revolve
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
48/602
aroundepistemolog
ical issues
in that theypresent
us with a
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
49/602
choicebetween
different
conceptualizations of
what kind
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
50/602
of sciencegeography
isand
shouldbe.But there
is a third
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
51/602
axis we canidentify that
centres
aroundquestions
of causation
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
52/602
.Centrallyimplicated
here is the
dichotomybetween
structure
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
53/602
andagency.Larg
ely implicit
in thetheoretical
assumptions
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
54/602
of humangeography
up until the
1970s,thisaxis
provided
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
55/602
geographerswith a
whole set of
answers tothe question
of what
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
56/602
or who wasresponsible
for the
creation andmaintenanc
e of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
57/602
geographicrealities:wa
s itpeoples
preferencesthat shaped
spaces,or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
58/602
was theparticular
context
withinwhich
suchchoices
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
59/602
were maderesponsible
for the
geographieswe could
observe
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
60/602
empirically? For aslong
as
geographyheld fast to
the kind of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
61/602
checklistmentality
observed
earlier inthischapter,t
his latter
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
62/602
part of thequestion
apparently
did notbecome an
issue.Thing
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
63/602
sstarted tochange,how
ever,with
the movetowards
more
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
64/602
theoretically informed
researchage
ndas:herethe choice
between
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
65/602
prioritizingindividual
actors over
socialstructure
(or vice
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
66/602
versa) wasoften
perceived to
befundamenta
l.But what
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
67/602
about theseaxes? The
real change
in theclosing
decade of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
68/602
thetwentiethce
ntury has
been toview them
less as
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
69/602
essentialand
mutually
exclusivechoices and
toappreciate
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
70/602
theircommonalit
y of
construction.Here,agai
n,we need
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
71/602
toacknowledg
e
theimportance of the
debates
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
72/602
surroundingstructuratio
n theory in
the late1970s
andthrough
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
73/602
out the1980s for
the overall
shape oftheoretical
discourse
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
74/602
within thediscipline(H
arris
1991;Chouinard
1997).Toget
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
75/602
her withsimultaneou
s
developments in
feministgeo
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
76/602
graphy,itwas in these
debates that
theconnective
nature of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
77/602
allegedopposites
wasfirst
acknowledged:what had
presented
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
78/602
itselfpreviously
as a choice
betweenmutually ex
clusive
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
79/602
positions ortheoretical
points of
origin wasnow
increasingly
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
80/602
viewedandtheorize
d as a field
in whichmutually
constructive
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
81/602
elementsacted to
bring
forthgeographic
realities
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
82/602
(Thrift1983;Grego
ry 1994).In
fact,theclosing
years of the
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
83/602
lastcenturywitnessed a
proliferatio
n of papersthat
analysed a
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
84/602
professedinstability
andconstruc
ted natureof the
categories
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
85/602
that wereused to
manufactur
e (oftenpolarized)a
xes in the
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
86/602
first place(Gibson-
Graham
1996;Battersburyet al
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
87/602
.1997;Whatmore
1999).In the
emerginghybrid
world of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
88/602
networks,afuture
generation
ofgeographers
may
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
89/602
wellfindmany of the
issues and
conflicts ofold
unresolved,
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
90/602
perhapseven
unresolvabl
e(Thrift2000a). We
would like
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
91/602
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
92/602
geography for the
twenty-first
century willno longer
have to
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
93/602
deny thecontested
nature of
itscategories and move
towards
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
94/602
mature andtolerant
manners of
dispute anddiscourse. T
he
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
95/602
emergenceof research
in the years
flanking theturn of the
millennium
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
96/602
that aimstointegrate
rather than
dividepositions
that were
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
97/602
previouslythought to
be only
loosely
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
98/602
24Human
Geography: A
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
99/602
History for the
21st Century
connected,exclusive or
downright
opposed,might be read
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
100/602
as a signthat such
hopes
arenot invain
(Mattingly
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
101/602
andFalconer-
Al-Hindi
1995;Dixonand Jones
1998;Barnet
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
102/602
t2001;Castree
2003;Jacob
s and Nash2003;Engla
nd
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
103/602
2003).However,it
might also
be asign offatigue:only
history can
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
104/602
judge usnow.
knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or
enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:
Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes
us with the truths which are necessary for our
salvation. ([M07],213).
The other belief is finality.
Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from
God. ([D09],4).
God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private
revelations to an individual are still possible.
These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are
usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they
don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could
write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And
God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most
religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,
extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
105/602
salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.
Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For
example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for
over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other
Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern
Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?
Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that
Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of
Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as
"Divine Tradition" and believes that
. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .
Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,
[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in
Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source
(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.
([P07],18).
Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.
Islam holds the Koran to be revealed. Hindus believe God spoke the
Bhagavad-Gita and other writings. Buddhist accept the Tripitaka.
Though all of the religions we've mentioned may reject the
inspired writings of other religions, they believe their own scripture is
divinely revealed. In particular, religion often makes the following
four claims for their own scriptures: that scriptures:
(1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),
(2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . .
. no newpublic revelation"),
(3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or
liberation ("necessary for our salvation").
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
106/602
(4) have an inspired or divine author ("God who is
their true Author"),
Are these claims true? Again, theological claims are difficult to
test.Is God the author of any particular book? That's beyond the reach
of logic to decide. Nonetheless, the four claims can be rationally
investigated. And, as we examine and test the four claims we'll come
to a better understanding of the revelational way of knowing. Let's
begin with the first claim, consistency and truthfulness.
Claim 1: External Consistency
An external contradiction is when a scripture contradicts something
outside itself, either some common belief or practice, or another
scripture. Lets examine some external scriptural contradictions,
beginning with three where the Bible contradicts common Christian
belief or practice.
First, Jesus says Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in
the whales belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth. ([H08], Mt 12:40). According to a
footnote in another Bible ([N02], for Mt 12,38ff), this quote contains
an allusion to Jesus resurrection. However, common Christian
belief allows less than 48 hours between the Crucifixion and
Resurrection (Good Friday to Easter Sunday), two nights, not three.
Second, in Mark 6:3 the people of Jesus country say: Is not this
the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of
Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? If Jesus
actually had a brother, then either the Roman Catholic belief in the
perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, or the standard Christian
belief that Jesus is the onlybegotten Son of God is wrong.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
107/602
Lastly, Jesus forbids swearing (Mt 5:34-37), saying at one point
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever
is more than these cometh of evil ([H08],Mt 5:37). Nonetheless, it is
common practice in some Christian countries for a court witness to
swear on the Bible that their testimony shall be true.
Now lets turn to another type of external contraction, where one
scripture contradicts another. The world has many "revealed"
writings. If they are all, in fact, revealed then they should all agree
with each other because they all have the same ultimate author - God.
How well do revealed writings agree with each other? Not very well.
Let's examine some examples.
Of the three major revelations of Western religion, the earliest is
the Jewish Torah, which is also part of the Christian Old Testament.
Later, the Christian New Testament was written. Later still, the Koran
(Quran) of Islam. Are these three revelations consistent with each
other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree:
The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the
Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura
2:13, [K07],344).
And the Koran disagrees with both:
. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . .
How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148).
So, advises the Koran,
. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a
son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91).
Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only
partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
108/602
peoples who
. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.
([S16],12).
Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the
. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,
never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).
Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to
accurately preserve God's words.
. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the
text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"
became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this
desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.
([S16],12-13).
But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped
. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .
. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial
neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus
compromise . . . ([S16],13).
Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed
. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and
obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).
So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,
Muhammad.
This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no
neglect. ([S16],14).
Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,
no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is
called the "seal" of the prophets.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
109/602
For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of
God.
For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in
the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather
confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in
a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures
of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).
Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?
Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its
fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At
least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how
Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss
scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss
scripture's truthfulness.
Claim 1: Truthfulness
Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.
Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary
people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed
writings true?
Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were
historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on
Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on
Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah
and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy
was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict
with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical
teachings about the earth and sun.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
110/602
Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a
truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for
example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,
history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is
. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which
God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,
objective world view. ([P07],13).
How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in
biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,
anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by
Andrew White.
Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has
accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:
that the essential difference between science and religion is that
science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.
Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal
very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could
investigate the "next" world.
How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally
differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can
know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the
"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between
science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds
truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the
revelational way, by following scripture.
But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the
Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
111/602
. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all
truth. ([P07],21)
and that
[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist
between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is
man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict
of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over
science is clear. ([P07],31).
Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.
They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them
cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on
scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a
scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the
universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now
considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological.
Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the
sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that
. . . the Bible is free from errorin what pertains to
religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not
necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.
natural science). ([D09],12).
Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing
superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior
knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge
about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about
the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,
too? We'll return to these questions later.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
112/602
Claim 1: Internal Consistency
Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists
can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If
scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and
the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,
science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact
is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when
the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal
consistence: does the bible agree with itself?
Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it
does. For example, inInerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that
Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were
errorless. ([I03],23),
that
Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures
contained no contradictory material nor error.
([I03],24),
that Origen
. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and
noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),
and, finally, that
[f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no
real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture.
([I03],49).
Augustine's definition of error was strict.
When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from
error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent
mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53).
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
113/602
Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is
actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at
least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?
He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first
came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was
actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed
"Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the
words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the
Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,
Zechariah.
Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's
"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows
Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or
acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture
and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?
Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that
scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from
acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced
to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have
happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.
But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to
correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.
By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66)
medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings.
Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
114/602
[t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the
great saints of early Russian Christianity was
bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).
So
[i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had
been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared
heretical. ([M02],67).
One monk was
. . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in
Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with
physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).
Mistakes Perpetuated
Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks
humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at
many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true.
It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear
prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture.
There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing.
Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him
from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is
supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing
of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of
any individual.
To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a
certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous
don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a
knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
115/602
show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,
when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into
untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong
with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil
effect on those whom it influences.)
Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or
murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of
the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept
the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded
Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts
itself.
Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and
hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily
changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship
doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect
of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an
intentional mistranslation that persists even today.
Consistency versus Truthfulness
Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin
Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt
1:22-23).
One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
116/602
[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the
light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .
([N02],NT,6),
the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special
relation to God. The footnote continues:
All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in
Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought
to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).
It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly
traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to
Isaiah 7:14, we read
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).
(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall
soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.
The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing
the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and
his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known
the full force latent in his own words; and some
Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial
fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King
Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke,
would have been a young, unmarried woman
(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,
however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . .
. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense
intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832).
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
117/602
Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent
fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow
either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah?
Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial
fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the
"full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense
intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote
seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine,
does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a
plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does.
Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism
whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of
every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer
explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah.
Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the
false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the
English: "Behold, a virgin shallconceive and bear a
son, and shallcall his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.)
The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young
woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect
tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English,
representspast and completedaction. Honestly
translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young
woman has conceived- (is with child) - and beareth a
son and calleth his name Immanuel."
Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable
age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad
general sense exactly like girlormaidin English, when we
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
118/602
say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or
vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is
always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68).
Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and
Matthew quotes no known prophet.
The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,
but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author
prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the
plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented
them from reaching truth.
For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical
inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible
"Contradictions"Answered([M08]). I've found contradictions in
other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although
they may well exist.
The Erosion of Truthfulness
Martin Luther once said:
We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago
than six thousand years the world did not exist
([C05],3).
Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand
years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural
view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day
Adventist publication:
Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the
basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and
evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
119/602
Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally
realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't
come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the
Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous
men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired
pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of
their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures
don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example,
Leonard Swidler writes:
Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was
thought of in a very static manner: if something was
found to be true in one place and time, then it was
thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was
true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to
be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!),
then it was always true.
But no Christian theologian today would admit the
truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding
of truth statements in the West has become historical,
perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:
relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can
be properly understood only within context; given a
significantly new context, a proportionately new text
would be needed to convey the same meaning.
([F02],xii).
The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How
might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued
martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
120/602
writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by
employing science's way of knowing?
Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality
Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're
thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the
revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has
everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new
general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written
scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.
Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the
West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament.
The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred
years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad.
While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary
beliefs, both foreign and local.
When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were
influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially
in its
. . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,
influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward.
([N04],v23,1013).
It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for
instance.
Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job
(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan
was no more than the servant of God, acting on his
orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
121/602
God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013).
As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in
. . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the
preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness
so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in
the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for
the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013).
(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)
How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and
Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists
similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine
and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out
other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes:
Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were
Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a
Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held
by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90).
It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan
culture that
. . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This
idea was patterned on those already existing,
. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a
son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91).
Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only
partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first
peoples who
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
122/602
. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.
([S16],12).
Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the
. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,
never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).
Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to
accurately preserve God's words.
. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the
text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"
became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this
desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.
([S16],12-13).
But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped
. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .
. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial
neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus
compromise . . . ([S16],13).
Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed
. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and
obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).
So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,
Muhammad.
This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no
neglect. ([S16],14).
Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,
no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is
called the "seal" of the prophets.
For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
123/602
God.
For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in
the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather
confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in
a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures
of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).
Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?
Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its
fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At
least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how
Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss
scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss
scripture's truthfulness.
Claim 1: Truthfulness
Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.
Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary
people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed
writings true?
Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were
historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on
Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on
Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah
and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy
was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict
with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical
teachings about the earth and sun.
Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
124/602
truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for
example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,
history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is
. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which
God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,
objective world view. ([P07],13).
How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in
biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,
anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by
Andrew White.
Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has
accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:
that the essential difference between science and religion is that
science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.
Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal
very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could
investigate the "next" world.
How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally
differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can
know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the
"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between
science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds
truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the
revelational way, by following scripture.
But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the
Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe
. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
125/602
truth. ([P07],21)
and that
[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist
between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is
man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict
of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over
science is clear. ([P07],31).
Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.
They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them
cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on
scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a
scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the
universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now
considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological.
Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the
sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that
. . . the Bible is free from errorin what pertains to
religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not
necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.
natural science). ([D09],12).
Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing
superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior
knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge
about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about
the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,
too? We'll return to these questions later.
Claim 1: Internal Consistency
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
126/602
Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists
can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If
scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and
the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,
science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact
is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when
the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal
consistence: does the bible agree with itself?
Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it
does. For example, inInerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that
Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were
errorless. ([I03],23),
that
Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures
contained no contradictory material nor error.
([I03],24),
that Origen
. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and
noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),
and, finally, that
[f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no
real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture.
([I03],49).
Augustine's definition of error was strict.
When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from
error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent
mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53).
Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
127/602
actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at
least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?
He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first
came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was
actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed
"Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the
words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the
Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,
Zechariah.
Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's
"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows
Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or
acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture
and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?
Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that
scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from
acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced
to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have
happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.
But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to
correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.
By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66)
medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings.
Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But
[t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
128/602
great saints of early Russian Christianity was
bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).
So
[i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had
been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared
heretical. ([M02],67).
One monk was
. . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in
Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with
physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).
Mistakes Perpetuated
Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks
humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at
many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true.
It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear
prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture.
There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing.
Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him
from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is
supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing
of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of
any individual.
To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a
certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous
don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a
knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily
show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
129/602
when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into
untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong
with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil
effect on those whom it influences.)
Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or
murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of
the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept
the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded
Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts
itself.
Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and
hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily
changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship
doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect
of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an
intentional mistranslation that persists even today.
Consistency versus Truthfulness
Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin
Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt
1:22-23).
One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.
[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
130/602
light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . .
([N02],NT,6),
the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special
relation to God. The footnote continues:
All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in
Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought
to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).
It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly
traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to
Isaiah 7:14, we read
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).
(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall
soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote.
The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing
the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and
his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known
the full force latent in his own words; and some
Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial
fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King
Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke,
would have been a young, unmarried woman
(Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing,
however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . .
. the words of this prophecy in the integral sense
intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832).
Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
131/602
fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow
either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah?
Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial
fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the
"full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense
intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote
seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine,
does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a
plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does.
Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism
whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of
every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer
explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah.
Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the
false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the
English: "Behold, a virgin shallconceive and bear a
son, and shallcall his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.)
The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young
woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect
tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English,
representspast and completedaction. Honestly
translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young
woman has conceived- (is with child) - and beareth a
son and calleth his name Immanuel."
Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable
age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad
general sense exactly like girlormaidin English, when we
say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
132/602
vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is
always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68).
Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and
Matthew quotes no known prophet.
The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,
but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author
prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the
plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented
them from reaching truth.
For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical
inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible
"Contradictions"Answered([M08]). I've found contradictions in
other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although
they may well exist.
The Erosion of Truthfulness
Martin Luther once said:
We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago
than six thousand years the world did not exist
([C05],3).
Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand
years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural
view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day
Adventist publication:
Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the
basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and
evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92).
Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
133/602
realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't
come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the
Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous
men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired
pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of
their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures
don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example,
Leonard Swidler writes:
Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was
thought of in a very static manner: if something was
found to be true in one place and time, then it was
thought to be true in all times and places . . . [I]f it was
true for St. Paul to say that it was all right for slaves to
be subject to their masters (in fact, he demanded it!),
then it was always true.
But no Christian theologian today would admit the
truth of the Pauline statement. . . . [O]ur understanding
of truth statements in the West has become historical,
perspectival, limited, interpretive - in a single word:
relational. And that means deabsolutized. . . . Text can
be properly understood only within context; given a
significantly new context, a proportionately new text
would be needed to convey the same meaning.
([F02],xii).
The modern world is certainly a significantly new context. How
might a proportionately new text be written? By the continued
martyrdom of men and women? By taking some contemporary
writing, declaring it divine revelation, and blindly following it? Or by
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
134/602
employing science's way of knowing?
Claim 2: Attaining Completeness and Finality
Not only are scriptures said to be truthful and consistent, they're
thought to be complete and final, too. The second claim of the
revelational way of knowing is that scripture is complete - that it has
everything God wants to write - and that it's final - that no new
general revelation is in store. Of course, while it's being written
scripture isn't complete and final. Let's examine that period.
Scripture has been written over varying amounts of time. In the
West, it took about a thousand years to complete the Old Testament.
The New Testament, however, was accomplished in a few hundred
years. And the Koran was written within the lifetime of Muhammad.
While it's being written, scripture is often influenced by contemporary
beliefs, both foreign and local.
When Judaism was young, for example, its scriptures were
influenced by the older religion of Zoroastrianism, which especially
in its
. . . demonology, angelology, and eschatology,
influenced Judaism from the time of the exile onward.
([N04],v23,1013).
It seems to have influenced the Jewish conception of Satan, for
instance.
Before the exile - for example, in the prologue to Job
(1:6-12) and in the mouth of Zechariah (3:1-2) - Satan
was no more than the servant of God, acting on his
orders as prosecutor; after the exile he is portrayed as
God's adversary. ([N04],v23,1013).
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
135/602
As another example, there is a story that's told twice, in
. . . II Sam. 24:1 and I Chron. 21:1. In the first, the
preexilic version, the Lord incites David to wickedness
so that he may wreak vengeance on the Israelites; in
the second it is Satan, not God, who is responsible for
the calamity. ([N04],v23,1013).
(Yet another instance of scriptural inconsistency.)
How much did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and
Christianity? The Ethical Religion of Zoroaster([D05],xxi-xxiv) lists
similarities in Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian scripture, doctrine
and practice. The list is four pages long. Writers have pointed out
other pagan influences. Powell Davies, for instance, writes:
Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so were
Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. . . . Jesus as a
Redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held
by the first Christians in Palestine . . . ([D03],90).
It was only, continues Davies, when Christianity spread to pagan
culture that
. . . the idea of Jesus as a Savior God emerged. This
idea was patterned on those already existing,
I remember as a little boy learning of God from my mother, a religious woman with a life-longdevotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The idea of God thrilled me, but I soon grew to dislike some of
my religion's ideas. For example, I learned in a second grade Roman Catholic religion class that only
people who are baptized and believe in Jesus can get into heaven. I recall thinking "What about
Chinese who lived five thousand years ago? They had no chance of being baptized or believing in
Jesus. Is it fair to keep them out of heaven for no fault of their own?" I remember suspecting that the
teacher, a nun, was wrong about who could or couldn't get into heaven, that she didn't know what she
was talking about. As I grew up, I encountered other things I didn't believe. I found some of the ideas
very odd, and wondered how anyone in their right mind could believe them. For example, I was
taught that anyone who dies with an unforgiven serious sin spends the rest of eternity in Hell. In those
days, intentionally eating meat on Friday or missing Mass on Sunday was a serious sin. So, a child
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
136/602
who knowingly ate a hot dog on Friday, or skipped Mass and went fishing on Sunday, might die and
spend the rest of eternity in hell, horribly tortured, in the company of murderers and devils.
Strange. But even stranger was the behavior of people who, supposedly, believed those ideas. Their
words said the ideas were true but their actions said otherwise. They acted as if they themselves
suspected they didn't know what they were talking about. For example, in third or fourth grade, a
classmate died of appendicitis. Though some fellow classmates worried if he was in heaven, no adult
seemed concerned in the least. Of course, the adults
were sorry for the little boy and his family. But none showed any real worry about the fate of his
eternal soul. They all assured us (glibly, I thought) that our deceased classmate was in heaven with
God and the angels. Since then, I've never attended a funeral where anyone, clergy included, seem the
slightest bit worried about the eternal fate of the deceased. They act as if no one goes to hell, as if hell
really doesn't exist.
Science is different; scientists act as if they believe what they say. If science says plutonium is deadly,
you won't find a scientist with plutonium in his pockets. And scientists seem to know what they are
talking about. When astronomers say an eclipse will happen, it does. But when some religious group
predicts the world will end by September fifteenth or April tenth, it doesn't. It seems science is truer
than religion, more to be taken seriously, more real. But why compare science and religion? Why not
leave science to scientists and religion to religious people? What's to be gained? Well, a person might
reasonably have a more than passing interest in what really happens after death. They might wonder
Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What really happens when I die? Religion
discusses those questions but, for many people, its answers are not believable. Science, on the other
head, ignores such questions. It has nothing to say about them.
To use an analogy, it's as if science has food of all kinds, wholesome, true, healthy food, but no water.
And as if religion has water, brackish water, polluted with confusion, fantasy, contradiction and lies.
Seeing the quality of religion's water, some people decide to eat only the healthy, clean food of
science - until their thirst drives them back to religion.
Religion fulfills a deep need so they eventually participate, sometimes in spite of themselves,
sometimes with the excuse "Well, children need something to believe. It's better for them to grow upwith religion than without it."
If only science had water of its own, pure, clean water. Or, dropping the analogy, if only science had
answers to questions like Where do I come from? How should I live my life? and What happens when
I die? If it had such answers, science would have a religion of its own, a religion as true, as powerful,
and as accurate as the rest of science. The reports of science and religion would be as concordant as
sight and sound. Science would finally have a comprehensive world view.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
137/602
Science Without Bounds
What is a world view? It's our explanation of ourselves and the world around us. It's what we believe
to be true. It's our estimation of "what is what."
Most people have some explanation of themselves and the world around them. They have some idea
of who they are and how they fit into the world. But ask them "ultimate" questions such as Did you
exist before you were born? Will you still exist after you die? Is there an overall purpose for your life
and, if so, what it is? and they usually give a standard religious answer, or say "I don't know." That is,
their world view is either religious and non-scientific, or it's incomplete. Does anyone have a
scientific world view that's comprehensive, that answers ultimate questions? Probably not, because
science itself doesn't have a comprehensive world view. Science's world view is incomplete. Science
is very good at explaining part of ourselves our liver and heart function, for example - and part of
the world around us - the behavior of electricity. But science has little to say about really important
questions, about ultimate questions. What the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote in 1948 is justas true today.
. . . [T]he scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of
factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is . . .
silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. . . . [T]he scientific
world-view contains of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our
own ultimate scope or destination, and no God . . . Science is reticent too when it is a
question of the great Unity . . . of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. . . .
Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same forevery one of us. Science has no answer to it.
Schrodinger says science hasn't investigated ultimate questions. Other writers believe science can't
investigate them. For example, M.I.T. philosophy professor Huston Smith believes:
Strictly speaking, a scientific world view is impossible; it is a contradiction in terms. The
reason is that science does not treat of the world; it treats of a part of it only.
He continues: Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea
slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in this sea, so he cannot exclude it from
his purview. This is what was meant . . . that a scientific worldview is in principle impossible.
But is it? Will science's world view always be limited, always less than comprehensive? Or will
science someday develop a comprehensive world view, a world view that explains our place in the
universe, our origin and destiny? Can science investigate questions it has ignored for centuries? Or
has it ignored those questions for good reason? Certainly, some early scientists had good reason to
ignore ultimate questions - their own survival. The most famous is, perhaps, Galileo, who had to
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
138/602
answer to the Inquisition for teaching the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo escaped with his life.
Other early scientists were not so fortunate. In its struggle to be born in the 16th and 17th century,
science wisely decided not to investigate certain religious, philosophical, or metaphysical questions.
Rather, it limited itself to the natural world, within bounds set by organized religion. Today, science
still lies within those boundaries, certainly no longer out of necessity, perhaps only out of habit.
Einstein describes such science as
. . . the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the
perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.
"This world" seems to limit science's domain. It seems to bar science from investigating the
possibility of existence before birth or after death. It sets up the "perceptible phenomena of this
world" as a boundary which science shouldn't cross. But did Einstein think science should foreverremain within that boundary? Perhaps not, for in the very next sentence he offers a broader
description of science's scope.
To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of
conceptualization.
knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or
enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:
Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes
us with the truths which are necessary for our
salvation. ([M07],213).
The other belief is finality.
Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from
God. ([D09],4).
God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private
revelations to an individual are still possible.
These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are
usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they
don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could
write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
139/602
God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most
religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,
extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for
salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.
Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For
example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for
over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other
Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern
Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?
Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that
Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of
Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as
"Divine Tradition" and believes that
. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .
Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,
[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in
Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source
(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.
([P07],18).
Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.
other? No. For example, the Koran says Jews and Christians disagree:
The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the
Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. (Sura
2:13, [K07],344).
And the Koran disagrees with both:
. . . [T]he Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah . . .
How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30, [M10],148).
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
140/602
So, advises the Koran,
. . . admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a
son. (Sura 18:4, [K07],91).
Islam teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures are only
partially true. For instance, it teaches that Jews were one of the first
peoples who
. . . recognized God's oneness, and also God's law.
([S16],12).
Quite an accomplishment, because after that recognition the
. . . doctrine of monotheism, established by Abraham,
never again quite lapsed. ([S16],12).
Unfortunately, the Jewish people (according to the Koran) failed to
accurately preserve God's words.
. . . [I]n course of time they allowed their copies of the
text . . . to become corrupted. Their "scripture"
became inaccurate. . . . In due course, to correct this
desperate error, God sent another messenger, Jesus.
([S16],12-13).
But the followers of Jesus erred, too, since they worshiped
. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .
. . focused their attention on Christ to the partial
neglect . . . of God, whose transcendence they thus
compromise . . . ([S16],13).
Even worse, in their worship of Jesus they attributed
. . . to him and his mother wild, even blasphemous and
obscene, relations to God Himself. ([S16],13).
So, according to the Koran, God had to send another messenger,
Muhammad.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
141/602
This time there was to be no error, no distortion, no
neglect. ([S16],14).
Since Muhammad perfectly captured God's revelation in the Koran,
no other messenger will be needed or sent. Therefore, Muhammad is
called the "seal" of the prophets.
For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect and complete revelation of
God.
For the Muslim, God's Message is wholly contained in
the Koran . . . This Book does not annul but rather
confirms the Divine Message as preserved, though in
a corrupt and distorted tradition, in the Holy Scriptures
of the Jews and the Christians. ([A08],12).
Can Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures all be true?
Obviously not. At least one scripture is wrong, either the Koran in its
fault-finding or Jewish and Christian scriptures in their teachings. At
least one of these scriptures is incorrect, untruthful. We'll see how
Jewish and Christian scriptures disagree later when we discuss
scripture's finality and completeness. Now, however, let's discuss
scripture's truthfulness.
Claim 1: Truthfulness
Revealed writings often describe historical and miraculous events.
Did those events actually happen? They describe extraordinary
people. Did those people actually live? In general, are revealed
writings true?
Once, it was thought all events described in the Bible were
historically true. Christian medieval Europe based cosmology on
Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It based biological evolution on
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
142/602
Genesis, too. History was based on the Bible; stories such as Noah
and the Great Flood were accepted as historically true. Astronomy
was also based on the Bible. In fact, the source of Galileo's conflict
with the Roman Catholic Church was the church's belief in biblical
teachings about the earth and sun.
Today, some religious people still believe the Bible gives a
truthful picture of the natural world. Fundamentalist Christians, for
example, still accept biblical teaching about cosmology, biology,
history and astrology. For them biblical revelation is
. . . the supernatural (metaphysical) process by which
God penetrated man's senses to give him an external,
objective world view. ([P07],13).
How such religious believers have fought the advance of science in
biology, geography, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, history,
anthropology, and other fields is well described inA History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ([W09]) by
Andrew White.
Fundamentalists (of any religion) who think revelation has
accurate teachings about the natural world disprove a common idea:
that the essential difference between science and religion is that
science deals with this world and religion deals with the next.
Fundamentalists show this opinion isn't true - some religions deal
very much with this world. And science - as we'll see - could
investigate the "next" world.
How, then, do science and religion differ? They fundamentally
differ in how they know, not necessarily in whatthey know. Both can
know the natural world and, as we'll see, both can know the
"supernatural" world. Therefore, the fundamental difference between
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
143/602
science and religion is their different ways of knowing. Science finds
truth with the scientific way of knowing. Religion finds truth with the
revelational way, by following scripture.
But is scripture truthful? Fundamentalist Christians believe the
Bible is entirely truthful. More than that, they believe
. . . the complete Bible . . . is the final authority for all
truth. ([P07],21)
and that
[a] problem of terminology and interpretation may exist
between science and the Bible but the only difficulty is
man's inability to resolve the problem, notany conflict
of truth. . . . The superior credence for Scripture over
science is clear. ([P07],31).
Other Christians, however, admit the Bible isn't entirely true.
They don't base their entire world view on revelation. For them
cosmology, biology, history, and astronomy are no longer based on
scripture. Such Christians view Genesis as mythological and accept a
scientific explanation of biological evolution and the origin of the
universe. Biblical stories once thought historically accurate are now
considered by many greatly exaggerated, if not mythological.
Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the
sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that
. . . the Bible is free from errorin what pertains to
religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not
necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g.
natural science). ([D09],12).
Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing
superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
144/602
knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge
about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about
the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,
too? We'll return to these questions later.
Claim 1: Internal Consistency
Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists
can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If
scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and
the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,
science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact
is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when
the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal
consistence: does the bible agree with itself?
Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it
does. For example, inInerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that
Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were
errorless. ([I03],23),
that
Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures
contained no contradictory material nor error.
([I03],24),
that Origen
. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and
noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),
and, finally, that
[f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no
real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
145/602
([I03],49).
Augustine's definition of error was strict.
When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from
error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent
mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53).
Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is
actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at
least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?
He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first
came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was
actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed
"Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the
words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the
Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,
Zechariah.
Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's
"inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows
Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or
acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture
and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?
Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that
scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from
acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced
to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture.
Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather
than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have
happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.
7/27/2019 Saba Rmati
146/602
But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to
correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.
By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66)
medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings.
Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But
[t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the
great saints of early Russian Christianity was
bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).
So
[i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had
been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared
heretical. ([M02],67).
One monk was
. . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in
Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with
physi