By Arthur J. D'Adamo
Chapter Summary: This chapter examines how religion decides what
is true. It begins by describing religion's way of knowing and
then examines four claims religion usually makes for scripture:
consistency and truthfulness, completeness and finality,
necessity for salvation, and divine or inspired authorship. The
chapters points out some flaws of religion's way of knowing.
Who are we? Where did we come from? How should we live our life?
What happens when we die? How can such questions be answered?
People have traditionally turned to religion for answers. And
religion has usually answered in theological terms: Who are we?
We are children of God. How should we live our life? As God
wills. What happens when we die? We go to heaven or hell.
How good are religion's answers? How accurate? How true?
Deciding can be difficult or impossible if the answers are stated
theologically. It's hard to imagine how such answers can be
investigated and tested, scientifically or any other way. But how
does religion know? How does it find the answers? Usually by
using the revelational way of knowing.
Though we can't directly test its answers, we can examine and
evaluate religion's way of knowing. That is, we can investigate
how good the revelational way of knowing is at knowing, at
finding answers. We can ask how good of a way of knowing is it.
We can ask how well, how accurately, it decides what's true. We
can ask if the knowledge that the revelational way of knowing has
produced is truthful, consistent and comprehensive.
This chapter examines the revelational way of knowing, the way
of knowing used by religion. It identifies some of its
shortcomings and shows why it's an inferior way of deciding
what's true. The next chapter explores the scientific way of
knowing, it identifies some its shortcomings, and shows why it's
nonetheless a superior way of deciding what's true. In this and
the next chapter, we'll find that the revelational way of knowing
is faulty and that science's way of knowing is superior.
Subsequent chapters will attempt to apply science's better way of
knowing to ultimate questions.
The Revelational Way of Knowing
What is the revelational way of knowing, the way of knowing used
by religion? Briefly, it's a way of knowing based on revelation,
on scripture. It decides some writings are inspired, are
ultimately written by God, and then follows them without question
or criticism. Religions don't often describe their way of knowing
so directly, however. Rather, they proclaim beliefs about
scripture, beliefs from which their way of knowing naturally
follows. Let's examine some of these beliefs.
The Roman Catholic church teaches that
. . . the books of the Bible are the inspired word of
God, that is, written by men with such direct
assistance of the Holy Ghost as to make God their true
Author. ([N08],177).
Similarly, the Seventh-day Adventists believe that
[t]he Bible's authority for faith and practice rises
from its origin . . . The Bible writers claimed they
did not originate their messages but received them from
divine sources. ([S10],7).
From such beliefs it naturally follows that revelation should
be accepted without question. Since God wrote it, revelation is
not to be criticized, judged, or changed. Therefore, Seventh-day
Adventists teach that
[j]udging the Word of God by finite human standards is
like trying to measure the stars with a yardstick. The
Bible must not be subjected to human norms. ([S10],13).
Another consequence of divine authorship is that revelation is
error-free. For example, the Catholic church teaches that the
books of the Bible
. . . teach firmly, faithfully and without error all
and only those truths which God wanted written down for
man's salvation. ([D09],12),
and a Seventh-day Adventists publication has:
How far did God safeguard the transmission of the text
beyond assuring that its message is valid and true? . .
. while the ancient manuscripts vary, the essential
truths have been preserved. ([S10],11).
Two more beliefs are usually part of the revelational way of
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 new public 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 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 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
. . . ([N09],20).
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 new public revelation"),
(3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or
liberation ("necessary for our salvation").
(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
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 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 worshipped
. . . the messenger, instead of heeding the message. .
. . focussed 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 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
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).
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 what they 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 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, not any
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 based 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 error in 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
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, in Inerrancy 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
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
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 idealogy or belong to
a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or
murderous don't necessarily discredit the idealogy 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, when the idealogy or group itself turns
truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous
persons, then something is wrong with the idealogy 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 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
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 shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call 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, represents
past and completed action. 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 girl or maid in English, when we
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).
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 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 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,
especially upon Mithras. . . . [T]he birthday of
Mithras, the 25th of December (the winter solstice), .
. . was taken over by the Pagan Christians to be the
birthday of Jesus. Even the Sabbath, the Jewish seventh
day appointed by God in the Mosaic Law and hallowed by
his own resting on this day after the work of Creation,
had to be abandoned in favor of the Mithraic first day,
the Day of the Conquering Sun. ([D03],90).
Davies continues:
In the Mediterranean area during the time of Christian
expansion, nowhere was there absent the image of the
Virgin Mother and her Dying Son. . . . ([D03],90).
So it seems scripture when it's being written is liable to be
influenced by contemporary beliefs. Not only that, it may also be
influenced after it's been written. That is, scripture may
undergo editing and revision (the technical term is "redaction")
by other than its original author. "Editors" and "compilers" may
alter scripture to suit their beliefs. For example, Jewish and
Christian scriptures are widely believed to have been redacted.
Certainly there was much opportunity to alter Christian
scriptures.
The earliest manuscripts we have . . . are no earlier
than the fourth Christian century, and by then -
indeed, considerably before - there had been time for
the church fathers to make many redactions in
accordance with the outcome of theological controversy.
([D03],88).
So, scripture is sometimes changed by other than its original
author. Or, to be precise, by other than its original human
author, since it could be said God wrote it and later God changed
or "redacted" it. Yet it certainly seems strange God wouldn't get
it right on the first try and need to edit His own work!
However, inconsistencies aren't always redacted. Sometimes
they're allowed to remain but explained away. They are said to be
apparent, not real.
While many differences at first existed among the
rabbis as to the actual meaning of the various
contradictory stories of . . . revelation, the
overriding belief . . . that all of the five books of
Moses were divinely inspired and thus incapable of
self-contradiction finally gave rise to the consensus
that every verse of those books had been revealed by
God to Moses on Sinai . . .
An attempt was made to explain the seeming
contradictions among the various versions of the
revelation - as also among individual laws - through
the utilization of certain hermeneutic principles.
([N04],v22,87).
Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting a writing, usually a
revealed writing. We've already seen an example of Augustine's
use of hermeneutics.
Claim 2: Completeness
Eventually, scripture becomes fixed and final, beyond the reach
of change; there's no possibility of adding anything. If the
scripture is complete, if it already contains everything God
wanted to say, there's no need of adding anything. Otherwise,
it's incomplete, and some important truths are missing.
We'll examine finality in the next section. Now, let's examine
completeness. Is scripture complete? Does scripture contain
everything believers need to know? In the theological sense,
scripture may be complete - that is, it may provide everything a
believer needs for salvation, liberation or enlightenment. Or it
may not. Again, theological statements are difficult to test.
What about the non-theological sense? As we've seen, some
believers think scripture has truths about the natural world.
We've already discussed if those "truths" are always true. Are
they complete?
No. They aren't. Here's an example.
Spain once pondered building a Panama canal. Should the canal
be built or not? Since Spain then thought scripture to be error-free
and complete, it must have seemed logical to see what the
Bible had to say about such a project.
After consulting with his religious advisers (who
reminded him of the scriptural warning: "What God has
joined together let no man put asunder"), King Philip
declared that "to seek or make known any better route
than the one from Porto Bello to Panama (is) forbidden
under penalty of death." ([C05],220).
It's easy to find the episode amusing (unless you're the
unfortunate individual about to be put to death for advocating a
canal), but remember the best theological minds of the Spanish
empire, with God's eternal revelation to guide them, came to the
above conclusion.
Today, a Panama canal is no longer an issue, but genetic
engineering and nuclear power is. They raise questions that
scriptures don't address. So, scriptures may or may not be
complete in a theological sense, but they certainly don't have
all the wisdom we need to make decisions in today's world. Yet
many religions insist their scripture is complete and final. Not
only does such insistence prevent scripture from directly
addressing new issues, it also denies the validity of earlier
scripture. It implicitly sets one "perfect and complete"
revelation against another.
For example, if the Old Testament was complete there would be
no need for the New Testament. Consequently, Christianity -
almost of necessity - should teach that the Old Testament is
incomplete. It does. For example, a Roman Catholic publication
has:
The knowledge of God, as being just and merciful in His
dealings with men was . . . taught to them little by
little, in keeping with their developing religious
understanding. ([D09],15).
Therefore, God revealed
. . . His truth slowly and piecemeal and patiently
through the ages. As a result, the doctrine in some
parts of the Old Testament is more developed than in
other parts dating from an earlier period. At times,
temporary and incomplete things are found which give
way later to fulfillment and completion. ([D09],15).
Similarly, if the New Testament was complete, there would be no
need for the Koran. However, Islamic scripture teaches Jewish and
Christian revelation isn't complete but incomplete and
inaccurate, as we've seen.
It's odd that a religion which thinks God has revealed truth
"slowly and piecemeal and patiently through the ages" in keeping
with "developing religious understanding," would deny revelation
is still occurring today. There certainly seems to be a need for
a continuing revelation. For was religious understanding so
developed fifteen hundred or two thousand years ago that truth
could be revealed once, totally, and for all time? Indeed, is it
now at such a level? Rather, it seems likely there would be
periodic revelations, more and more divine truth revealed slowly
and patiently through the ages, until the entire human race had
been raised to intimate union with God.
A few religions do acknowledge the dangers of thinking
scripture complete and final. For example, a publication of the
Society of Friends, also called Quakers, has:
Among the dangers of formulated statements of belief
are these: (1) They tend to crystallise thought on
matters that will always be beyond any final embodiment
in human language; (2) They fetter the search for truth
and for its more adequate expression . . . ([F01],52).
And the Quaker writer Rufus Jones writes:
If God ever spoke He is still speaking. . . . He is the
Great I Am, not a Great He Was. ([F01],51).
But does any religion actually have a continuing, evolving
revelation, open to correction and improvement, able to address
new issues? If it does, it's not using the revelational way of
knowing. Perhaps it's using something like science's way of
knowing, which has provided an ever-widening "revelation" about
the universe we live in.
Claim 2: Finality
Scripture is eventually considered not only complete, but final
and completed. As such, it's closed, immutable, frozen.
Certainly, no additions to the Torah, Bible, or Koran are
possible. These scriptures are closed.
Being closed and final has its advantages and disadvantages,
its "yang and yin." An advantage is that scripture may serve as a
constant beacon, an unchanging yardstick for measuring passing
fads and temporary lunacies. A disadvantage is scripture can't
adapt. Sooner or later, in a hundred years or ten thousand, some
scriptural wisdom is no longer wisdom but merely tradition, or
even foolish or dangerous. Yet because it's fixed forever in
scripture, believers are still obligated to observe it.
Obsolete scriptural "wisdom" seems to be of three kinds: the
cryptic, the innocuous, and the injurious. Let's examine
examples, beginning with two examples of cryptic teachings.
In Judaism, The Way of Holiness Solomon Nigosian writes:
The biblical injunctions against eating certain birds,
or flying insects, are difficult to apply since the
species are not always identifiable from the biblical
name or description. ([N13],178).
Believers should observe scriptural rules, but how can a rule be
followed when it can't be understood? What could be the meaning
of useless rules? Or of useless groups of letters?
Here a word should also be said about the cryptic
Arabic letters which head certain chapters of the
Koran. Various theories have been put forward by Muslim
and Western scholars to explain their meaning, but none
of them is satisfactory. The fact is that no one knows
what they stand for. ([K07],11).
No believer derives any meaning or benefit from these cryptic,
obscure bits of scriptural "wisdom." Yet, the closed, immutable
nature of scripture insures such phrases and prohibitions will
remain forever, even if no one understands them.
Most scriptural rules can be observed, of course. And they
often are, even if there is no longer any good reason to do so.
In short, the rules are sacred cows, that is,
. . . a person or thing so well established in and
venerated by a society that it seems unreasonably
immune from ordinary criticism even of the honest or
justified kind. ([W05],1996).
The idea of a "sacred cow" comes from India, where killing a cow
is a great sin, a greater sin than killing other animals. Why?
Here's an explanation I once heard.
In ancient India, cows were used to plowed the fields. During a
famine, hungry people would naturally want to slaughter and eat
their cows. But if they did, there would be no way to plow and
plant after the famine. A temporary famine would become a
permanent famine.
If this story is true, then there was once a very good reason
to protect cows. The rule made sense. Eventually, however, the
rule was included in divine and unchangeable scripture. The
Vedas, one of India's ancient scriptures, refer to the cow as a
goddess ([N07],v3,206), and identify it with the mother of the
gods. This fixed the rule forever. What once served the welfare
of society has become a religious prohibition independent of
society's welfare. Today, an observant Hindu can't eat beef
because of a religious rule that is, and always will be, fixed in
scripture. Yet, the belief is innocuous. It doesn't hurt people
and very much helps cows.
Another innocuous scriptural rule originated (I once heard) as
follows. In the hot climate where Judaic scripture was written,
meat and dairy products in the same dish were unhealthy because
the combination easily spoiled. So, a taboo against eating meat
and dairy together made good sense. Solomon Nigosian admits this
possibility when he writes:
The regulations about forbidden, treyfah, and
permissible, kosher, foods may well have originated in
association with taboos of antiquity. ([N13],178).
He continues:
Whether or not health or hygiene determined the rules
in the first place is little more than speculation, and
is irrelevant to pious Jews who refuse to rationalize
kosher laws. They accept them as part of a total system
ordained by God. ([N13],178).
Today, an observant Jew can't eat a cheeseburger. Once the rule
was written in scripture, it became forever binding. A rule that
was originally wise will forever be binding, the invention of
refrigeration notwithstanding. Due to the closed nature of
scripture, it will forever be unlawful to eat certain healthy
foods. A scripture written today might forever forbid fried
foods, eggs, and red meat, and forever command a high fiber, low
cholesterol diet, oat bran, and aerobic exercise.
The beliefs we've seen are innocuous and harmless. Even if
Jewish people can't eat cheeseburgers, their health need not
suffer. There are certainly many healthful diets that don't
include meat and dairy combinations, or meat and dairy products
of any kind. In fact, avoiding cheeseburgers may be healthy. Some
people believe there are very good health, ethical, and moral
reasons for avoiding cheeseburgers and even all meat. One obvious
reason is reverence for life, the wish to avoid unnecessary
killing. Another is avoiding cholesterol. And yet another is that
meat production ([L03],9) is inefficient: it takes about 16
pounds of grain - grain that could be feeding starving people -
to produce 1 pound of meat. Eating less meat could help alleviate
world hunger. These people follow dietary rules for solid health
and humanitarian reasons. Though the rules may be like religious
rules, there's is an important difference. Rules followed for
rational reasons are open to change if the situation changes, or
if new research suggests a better path. But religious rules are
forever fixed. A faithful Jehovah's Witness believer can't accept
a blood transfusion, even if their life depends on it.
Injurious beliefs are the last type of scriptural beliefs we'll
discuss. We'll examine three examples.
The Koran's Sura 4:34 says women are inferior to men.
Men have authority over women because Allah has made
the one superior to the other . . . ([K07],370).
Will women ever achieve equality in Islamic countries? If they
do, they'll have to overcome a divine affirmation of their
inferiority and subjugation to men - no easy task. Yet, though
they're subject to men, at least women aren't slaves. Is slavery
permitted by God? It was for many centuries in Christian
countries. Why? Perhaps because the Christian Bible has:
Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling
. . . ([G02],188, Eph 6:5).
During the 19th century in the United States, people in favor of
slavery used such biblical verses to show that it wasn't against
the will of God. The King James version, however, has "servants"
rather than "slaves," a crucial difference. Which word did God
mean to write? The revelational way of knowing can't answer since
it has no way of verifying if a writing is actually penned by
God, no independent way of testing if a writing is inspired or
not. We'll return to this point later.
Like slavery, the caste system of India is rooted in scripture,
has existed for millennia, and injures the society that tolerates
it. Caste rules were at one time extremely brutal and oppressive:
a lower caste man ([N05],v16,858) who struck, or merely
threatened to strike, a higher caste man might lose a hand or
foot. Recognizing the evils of the caste system, social reformers
have worked to abolish the near slavery of the lower castes.
They've been opposed by people who use scripture to show that God
himself supports the caste system. In the Indian scripture
Bhagavad-Gita, for example, God in the form of Krishna declares:
I established the four castes . . . ([S18],51).
Claim 3: Necessity for Salvation, Enlightenment
The third claim of the revelational way of knowing is that
scripture is necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or
liberation. Are any of the world's many scriptures necessary for
salvation, enlightenment, or liberation? Once again, the
theological question can't be proven one way or the other. We
can, however, discuss its implications.
Logically, if scripture is necessary, not merely helpful, then
salvation can't be achieved without it - a sad situation for
those who either have never heard of scripture or don't believe
it. But if supernatural revelations are essential and necessary
for achieving life's greatest good, would not God have made them
universally available? Millions of people have lived and died
with no opportunity to read the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the
Vedas, or the Buddhist scriptures. A person living four thousand
years ago in South America, for example, had no chance to read
any of them. And even if scriptures had been available, for many
centuries the ability to read was rare. Millions of people have
had no opportunity to read any scripture. Furthermore, if only
one scripture is the full and complete Word of God, then many
more millions (the past and present followers of other religions)
must be numbered among those who had no access to the perfect,
complete Word of God. In either case, most people who've lived
have had no access to scripture. Yet, some religions teach that
people who don't follow a particular scripture are infidels who
won't reach salvation or enlightenment. But could God, the Father
and Mother of all, have neglected to provide the vast majority of
His and Her past and present children with a complete, perfect
revelation if it was so vital, so important, so essential for
them?
Claim 4: Reasons for Believing in Divine Authorship
The last principle of the revelational way of knowing is that God
wrote scripture. Although we've reached it last, divine
authorship comes first. The other claims derive from it. Because
God wrote it, so it must be truthful, error-free and consistent.
God wrote it, so it's complete and final. God wrote it, therefore
it's necessary for salvation, deliverance or enlightenment. The
principle of divine authorship is basic; it supports the other
claims rather than vice versa. That is, scripture isn't so
truthful, error-free, consistent, and complete that only God
could have written it. Rather, because it's thought to be written
by God, scripture is assumed to be truthful, error-free,
consistent, and complete, as well as necessary for salvation.
Yet, we've seen that scripture isn't entirely truthful, error-free,
consistent, or complete. Therefore, it could be argued that
God didn't write it. The argument would convince few believers,
however, since their belief doesn't rest on logical evidence.
But if evidence doesn't support divine authorship, what does?
Why would someone believe God wrote a book? We'll examine four
possible reasons: authority, tradition, faith and pragmatism.
A person might believe in divine authorship because some
authority who they respect says they should. For instance, they
might believe God wrote a book because religious authorities
require it as a condition of membership.
Tradition is another reason. People believe because their
ancestors believed, because most of the people they know believe.
Yet another reason someone might believe is an inexplicable
faith.
Pragmatism is one more reason someone might believe in divine
authorship and in religion. After all, Where did we come from?
Why are we here? How should we conduct our lives? What happens
after we die? and similar questions demand answers. What answers
are available? Religion's, mostly. Therefore, a deep need for
answers to life's most important questions may drive a person to
religion, to accepting its dogmas, even if the person isn't fully
satisfied by religion's answers, or fully persuaded by its
beliefs.
Authority, tradition, faith and pragmatism are ways of knowing,
ways of deciding what's true and what isn't. How good are they?
They have advantages and may often be better than using reason to
decide what's true.
For example, suppose I had a disease and wanted to know how to
treat it. How could I proceed? One way is authority; I follow the
advice of some medical authority. Another is tradition; I take a
traditional folk remedy. In either case, I need faith in the
authority or tradition, faith that the remedy works. And in
either case, I'm pragmatic; I look for something that works, that
cures my disease. Reason is another way I can use. I can try to
logically figure out why I'm sick and how to cure myself. Unless
I'm an inspired medical genius, however, the purely logical
approach wouldn't be a good one. That is, I'd probably do better
accepting an established remedy than trusting one I'd invented.
The human race has gained a tremendous store of knowledge over
the centuries through the individual and co-operative efforts of
millions of men and women. Authority, tradition, and faith are
ways of connecting with that knowledge. They are how knowledge is
transmitted. Only a rash individual would reject all that
authority and tradition have to offer and strike off on their
own, intent on believing only what they had personally and
independently rediscovered, tested and proved.
Society's Ways of Knowing
Authority, tradition, faith and pragmatism can be very good ways
of deciding what's true. And a person who accepts religious
beliefs on authority, tradition, faith or pragmatism may find the
beliefs very satisfying and useful.
But there's a difference between "private" and "public" ways of
knowing. A private way of knowing can be used by an individual to
decide what's true. A public way is used by a society. Something
that works for an individual may not work for society.
For instance, a person who is sick would be wise to have faith
in the wisdom of medical authorities and follow their advice. But
how can the world's medical authorities themselves decide what's
true? Not by using authority because there are no other medical
authorities to turn to. Could they use tradition? If medical
authorities merely accepted traditional beliefs, medicine would
stagnate. It would never advance if it just believed what had
always been believed. Should they use faith? We've saw earlier
the disastrous result when medicine turned to scripture, in
Justinian's era. So how can society's authorities find truth?
Medicine uses science's way of knowing, a public way of knowing
that avoids many of the revelational way's shortcoming.
Therefore, medicine is free to correct its mistakes. It's free to
acquire new knowledge, to adapt and evolve. And rather than
thinking itself in possession of the final and complete truth, it
sees itself in the endless pursuit of more and better knowledge.
Religion's authorities could also use science's way of knowing,
as coming chapters describe. Like medicine, religion could
correct its errors. It could grow, adapt and evolve, in an
endless pursuit of knowledge and truth. But it usually doesn't.
Rather, religious authorities find the truth by following
tradition, by believing what their predecessors did.
But how did the original authorities know? God told them.
Moreover, God wrote a book that is the consistent, complete,
definitive expression of truth. It's a concrete expression of
higher authority that keeps leaders, as well as followers, from
going astray, much as the military code is a higher authority
that even a ship's captain must obey.
God wrote the book, so follow it. Don't try to correct it,
criticize it, or improve it. That's divine authorship in a
nutshell.
Shortcomings of Divine Authorship
Because the principle of divine authorship is basic to the
revelational way of knowing, many of the shortcomings we've
already seen ultimately derive from it. First, God wrote
scripture, so it must be necessary for salvation, enlightenment,
deliverance. Therefore, people who don't have it are infidels,
heathens, and will never be saved, enlightened, or delivered.
Second, God wrote scripture, so it must be final and complete.
Therefore, it's unable to grow, evolve and adapt. Third, God
wrote scripture, so it must be consistent and truthful.
Therefore, mistakes and inconsistencies must be explained away
rather than acknowledged and corrected. Each shortcoming derives
ultimately from the principle of divine authorship. But the
principle of divine authorship has a few shortcomings of its own.
One shortcoming can be put theologically. Divine authorship is
liable to lead to an idolatrous faith that worships mere written
records, mere words, as if they are God. Jewish and Christian
scriptures describe how Moses overthrew from its pedestal the
golden calf ([H08],EX32) his people worshipped and gave them in
its place the stone tablets containing the ten commandments. Had
the people put those tablets upon the same pedestal and
worshipped them in place of the golden calf, their faith would
have been no less idolatrous and misplaced as that of many people
today who worship Torah, Bible, Koran, Gita, or Tripitaka.
Another shortcoming of divine authorship is that there's no way
to independently prove that God is the author. Someone must
accept the writings on faith.
Blindly accepting writings on faith is dangerous. To
illustrate, some Christians regularly risk and sometimes lose
their lives, motivated by words Jesus may or may not have spoken.
The gospel of Mark in the New American Bible ([N02]) has a
"longer ending," a "shorter ending," and a "freer logion." Which
ending belongs? The question is more than academic since in the
longer ending, the ending accepted in the King James version,
Jesus says:
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
([H08],MK 16:17,18).
Because of these words, members of some Christian groups
demonstrate their faith by handling snakes and drinking poisons.
Sometimes that faith costs them their lives.
Yet the longer ending isn't in some early manuscripts of Mark,
manuscripts that a footnote ([N02],NT,65) describes as "less
important." However the importance of an ancient biblical
manuscript is measured, the longer ending isn't in some very old
biblical manuscripts. Is God the author of the longer ending?
Does it represent the actual words of Jesus. Or is it rather a
latter-day addition to Mark's gospel? Should these verses be in
the Bible at all? The revelational way of knowing has no way of
determining which ending belongs, just as it has no way of
determining which books belong in the bible. (As we saw earlier,
Roman Catholics have books in their bible which non-Catholics do
not.)
Another danger of blind acceptance is illustrated by the
curious story of Dionysius the Aeropagite.
Dionysius
Aside from troublesome passages and doubtful books in the bible,
there's another set of writings whose inspiration has puzzled
Christianity. They were written by someone called "Dionysius the
Aeropagite" and also "Pseudo-Dionysius." Although the writings of
Dionysius are unknown to many Christians, they deeply influenced
Christian mysticism and Christianity in general. We'll meet his
ideas often in the coming chapters, occasionally in his writings,
more often in the writings of those he influenced. The writings
of Dionysius again demonstrate a basic weakness of the principle
of divine authorship. They were accepted not because of their
content but because of their supposed authorship. In fact,
Christianity had already condemned very similar ideas. Yet, when
the ideas re-appeared in writings supposedly penned by a disciple
of St. Paul, Christianity felt obliged to accept them. The story
follows.
The biblical book of Acts records that St. Paul spoke before
the "Areopagus," the council of Athens. Paul made believers of
certain Athenians, including a man whose name was "Dionysius". As
a member of the Areopagus, Dionysius became known to history as
"Dionysius, the Areopagite," just as John Smith of the Senate
might be known as "John Smith, the Senator". The conversion of
Dionysius may have given welcome publicity and prestige to the
young Christian religion, just as the conversion of a senator or
congressman might do today for some other emerging religion.
About four hundred years later, the Christian religion had all
the prestige and exposure it could desire; it was the state
religion. It used its power to destroy competing religious and
philosophic systems. For example, in 527 C.E. the Christian
church banned ([J03],78) Neoplatonism, a system derived, as its
name suggests, from the ideas of Plato. About the same time,
someone, probably a Syrian monk, wrote ([D08]) The Divine Names,
The Mystical Theology, and other works under the pseudonym
"Dionysius the Areopagite," that is, under the name of St. Paul's
ancient Athenian convert. The works are filled with Neoplatonic
ideas. Yet because they were believed to be the writings of St.
Paul's convert they
. . . had an immense influence on subsequent Christian
thought. The medieval mystics are deeply indebted to
him, and St. Thomas Aquinas used him as authority.
([D08],back cover).
A curious situation: ideas once banned by the Christian church
are accepted. Neoplatonism is wrong, but Neoplatonic ideas with a
Christian veneer are not. True, a few churchmen may have had
their doubts, but
[s]o long as his traditional identification with the
disciple of St. Paul was maintained, and he was
credited with being, by apostolic appointment, first
Bishop of Athens, these distinctions made suspicion of
his orthodoxy seem irreverent and incredible. But when
the identification was questioned by the historical
critics of the seventeenth century, and the tradition
completely dispelled, then the term Pseudo-Dionysius
began to be heard and to prevail, and criticism upon
its orthodoxy arose . . . ([D08],212-3).
For over a millennium ideas are accepted, not because they pass
any objective, verifiable test of truth but because they are
believed to be the work of an authority. Yet when their
authorship is questioned, the ideas themselves also come under
question.
By the way, the Neoplatonic ideas of "Dionysius" are profound
and valuable. In fact, it was probably their profundity and value
that made them so attractive to the early Christian Church. The
problem, however, was that the church's way of knowing prevented
it from accepting ideas not ultimately derived from Jesus.
Attributing the ideas to a prime disciple of Paul was a clever
but not entirely honest solution. In contrast, science is free to
find the truth anywhere and accept it from anyone.
Separating Truth and Lies, Wisdom and Nonsense
The revelational way judges a statement by judging the person who
supposedly said it. If an authority - a saint or god - said
something then it feels obliged to accept it. But if someone else
makes a claim, it may feel unable to accept it. Because the
revelational way has no method better than this, it's a flawed
way of knowing in that it cannot separate truth and wisdom from
inconsistency and nonsense. Moreover, this flaw is its
fundamental weakness, a weakness that follows directly from the
belief that God wrote all of scripture. Because it believes God
wrote scripture it cannot acknowledge or correct inconsistencies
and contradictions. Rather, it must deny their existence,
insisting that all of scripture is true and consistent.
Yet, there are in the world many different "revelations," many
different scriptures, supposedly written by God. They disagree
with each other and even with themselves. If all were written by
God, then how can we explain the inconsistencies and
contradictions? If even one was written by God, then how can we
explain its inconsistencies and contradictions?
If scriptures and other religious writings were entirely untrue
and foolish, then the proper course would be easy - reject them
entirely. But suppose they contain truth and error, wisdom and
foolishness. Suppose they have much that is profound and
enlightening, and much that is nonsense and wrong. Then,
accepting them accepts nonsense with profundity, lies with truth.
And rejecting them rejects truth and insight along with the lies
and nonsense. The ideal is to take the truth and wisdom, and
leave the lies and nonsense. But since it uses the revelational
way of knowing, religion can't do that, because it has no
independent way of deciding what belongs and what doesn't, what
is true and what isn't. Therefore, it demands wholesale
acceptance of scripture. Some people react against such demands
by entirely rejecting scripture. Other people accept scripture
entirely. Neither person follows the optimum course; neither
takes only the useful, inspired material and leaves the rest.
Of course, some people (perhaps the majority) take what they
wish from scripture and quietly ignore the rest. But how do they
decide what is true and significent, and what is false or, at
least, insignificent? By faith? By instinct? By whim? Could the
process of extracting truth from falsehood be done more
methodically and rationally? In particular, can any recognized
way of knowing reliably separate truth and wisdom from nonsense
and lies?
Yes, science's way. In fact, science routinely separates truth
from falsehood, and has been doing so for centuries. Moreover,
science's way of knowing allows scientists who disagree to co-operate
in a common search for truth. Scientists throughout the
world routinely work together, testing and extending human
knowledge. And scientific knowledge always remain open to test,
revision, and improvement. Science welcomes correction,
improvement, and evolution.
In contrast, different religions have no way of jointly working
towards a common truth, because each is bound to follow scripture
it considers complete and final. Religion has no independent way
of testing scripture, much less correcting it, much less
extending it. Therefore, an eternal revelation that disagrees
with another will disagree eternally, dividing forever it
followers and the followers of the other eternal revelation.
Of course, not all religious people follow scripture narrowly
and literally. Some accept science's view of the natural world
and re-interpret scripture to fit by altering the meaning of
scripture to accommodate the evidence. For example, if evolution
contradicts the bible then they re-interpret the bible. Genesis
isn't to be taken literally and scientifically, they say, but
symbolically; evolution and Genesis are both true, each in their
own way. These believers, who are often in liberal and
progressive groups, accept a "de-absolutized" view of scripture.
They don't use the revelational way of knowing exclusively to
find religious truth. Rather, they indirectly use science's way,
too, to decide religious dogma. Sometimes, such people are
empirical and experimental, open to new truths and old verities,
taking truth in whatever book, person or scripture they find it,
rejecting untruth no matter who said it. In this, they approach
the scientific way of knowing truth.
Conversely, some scientists hold scientific truth in a
dogmatic, closed-minded way. In this, they fail to fully live up
to science's way of knowing. We'll turn to the scientific way of
knowing after we discuss a final point.
Reason Inadequate?
Science's way of knowing ultimately depends on reason, not faith.
Is reason capable of answering life's most important questions?
Many religions argue it is not. Let's examine a typical argument.
We're just fallible human beings. So how can we expect to
attain higher truth, divine truth, salvation, or enlightenment
without supernatural help? After all, we all make mistakes. Our
senses are fooled by optical illusions. Our reasoning and
understanding is limited. There are many things we don't fully or
even partially understand. We err in common, everyday opinions
and judgements. We'll never find religious, spiritual or
metaphysical truth on our own.
Therefore, the Divine must actively reach out and reveal Itself
to us if we are to be saved, delivered, or enlightened. But our
imperfect minds may fail to understand or appreciate revelation.
The revelation may seem imperfect, wrong, even foolish. If it
does, the fault is ours, not revelation's. Therefore, even if
divine revelation seems wrong or foolish - as it well might - we
must nonetheless accept it and cooperate with God in our
deliverance.
An early Christian who seems to have accepted such an argument
is Justin Martyr. When Justin
. . . recognized the great difference between the human
mind and God, he abandoned Plato and became a Christian
philosopher. ([P01],146).
Justin believed
. . . that the human mind could not find God within
itself and needed instead to be enlightened by divine
revelation - by means of the Scriptures and the faith
proclaimed in the church. ([P01],146).
Justin believed God had to answer ultimate questions in inspired
scripture, because the human mind could never find the answers on
its own. Only through an act of God could the human race come to
know these essential truths, and be redeemed.
Justin decided - with one fateful, irrevocable decision - not
to trust his own mind but scripture instead. But if the human
mind is so faulty and liable to err, is it safe to make one
irrevocable decision as Justin did? Is it safe to decide once and
for all and then follow, regardless of any evidence that later
comes to light? Wouldn't it be better to constantly test what is
thought true? to correct errors when they become apparent? to
constantly look for more accurate beliefs? In other words,
wouldn't it be better to use science's way of knowing?
It is to science's way of knowing that we now turn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above text is part of the online book "Science Without Bounds:
A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism" which is available at
http://www.adamford.com/swb/swb.html.
Copyright 1989-1997 by Arthur J. D'Adamo
http://www.adamford.com/swb
[email protected]
[email protected]
The Copyright Holder grants
the right to copy and distribute
paper or electronic copies of
"Science Without Bounds:
A Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Mysticism"
provided the copies are verbatim.
Copies must include copyright notices and this statement,
and may not be edited in any way,
or undergo addition or deletion.
In other words, you can freely copy, print and distribute this file but
you may not change it.
All Rights Reserved Except as Noted Above
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here to go to the top of
this document
To read or download the entire book click Here.
From Science
Without Bounds: A Synthesis of Science, Religion and
Mysticism
|
