Leviticus is the shortest book of the Bible I've read so far so I have no excuse for the long wait between my last post and this one except that two weeks ago was midterms and last week was Spring Break. Obviously I was busy during midterms week and during Spring Break I was too busy breaking the laws in Leviticus to read them! (I kid! I kid! ...or do I? ...yes I do)
I've obviously read Leviticus by now and (I feel redundant saying this) it was so boring. If I ever become religious (and I won't) I'm going to become Catholic because A) I'm old enough to tell the truth so I'm safe from unwanted advances and B) the priest reads the Bible for you! Now that's what I'm talking about! But I digress. Let's get to my take on Leviticus.
LV 1:9, LV 1:13, LV 1:17, LV 2:2, LV 2:9, LV 2:12, LV 3:5, LV 3:16, LV 4:31, LV 6:21, LV 8:21, LV 8:28, LV 17:6, LV 23:13, LV 23:18 The first thing that really stood out to me was all these verses about "pleasing aroma[s] to the Lord." I didn't know the Lord was such a fragrance connoisseur! I thought about that and I realized there was a business opportunity here so I decided to contact someone about it. Check it out! As soon as I hear back from them I'll let you all know!!
Anyway, for those of you that aren't familiar with Leviticus, it's basically a book of laws for a few different things. One of them, as you may have guessed from the verses above, is sacrifices. For the first few chapters it just seems like you burn an animal or grain or throw some blood around and it's all meant for God. I thought all the sacrifice stuff was really primitive and superstitious (and it is) but that's all I really thought about it. Then I got to these verses, LV 5:13, LV 5:16, LV 6:16, LV 6:18, LV 6:26, LV 6:29, LV 7:6-10, LV 7:15, LV 7:31-34, LV 14:13, LV 24:9, and they all talk about how the priest or his sons are meant to have some of the sacrifices for themselves. To me, it's just blatantly obvious the priests put that in there so they could keep a little on the side for themselves. I mean, obviously I think they wrote all of it themselves but these verses really stuck out to me. How was this not obvious to the Hebrews?
LV 7:27, LV 17:10-12 Hey! God is infinitely good! He hates Twilight!
LV 11:13-19 I'm not the first to point this out but I think it's important to do so. A bat is not a bird. Shouldn't an all knowing God, well, know that?
LV 11:35 It seems that God could have told the Hebrews about soap, or the use of heat for sterilization, what with his omniscience and whatnot, instead of telling them to just break things.
LV 13 Even better. How about some information on proper medical procedures, treatments, and prevention? Something other than just shutting them away for seven days!!
LV 13:41 Hair from the forehead? Really? Was that common back then?
LV 13:47-49, LV 14:37 Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like mold and/or mildew, not leprous disease. Again, seems like something God could have mentioned to the Hebrews.
LV 16:8, LV 16:10, LV 16:26 My guess is that Azazel is a goat demon based on LV 17:7 but I'm no Biblical scholar.
LV 18 I find it interesting that the vast majority of the Unlawful Sexual Relations are aimed at the men. Only LV 18:23 is aimed at women specifically and no where does it say a woman shall not lie with a woman as with a man. Ellen is off the hook!!
LV 19:19 Who knew God was such a fashionista?
LV 19:27 No sideburns? Is that what it's saying?
LV 23 Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like all these Feasts of the Lord were really just built-in vacation time. "Hey! You should worship our Lord! You get all this time off throughout the year. It's great! We actually punish you if you work during that time! That's how seriously we take vacation time."
Finally, I've heard it said before that the Old Testament laws were meant as a way for the Hebrews to be set apart from other nations. I haven't seen that specifically written in the Bible so far but I'll accept that explanation for the time being. What bugs me about this though is that some of these laws are really extreme and/or odd. Are these really necessary for the Hebrews to set themselves apart? "Look. There's a medium over there. Oh, now look! There's a guy walking by her. Is he going to kill her? No. Nope. He's talking to her! Clearly he's not a Hebrew. Let's go kill the medium and then go try to convert that guy." I'm being facetious but that just seems like a really strange way to be set apart. That and things like not letting deformed people approach the altar, stoning someone to death for blaspheming, or not eating a hare amongst others. Couldn't God have just given these people a secret handshake or a flag or something? And what's so unholy about a deformity or a hare? I've said before that God being a jerk doesn't disprove he exists, but it certainly makes me question his motives.
There's probably more I could talk about (like how if you don't follow these laws or accept them you'll end up eating your own kids, thought it's unclear if God will make you do that or not) but I feel like I've written enough already. I'll do my best to make my next post on Numbers within the week.
-Nikko
This post in particular reminded me of a book I read awhile back that, after the Bible, I think you'd enjoy. It's called "The Year of Living Biblically" and it was written by AJ Jacobs. Essentially, AJ had a kid and wasn't sure if he would raise him religiously or not, being a non-practicing/believing Jew himself. So, to help make the decision he tries to live one year following all the rules in the bible as strictly as he can. It's an interesting journey to follow, and opens up a lot of questions about the Hebrew laws in the OT. I'll let you borrow it if you're interested/ever have time.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting idea.
ReplyDelete1) Is there a particular reason you're using the ESV translation? It seems a bit evangelically-biased...I think the NRSV is the most solid and scholarly.
2) With a lot of your questions, I feel like a knowledge of Hebrew would help since Hebrew has much fewer words than English. Therefore, they probably did really mean mold/mildew but they probably used the same word that they used for fungal skin diseases. I think they knew what they were talking about - the issue is in trying to translate it into English. some translations indeed say "mildew" or "black mold." English is just more specific. Not that I know tons of Hebrew or expect you to learn any, but I think sometimes it can explain confusing passages.
3) "How about some information on proper medical procedures, treatments, and prevention?" That's probably the best they could do given their resources and scientific knowledge. For an ancient culture, their cleanliness rules make sense and probably did help stave off disease and illness (even if sometimes it's strict or overkill or just wrong).
Some Christians think the Bible is God's instruction, pure and simple. Other Christians think it's a work inspired by God but appreciated better through culture and context...in other words, not his direct voice exactly. In your reading, you seem to be taking the first interpretive approach (at least in regards to your expectations of God in the Bible), which certainly a lot of people take, but I wonder if it was for a reason?
4) I'm sure the Hebrews knew the priests were living off of some of their sacrifices, kinda like how a church knows some of their offering goes to the pastor's cost of living. it only becomes sketchy when it becomes more than is needed to survive.
5) As for the hare, I think the whole clean/unclean animal thing makes sense given where they were and their technology. Pork and seafood, if not kept properly, can make you pretty sick or give you parasites. They might have either mistakenly thought this was possible with hare or maybe they were right, since apparently rabbits/hares eat their poop. Primitive, sure, but it was pretty practical.
Todd, I'd definitely be interested in checking that out when I get a chance. Hopefully one of us will remember that when I'm done with this blog series.
ReplyDeleteAnne: 1) It's the version my friend doing the "Understanding the Skeptic" blog bought for me.
2) It certainly would be helpful to learn Hebrew. I agree. Though, I'm curious why some translators appear to feel justified in translating the word to "mildew" while others leave it as "leprous disease". You might be right that the Hebrews used the same word and understood the difference in context, but do we know that for sure? They treated the leprous disease of the skin the same way they treated the leprous disease of the clothing and walls, which would suggest to me that they didn't know the difference.
3) I'm taking it as God's instruction, pure and simple, because that's what the Bible is telling me so far. It doesn't say, "The Lord inspired Moses in the context of Moses' understanding of the world." It says things like, "The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him..." If I come across a verse later that says something differently, I'll approach it from that angle. Also, I find it's more entertaining to write from this viewpoint.
4) I considered that possibility and you're probably right. But I'd ask the same thing about the current situation with pastors and their cost of living. There are plenty of contemporary examples of churches having more than is needed to survive. And based on the instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, the Table for Bread, the Tabernacle, etc. in Exodus, these priests probably were taking more than was necessary.
5) Agreed. But if these rules were given by God, and that's what we're told, it seems he could have explained to them the proper way to prepare it if he knew everything. Otherwise, it just seems an odd way to set your people apart.
I like what Anne shared...as I would highlight some of those things. Yes, Nikko, you will find that all of Scripture is God-breathed (God inspired). The Scriptures are ultimately not about Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots - the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation point to Jesus Christ. These laws, as Anne mentioned in part were to save the Jews. As Anne mentioned, pork and seafood were hard to keep and spoiled easily...in Acts, God says all things are clean to eat (and part of that is at that point in time, salt now was used and foods could better be preserved). But that is not the ultimate reason for these laws. The ultimate reason for these laws, as you pointed out, is they are extreme - they are extreme because this is a Holy God setting forth the moral standards He requires from humanity. And time and time again, Israel fails to do so yet God is merciful and gracious. But God is also just and does not allow sin to go unpunished. The laws of the Old Testament and God's justice culminate at the cross where His love and justice collide. At the cross, Jesus lives according to God's standards and serves as the substitutionary atonement (pays the debt of sin for humanity). Jesus perfectly lived by the law and therefore met God's standard and offered Himself as a sacrifice to pay the debt that God's justice required. But this demonstrates God's love in that He ultimately lived the life we could not, bore the sins we committed, and died the death we deserved.
ReplyDeleteAnd through Christ, the law is no more in the sense of having to meet God's standards because Jesus is the basis for our salvation, not our own merit. As Paul reveals in the New Testament, the Law was to reveal sin and our need for a Savior. The Law does not save. It merely points to the One who can save. All of the sacrifices and rituals point to Jesus who came as the final sacrifical lamb. It all points to Jesus.
And I apologize for this being boring - that's why I suggested reading some of the New Testament and jumping back and forth because much of this is law-based and geneology - but it all points to Jesus. Also, the ESV is a revision of the RSV - and word choices may be different, but like I've already said, the message remains the same - it's all about Jesus and always points to Him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like a copy of the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Hebrew/English Tanakh, I'd loan you mine. Still, even the best translations can't reflect the difficulties in reading and understanding classical Hebrew -- even the first verse presents significant problems ("B'resheet barah Elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz" can be translated alternately as "When God began to create [direct object] heaven and earth" wherein et marks the accusative, or, if you take a different interpretation of that simple word et, it can be translated as "When God began to create WITH heaven and earth" wherein et functions as an indicator of the ablative of means, with God acting upon the world rather than being the all-creator).
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to undertake any serious study of Jewish theology and scholarship, however, I'd encourage you to take in a deeper understanding of the Jewish scholarly tradition. Christians take the bible as a sacred text divorced from history, and I think you do yourself a disservice by working solely in that paradigm in your critique. The Torah is the written law, which you're now reading part of, but there is an entire body of oral law and tradition, interpretations and debate embodied in the Talmud... and beyond that, a number of schools of thought on Jewish law and its place in modernity (look into reconstructionist Judaism, my branch of Judaism). What I'm trying to say is that Jewish law is a living concept, one that is still actively debated within the community - and speaking as a Jew, I find it annoying when Christians appropriate our sacred texts, especially without undertaking the sincere scholarly commitment that is required of Jews. Sadly, I'm finding that I feel equally irked when atheists and agnostics take an equally disrespectful approach to a living scholarly tradition.
I imagine, Lane, that as I read further along the lens through which I'm reading some of this will change slightly. Though, without getting too far ahead of myself, whether the laws were meant to set the Hebrews apart or teach them a lesson in sin to prepare them for Jesus, I would still question the necessity of such a plan of action. Like I said, it doesn't disprove God, but it brings to mind all sorts of questions. First and foremost, is what Paul saying true, or is Paul saying that to justify moving past the law? I don't know. I'll read more and see what I think when I get to it but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteKeven, I already told you this on Facebook but I'll repeat it here for everyone else's benefit, if I were reading the Torah then I probably would approach my interpretation differently. However, I'm reading this as a Christian text ultimately because that's how I think the Bible is meant to be taken when it's called the Bible. That being said, I imagine I would face as much difficulty in interpreting the Torah seeing as Judaism has as many different viewpoints as Christianity does. I'm sorry if my approach is irking you but if I tailored my analysis to meet others' expectations, it wouldn't really be my analysis anymore, would it?
Thank you for responding.
ReplyDeleteTo your points: 2) They might not have known the difference fully. Sometimes it does seem as if they take a hatchet instead of a scalpel to cleanliness issues, but hey, I guess better safe than sorry when you have limited means of understanding disease and such.
3) "I'm taking it as God's instruction, pure and simple, because that's what the Bible is telling me so far." Yeah, but the Bible was written by men. The Bible telling you what God says isn't exactly the same thing as God saying it directly. Now, some Christians will vehemently disagree with me, but I'd say they're looking at the Bible through their own interpretive schema that's a product of the Reformation and that tends to think of itself as ahistorical (i.e. I am not sola scriptura nor sola fides in terms of theology). The Bible gives us a picture of God and who he is, but to take the Scripture super literally and authoritatively (when it didn't just drop out of the sky) is basically Bible-worship. And I do think many Christians make an idol out of the Bible.
"I find it's more entertaining to write from this viewpoint." Oh, it is. Spoiler alert: you'll like the part with she-bears.
4) I agree, many Christian pastors live way beyond the basics and that totally undermines all Jesus' words about simplicity and serving others. As for the building of extravagant buildings, I think using funds toward art and architecture that is going to last generations and inspire people is a worthy cause as long as the poor are also being fed. I don't think beauty and charity are mutually exclusive so I don't find the building of temples to be particularly damning.
5) We're only told by fundamentalist Christians the Bible, Old Testament and New, is the direct literal word of God, straight from God's mouth.
"Christians take the bible as a sacred text divorced from history, and I think you do yourself a disservice by working solely in that paradigm in your critique."
As a Christian, I would agree with this. I just wouldn't set your bar of bible study at the level of the lowest Christian scholarship and I think Kevin is right to encourage you to look at these Scriptures through Jewish eyes.
sidenote: if you ever wanna talk theology, I love talking about that sort of thing and I'd like to think I'm pretty intellectually honest/open.
@Anne - 2) I'm not disputing that their methods worked for them in their time. I'm simply saying that they don't appear to have actually understood the difference between skin disease and mildew. To them, it was all "unclean" or "leprous" or a "plague". Which is what you would expect of a primitive people trying to explain the world without science and not what you would expect of a people getting inspiration from an all-knowing, all-powerful God.
ReplyDelete3) I'm actually all for taking the Bible as not being literal, but where in the Bible does it say it's OK to do that? And how are you supposed to know when it's OK to embrace what it says and when it's not OK?
4) I suppose they're not mutually exclusive, but every dollar spent on "art" is a dollar not spent on food for the hungry. Do you want to tell a child they can't eat today because someone in the future needs to see this really awesome painting?
5) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that you're supposed to take every word as true? Or something to that affect?
2) Oh yes, I agree. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that proves that it is true or that it is inspired by God.
ReplyDelete3) Well, there's nowhere in the Bible that says you have to take it literally, so the burden of proof is on people who practice Biblical literalism, which I think is 1) not historical (in terms of Christian tradition, taking the Bible super-literally seems to be a recent invention) and 2) not biblical (as in, there is no justification in the Bible for taking it absolutely literally).
As for knowing when it's okay to embrace something and when it's not if the Bible is not literally, I would say it's a process which involves careful study, historical knowledge/context, some consensus/comparison (to ward against whackjob interpretations), trust and prayer. I realize that's a lot of work and most people are lazy, but Christians are supposed to be able to give an account of their hope and love God with all their *minds.*
4) I think that's a pretty emotional argument. Of course I do not want to tell a child they cannot eat today because of a painting. At the same time, I think art and culture are pretty essential and bring good (even if it is unmeasurable or unseen). They're essential components of humanity and even in the darkest of places, people have pursued and created art. I mean, the fact that you own a computer means that you didn't spend that money on a starving kid in Sudan. You made an ethical choice that some good or some pleasure would be derived out of your computer (and probably that you could share that good/pleasure with others) in using your money that way. I wouldn't say the money, time and energy you spend on writing this blog would be better spent volunteering or donated, necessarily, because, like I said, I value culture, art and intellectual discussion and think it's necessary for healthy people. Of course, we should not be opulent or unbalanced in our focus and I think many churches are definitely guilty of that.
ReplyDeleteJesus talked a great deal about caring for the poor and your neighbor, but before his death, a woman used expensive perfume on him. Other disciples balked at this waste of possible money, saying it could've been better used, but he didn't condemn her (nor did he downplay the poor). That's my scriptural basis for thinking investing in art, culture and aesthetics is okay sometimes.
5) That wouldn't make a ton of sense because when the Bible was written, it didn't exist as "The Bible" or a canon. Someone had to put it together, of course. Individually interpreting the Bible as a giant book o' truth is a result of the Reformation and American Protestantism, which places a high value on truth as self-evident and not something that's interpreted by a group from a text. Older sects of Christianity certainly believe that the Bible contains truths, but don't take everything as literal or universal. The Wikipedia article on "Biblical inerrancy" might be a great place to start looking at the different viewpoints.
Particularly this point. See, again we run into the issue of translation:
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often prefer the translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 that render it as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible is inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C H Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon.
The idea that the Bible contains no mistakes is mainly justified by appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration. However, this argument has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements only have to be accepted as true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Hope that helps! I think if you read the entire Bible, you'll be surprised at what modern Christian concepts aren't in there.
2) Cool. Glad we agree.
ReplyDelete3) The problem with saying that proper interpretation comes with a lot of study and whatnot is that there are numerous experts throughout history that have spent their lives going over this book and there are about as many interpretations as there have been "experts". There's even disagreement about whether or not anyone can get into heaven; i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses. Is evolution acceptable? Yes, say some of the Catholics. No, say some of the Protestants. Is homosexuality wrong? Yes, say a lot of Christians. No, say some Christians. It basically just comes down to what people want to believe based on a number of different factors and then finding the parts of the Bible that work for them and those that don't. In which case, I say, you can do that with any book.
4) I will not deny that my computer was bought with money that could have helped feed probably several people for an entire year. And I will not deny that I struggle with that sometimes. The difference between my purchase of a computer and the Vatican buying the Pope Prada shoes is that I am not built on a message of peace and love and charity. And this really started as a criticism of excess in the Church. It's hard to argue that my computer is really excess compared to maintaining the Vatican or having a state-of-the-art sound system in a mega church. On one hand I can see that the Church needs to focus on aesthetics in order to attract followers, but on the other hand shouldn't the truth of what they're saying and doing be enough to attract followers?
5) That's interesting. I haven't heard that argument. However, this comes down to an issue of when do you know the Bible is correct inspiration and when is it not? Then we get into a similar problem as we ran into with number 3.
3) Well, that's like anything, isn't it? I mean, take the academic study of history. Sure, there are experts who disagree and varying theories out there. That's just how it goes. It just means you have to check each interpretation out for yourself, see where it comes from and what its reasoning is.
ReplyDelete"It basically just comes down to what people want to believe based on a number of different factors and then finding the parts of the Bible that work for them and those that don't. In which case, I say, you can do that with any book."
I think it's a bit more philosophical than that. You make it sound as if people flip through and find beliefs that fit out just to be practical or to reaffirm what they believe. Which is what some people do, but I'd say most Christians I know have an approach to scripture much different than the one you're putting forth. It seems the dichotomy here is: "1) take everything seriously 2) take nothing seriously 3) arbitrarily cherry-pick." I think another way would be to perhaps that the narrative seriously. maybe that's cherry-picking, but if so, then everyone does it in regard to everything. I don't know, I treat all books as things to be interacted with and wrestled with. And yeah, you can do that with any book, but so?
from a literary studies person standpoint, atheists seem to have weird issues with analyzing texts in certain ways, no offense :P
4) "I am not built on a message of peace and love and charity." why not? those are good things to be built on. I try to build my life upon those things but sometimes I mess up. It doesn't necessarily make me a hypocrite, just human. But I do think Christians need to do better at keeping one another accountable in terms of monetary waste...being it's hard being divided up into varying sects. I can't hold pentecostals accountable, for example, they wouldn't listen very well :P
As for aesthetics, well, if the church's job is to communicate truth, then art and architecture is a fine way to do that. art is a powerful way to get a message across.
5) "when do you know the Bible is correct inspiration and when is it not?" Well, then we get into the "how do we know anything truly true?" arguments to which there are a variety of answers. mine might be "educated guesses."
3) There's nothing wrong with cherry-picking to find things to validate or support what you believe. We all do it to some degree but let's admit what it is. When people cherry-pick from the Bible to reaffirm their beliefs but don't consider it cherry-picking, they're only tricking themselves into thinking that their personal viewpoint is the viewpoint of God and therefore infallible or unquestionable. From a secular viewpoint, when you cherry-pick you allow yourself more room for error and understanding because you admit that you might be wrong.
ReplyDelete4) I'm not saying that I think there's something wrong with love, peace, or charity. Or that I don't try to practice those things. But I'm not establishing myself as a holy person or asking for other people's money to help spread the Gospel. Nor do I claim that people are supposed to give me money because God says so. Various churches do these things, however, and they do so claiming to be spreading peace, love, and charity. Which would be fine except for all the luxury. And if the church really does have the truth, why can't it stand on its own? Why does it need a hi-tech sound system or a finely detailed building or Prada shoes to get that message across?
5) I don't think it does take it as far as "how do we know anything is truly true?" arguments. The way you know the truth about the efficacy of a drug is through controlled experiments. The way you know the truth about whether something said thousands of years ago was directly said by God or merely inspired by God is through....I don't know what. It's guess work as far as I can tell and I'm not even sure it's educated guesswork. What type of education gives you insight into God's thoughts? A PhD in God Psychology?
3) "From a secular viewpoint, when you cherry-pick you allow yourself more room for error and understanding because you admit that you might be wrong." Well, there are Christians that allow themselves for error and understanding - thinking you can absolutely read God's mind would be pretty arrogant.
ReplyDelete4) "Which would be fine except for all the luxury. And if the church really does have the truth, why can't it stand on its own?" I don't know what to tell you except, but the "church" is not one total all-encompassing organization. if you want to call out a christian group, you have to be more specific than that. it's not fair to say churches of voluntary simplicity get to be representated by huge megachurches in kansas.
5) "The way you know the truth about the efficacy of a drug is through controlled experiments." Do you think what you say is true, and if so, how am I supposed to test it in any controlled manner? That definition of truth applies to a pretty narrow realm of knowledge.
Anyway, I think history and philosophy are pretty crucial. Then there's always prayer. If one believes in a Christian God, some knowledge comes experientially. We "know" people when we have a relationship with them.
3) I don't doubt that there are some Christians that are very modern, practical, and reasonable about their beliefs. I know several of them. But I don't know any atheists that treat any of their beliefs as absolute. I know a lot of religious people, however, that do that and I think that's harmful and dangerous.
ReplyDelete4) Here's a direct quote of yours. "As for aesthetics, well, if the church's job is to communicate truth, then art and architecture is a fine way to do that. art is a powerful way to get a message across." You give no indication as to what church you're talking about. I gave you benefit of the doubt and assumed you were only talking about churches that have overly extravagant things. When I said the "church" in reply I was using the same language as you. I even say two sentences before that that "Various churches do these things" which indicates I don't think they all do.
5) There is ample empirical evidence at your disposal that shows controlled experiments provide useful and reliable knowledge. There is not ample empirical evidence that shows praying to God provides any useful or reliable knowledge. At the very least, that makes my definition of knowledge more reasonable and practical, no matter how narrow.
3) "But I don't know any atheists that treat any of their beliefs as absolute." Everyone treats their worldview as the correct, unbiased one. A lot of people are very absolute and unquestioning in their views, whatever their views may be (and I think nonreligious people tend to do this as much as religious people). People always think they're right at the time. If people weren't militant about religion, they'd be militant about something else - I don't think a secular viewpoint necessarily means more room for admitting error, even if that's the cultural tendency at present.
ReplyDelete4) Fair enough, I sort of went off on a general tangent about spending money on nice things, but then was thinking about more specifics. My convoluted point was 1) I think spending money on nice things can be justified sometimes and that Notre Dame was a pretty good investment long term 2) but no, not when it's prada shoes or fancy sound systems, no one's going to communally treasure those things for centuries (I hope), I hope it's clear I dislike overextravagance just as much.
5) Well, I don't go through life looking at controlled experiments, I go through life trying things out and seeing how they work for me. That provides enough reliable knowledge to live a good, effective life. I think the scientific method is a good way to collect information - but I do think it's just one of many methods.
I would describe myself as a pragmatist, so I think my view of knowledge is pretty practical, just less systematic. I tried praying. I tried not praying. Since I found praying to be beneficial in a lot of ways, it'd be impractical for me not to do it. But we're talking about how to learn about Christian God (and what he wants), if there is a Christian God. If there is a God, interaction/personal experience is a valid way to gain knowledge.
If you haven't found it already, AJ Jacobs did a TED talk that gives an overview of his Year of Living Biblically: http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html
ReplyDeleteAlso, my favorite example of Leviticusian irony: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/10/16/cherrypicking-illustrated/
@Anne - Sorry for the delay in response.
ReplyDelete2) There is a difference between considering yourself correct based on all available evidence and considering yourself to be absolutely correct. I consider myself to be correct in my views based on the evidence I've seen, but I don't think I'm absolutely right in any one of them. I don't believe anyone has access to absolute knowledge and I think we should be wary of those that claim to have it in any area. It's been my experience that religious people are more prone than atheists to claim to have absolute knowledge in the existence of God, the morals he supports, and the implications for reality those things foster.
5) I don't see how interaction/personal experience is a valid way of gaining knowledge about God. Valid in what way? One person can say they prayed to God and he said 9/11 was caused by lesbians and pagans and another can say the opposite. How am I, or anyone else, supposed to determine which view is the valid one? Or even simpler than that, one person prays and says Jesus loves me. Another prays and says I should follow Allah. I pray and I just hear my thoughts. Am I praying too softly? Should I be praying from inside a Church or a Mosque? Or maybe a Temple? Maybe I should pray more often?
I understand, to some degree, how praying can produce information that the person praying could consider valid, but I fail to see how that is valid in any objective sense.
@Jason - Nice, dude! Those are both great! Thanks!
1) If it's your personal experience that religious people are more prone to claiming absolute knowledge, then I can't exactly contest that. But wouldn't that be one way that experience is useful in gaining general knowledge? :P
ReplyDelete2) Well, if religion is centered on a relationship with God (which for the purposes of this argument, I'll hold to) then personal interaction is a good way of gaining knowledge. Right now I'm personally interacting with Nikko and I'm gaining all sorts of knowledge about Nikko for further interactions. This knowledge is valid insofar that it is useful although it's not solid and objective in the same way a scientific study is. I suppose my point is that things one discovers while praying doesn't necessarily have to be valid in a strictly objective sense. I will never be able to use the results of praying to prove anything to you. But that's okay by me.
"I pray and I just hear my thoughts. Am I praying too softly? Should I be praying from inside a Church or a Mosque? Or maybe a Temple? Maybe I should pray more often?"
Well, I couldn't give you a prescription to pray anymore than I could give you a prescription to get to know me. However, to someone interested in gaining experience/knowledge about individual religious experiences for whatever reason, I'd certainly invite them to try everything and see what the results are and how they vary.
1) I never said experience can't be used to gain any knowledge at all, but it does not provide valid information about God. For reasons I'll attend to in the next part.
ReplyDelete2) The information you gather about me is entirely different from the information you gather about God through prayer or whatever method you prefer. Any ideas or opinions you form about me through our interactions can be verified, objectively, by other people or by asking me directly. This can't be done with God. Not only can the information you gather through prayer not be used objectively, there is strong evidence that when a person seeks to know God's opinion on a subject, they're only looking to their own opinion and attributing it to God. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php
Now, suppose you gather information about me, like you are now, and then you never have it verified by other people but continue to believe what you experienced was true. Does that make that information valid? I would say it's valid in a sense that, unless we have evidence to suggest you hallucinate, we can reasonably assume you actually experienced interactions with me. Other people could consider it valid, but not the whole truth about experiences with me. On the other hand, if you pray, have a conversation with God, and never have that verified by other people, is that valid? Even if we don't have evidence that you hallucinate, we have evidence that when people do talk to God, they're just talking to themselves in their head. It's valid that you're talking to something, but there's no reason for any one, including yourself, to think you're talking to God. You're welcome to think you are. You have that right. But I would hardly say that makes your conversations valid.