At Odds With Scientific Fact

[JJ]

Is it wrong to not do homework? Or is it a reaction to boredom, lack of intelligence, ability, a need to try and see what being self determining  means, or any other number of reasons?   I hardly think not doing homework is ingrained badness.

The 'injury' is poor engagement or poor encouragement at home or any other reason for not following orders.  It's not an ingrained 'bad act', it's a response to circumstances.  I always did my homework because I was interested in it and also in the satisfaction of obeisance - another child might see that as stupid docility. And wrong.



The plant was a helpful metaphorical explanation - not a direct and equal comparison.

[Martin]

What I was really trying to say is that, at many levels, the fact of evolution does mean that certain parts of the Bible can't be read in the way they used to be read.  Since we now have to understand the Adam & Eve story as non-historical, if we now say that it is a story, albeit one with a depth of meaning, it isn't the only part of scripture that is affected that change of understanding. It's reasonably easy to argue that the Adam and Eve story should be read in a sort of allegorical way, but it's not really possible to say that Paul's theorising about Christ being a second Adam, is a story with a meaning.  It reads like an attempt by Paul at defining a mechanism, some rules which govern his notion of original sin and how humanity has got where it has.

Creationists, from their point of view, are right to fear belief in evolution, because it undermines the idea that the writers of scripture, especially the New Testament, have written stuff which is inerrant or even substantially correct. Quite clearly Paul's argument that because one man brought sin into the world another man could single-handedly take it out, is not based on facts - one man didn't bring sin into the world.  If Paul could get something like this wrong, and we are now able to correct him with our better knowledge of how things work, then where else might our better understanding of how things work trump what we have traditionally seen as Paul's solid reasoning?  If we are to be consistent in the way we treat scripture then can we now call Paul into question (or at least what we have traditionally understood Paul to be saying) and say that he may be simply wrong on other issues?

[AndyHB]

Is it wrong to not do homework? Or is it a reaction to boredom, lack of intelligence, ability, a need to try and see what being self determining  means, or any other number of reasons?   I hardly think not doing homework is ingrained badness.

Did I say it was - other than there is an element of refusing to do as one is told if one doesn't do it?  I used lying about why one hasn't done it as the example.

The plant was a helpful metaphorical explanation - not a direct and equal comparison.

but a metaphor with such very different contexts as to make it largely irrelevant.

[AndyHB]

Nicky Campbell, on Radio 5's Breakfast 'Your Call' phone-in (9-10 this morning) is covering this whole topic - are we born able to do wrong or is it somehow instilled into us as part of society.

[JJ]

Is it wrong to not do homework? Or is it a reaction to boredom, lack of intelligence, ability, a need to try and see what being self determining  means, or any other number of reasons?   I hardly think not doing homework is ingrained badness.

Did I say it was - other than there is an element of refusing to do as one is told if one doesn't do it?  I used lying about why one hasn't done it as the example.

The plant was a helpful metaphorical explanation - not a direct and equal comparison.

but a metaphor with such very different contexts as to make it largely irrelevant.

I don't think it's wrong to not do as one is told.  Lying: well it's very probably wrong but one can see that a child can already be unable to be truthful if the relationship with school or a teacher is bad, as it often is.  And whose responsibility is it to address that when a child is say 8 years old?  The school's, the teacher's, the child's, the parent's, society's?  There is already shame, boredom, fear etc. involved on the part of the child.  The lying is a result of these conditions.


No I disagree about the metaphoric illustration.  Our general discourse as humans is mainly metaphorical in any case.

It seems to me that you are decided that wrongness is inherent and that you are throwing random reasons for why this should be true.  I would rather look at the basic argument to see where wrongness comes from, it might not come from anywhere solid - merely a reaction to circumstances.

[JJ]

Just caught the end of that Andy, thanks for the link - how blustery was Edwina!

Martin from Saffron Walden had it right I think - a reasoned explanation (I wonder if I've met him, as I lived and worked there in a similar area to him).

The point about psychopaths is that they all have a shrunken amygdala - and that is the repository of empathy and emotion - one wonders how it becomes shrunken.

[AndrewF]

Sorry to came back to this after so long a gap Martin, but you said in reply to me "Do you not think though, that the creationists have a point? I mean aren't whole swathes of the Bible in need of reinterpretation because of the fact of evolution."
Surely the creationists believe that the Bible does NOT need re-interpretation? The first of the two sentences quoted would imply that they believe it DOES need re-interpreting... I'm confused....

Having posted this I then got to the second page of this thread and say your later post - and realise now that you probably mean that they have a point to be worried... which makes more sense.
Yes, they are right to be worried about people deciding that some parts of the Bible are not absolute truth, since it does call into question some other parts...

[Martin]

Andrew, I was responding to this post...

The simple answer is that there are some (IMO!) nutters out there who insist that every single thing in the bible is literal truth... - on the basis that if you accept that any of it may not be absolutely true, then how do you decide what it and what is not true, and also that this means that any specific part may not be true so the veracity of the entire 'book' is brought into question.

...in which you appear to be saying that the risk, as creationists see it, is that once any part of scripture is deemed to be non-literal then the whole of it becomes suspect.  I was basically saying that they have a point in the sense that there is a cascade effect brought about by abandoning any literal meaning to the Adam and Eve story - for instance Paul's argument about the second Adam obviously takes as foundational the existence of the first Adam.  So if you accept the fact of evolution, you should, if you're honest, accept that Paul was quite wrong in his theories about there being a one to one relationships - a sinful Adam being cancelled by a non-sinful Jesus.  And then, that argument is itself foundational to Paul's idea of original sin.

ISTM that the mainstream church has generally taken up the new script about the fact of evolution and the treatment of the Genesis stories as meaningful stories - never intended to be taken as truth, but are still working to an old script that no longer makes sense when it comes the New Testament.

[AndrewF]

Yes - that is why I posted the second half of that last post...

[Martin]

OK mate, yes I understand what you were saying now. But I wonder whether the mainstream church has just stalled on the implications. ISTM that where the church is sticking. isn't coherent.

[JJ]

Watching The Big Questions on BBC 1 again this morning and getting riled, but loving it!  They are discussing this very topic asking whether Creationism should be taught in schools.

[AndrewF]

I posted a reply which has not worked at all... wonder why? - ah well - try again!

I would say that the church as a whole is consistent as it has said for a long time that both approaches (of treating the bible as inerrant or as something which needs interpreting and may well be metaphorical in places) are valid and, while the different factions do not agree with each-other they have been consistent in not doing so and are also consistent within themselves.
I would also say that it is coherent, since the issues where it allows variation are not core beliefs. All the factions adhere to all the absolute core beliefs. Even the most careful reading of the Creed does not give any indication as to whether we need to take the bible as inerrant!

[Martin]

The thing is Andrew, that it's not just that the Bible is metaphorical in places, it's plain wrong in places, Paul's assessment in his second Adam argument, isn't metaphorical. Paul is proposing a sort of mechanism which just wouldn't work as a metaphor. Whether of not it's 'core' will depend upon your perspective, but it certainly means that at least some of Paul's theorising isn't correct - one can fully understand that Paul would build his arguments upon the things he knew, but it is the work of a man, and not the work of God.

[AndrewF]

Actually, I don't think that sin not entering humanity through the action of one person makes any difference to his argument about it being overcome by the action of one other man.