Undeception - Latest Comments

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

Steve Douglas — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:05:58 -0000

T. Webb,

You know, that amounted to no more than two sentences in my post. It is hardly evidence for an axe to grind with "Gnostic" approaches to Scripture! :-) You are right that the term "Gnostic" refers to a variegated stream of thought, but I thought it was fairly clear which aspect I was referring to, an aspect common to most if not all the Gnostics: the idea that there is a higher form of knowledge available only to the spiritual (and no, this idea is not wholly absent from canonical Scripture as well). I didn't mean anything more than that. Besides, I didn't use "Gnosticism" as an oath upon my own lips: I only drew the parallel because many who believe in the divine Authorship idea are those for whom Gnosticism is unthinkably bad.
My problem is that even if Smith believes that his preferred readings are available for more than theological types, it took theological types to find them when they defined the canon of Scripture and passed down the correct interpretation to us; moreover, supposing that only those who are more theologically sophisticated or advantaged by their place in history have access to a proper chronology-discerned interpretation - without which Smith finds interpretation incorrect - yields the same problem of God the Author "inspiring" His human proxies to mean something entirely different from what they themselves understood.

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

Mike Gantt — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:03:23 -0000

Thanks for the response, Steve.

On issues like this, I like to look to Jesus as the example to follow. Of course, that's easier said than done - if for no other reason then because we do not have an extended teaching of his on this specific subject, nor do we even have an exact list of the writings he understood as constituting the Scriptures.

Nevertheless, it seems he had what we would call a high view of Scripture. At the very least, he seemed to regard the words of Moses and the prophets as relevant and even determinative in his own life. The question for me, then, is how do I follow that example in 2012.

I don't know all your views but you do seem to me to be a thoughtful man so I hope you will think on that, whether you have in the past or not.

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

Steve Douglas — Thu, 03 May 2012 14:50:18 -0000

Hi Mike, good to hear from you!

As I think you're probably already aware, I don't relish the term "word of God" applied to the canon itself. That said, I don't at all rule out the idea that the prophets and other authors at least occasionally spoke a message from God that has been recorded in Scripture. I just don't think we can know with any certainty which those occasions were, so we can't rely on the fact that it's recorded in Scripture to shortcut our need for discernment. As Lewis said, we must "[steep] ourselves in its tone and temper," etc. I'm sure you won't find that satisfactory, but that's where I'm at. :-)

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

T. Webb — Thu, 03 May 2012 10:24:36 -0000

Regarding the layers of scripture as a "Gnostic" approach, I did read
JKA Smith's article, and his point (stated more than once, throughout the article) is that such
layered readings of divine intent are (according to Smith) seen
chronologically as one reads later writings of Scripture interpreting
earlier writings (I could add tons of nuance to that statement, but I'll leave it at that). Again, according to Smith, it wasn't just for theologians to see. What Smith says
is probably crap, but at least criticize him for what he says, not
because you have an axe to grind against such views a being "Gnostic" (another term requiring _tons_ of nuance). Crap it probably is, but not Gnostic, at least not what Smith is saying. Forgive me if I'm missing something, because I'm a moron.

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

Mike Gantt — Thu, 03 May 2012 04:35:10 -0000

Steve,

I am not here to defend Smith's view or Chicago-style inerrancy. However, you said,

"In short, I have seen no compelling, non-circular reason to maintain the belief that God should in any meaningful sense be considered the author of the Bible."

What then is your understanding of the expression "word of God"? To be more specific, when the prophets said, "Thus saith the Lord" and then proceeded to deliver a message, do you consider God the author of that message?

Re: James K. A. Smith on the missing Author in authorial intent hermeneutics

Paul — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:33:32 -0000

As someone who for a long time believed that the Bible was true, or at least there was an overarching purpose to the "book," (although never a conservative), here's how I see it:

The bible represents the writings of people wrestling with the idea of God. The content reflects the culture and time period of the authors, nothing more or less.

Although one can derive meaning from the writings, in the same way one can be inspired by any good piece of writing, there is no big picture or deeper layers of content. That would require us to believe that:

1) The meaning of the writings were hidden from the original authors and readers, which would be cruel of God.

2) The meaning is purposely flexible, but then how does that stop and who decides how flexible? How do we know the Rev. Moon isn't the Messiah if the bible is endlessly flexible? That is a completely untenable position. (Although it is the position accepted by ancients such as Paul, who was able to read "Christian" theology into a Jewish book.)

The bible tells us what people thought -- not what we should think. In my opinion, what the writings show is that people developed cultural practices and ascribed them to a deity.

Did God tell Israelites to kill other nations to claim some real estate? No, but people did that and were convinced that it was the will of their deity.

Is there a God who hated pork and found money lending offensive, but then changed his mind so that now they are OK? No, for whatever reasons ancients found eating pork and charging interest offensive, and ascribed those concepts to a deity. Later cultures decided they were no longer offensive, and it turns out the same deity is now OK with that because of some new dispensation or whatever.

I could go on all day with examples like that, but it is the only explanation that covers everything with no need for hermeneutics.

Re: How the universe began ≠ why the universe began

NW — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:42:45 -0000

Steve,

As a professional mathematician whose thought about some of the rather sophisticated mathematics that goes into these theories I can assure you that the critique is indeed sound. When Carroll and Krauss confess to not having a clue about where the "laws of quantum mechanics" come from they are not wondering where some abstract mathematical equations come from but where the elementary physical stuff whose rich physical structure is described by those laws comes from (they don't put it this way for a reason). Krauss, and to a lesser extent Carroll in his blog post, is playing off the ignorance of the public when discussing these matters.

Bottom line, as much as Carroll, Krauss, and their ilk hate to admit it, the empirical investigation of the world cannot demonstrate their a priori metaphysical commitments (i.e. the physical world is all that exists) nor can it replace the work of philosophy classically understood.

Re: How the universe began ≠ why the universe began

Steve Douglas — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:14:04 -0000

I purposefully limited my comments to evaluating those contentions of Krauss that he had a chance to respond to in this interview because 1) I haven't read the book and so I don't want to review a review, 2) Krauss (along with Carroll, who is overall critical of Krauss's work here) does not believe that the review addresses the scientific data accurately, and 3) I wouldn't know if it did or did not. :-)

But the play on words aspect you describe is certainly consonant with the critique made by Holder in the interview, to which Krauss gave no very convincing reply. Thanks for the input!

Re: How the universe began ≠ why the universe began

NW — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:03:58 -0000

Steve,

Did you not read the scathing review of Krauss' book in the Times? Basically, Krauss is playing off an equivocation, as it turns out we might able to give an account of how an older definition of the "physical universe" (i.e. the sum total of physical particles) can come into existence from an older definition of "nothing" (i.e. the absence of physical particles); however, the theory he uses to achieve this result redefines the notions of "physical universe" and "nothing" in such a way that it can no longer give an account of how the "physical universe" can come from "nothing" as defined by the theory. Basically, the whole argument is a fraudulent play on words, like Anselm's ontological argument.

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

Steve Douglas — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:44:53 -0000

Hadn't heard of it, actually! Thanks for the heads up.

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

StevenGarmon — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:43:05 -0000

By the way,thanks for recommending those books. They definitely helped me in my view of scripture! By the by, do you plan on reading Sparks new book Sacred Word Broken Word? If so, I think you should review it!

Re: Genetic map of Europe

Raphaeldevalentin — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:16:25 -0000

Spaniards are mostly "Celtic". Don´t be deceived by images of ethnic looking celebrities and sportsmen: Many belong or have gypsy ancestry, or are immigrant derived, and hence are not representative of native Spaniards. At least half of the Spanish women I see every day show clear Nordic phenotypical traits.

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

Steve Douglas — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:41:23 -0000

Get out of town! I became aware of your latest project after hearing your enjoyable interview on the Beyond the Box podcast. I can't wait for you to complete it! I confess that as a full-on evolutionist I was not at all a fan of Expelled, but I expect to find much more common ground with Hellbound?!

Thanks for stopping in and sharing your excellent related post as well. (I'm always tempted to intemperately blurt out 'The Bible says' nothing at all - you're just hearing your own voice!")

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

Steve Douglas — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:21:01 -0000

Good to hear from you again, Steven: I'm glad this resonated with you.

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

Kevin Miller — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:18:07 -0000

Great piece. Someone recommended it to me after I wrote something similar. Going to tweet your post now. You can read my post here. It's called "Why I think the phrase "The Bible says..." should be stricken from the record." http://www.hellboundthemovie.c...

Now to peruse the rest of your blog.

Re: Putting words in God’s mouth

StevenGarmon — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:17:42 -0000

Wow, Steve. I couldn't have said it better myself. Many fundamentalists cling to inerrancy because they believe it gives them a foundation. But, our foundation is God Himself and Jesus, not a book.

Re: The vacuity of materialism

Jim731 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:58:53 -0000

I'm all for anyone and everyone developing and standing behind the explanations that most make sense to us... as long as we respect and honor the same for others.

Regardless of where the cat shit came from we've still got to clean it up. But we should still stand in wonder and awe at the amazing "creation" that the cat is. ;)

Re: The vacuity of materialism

Steve Douglas — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:51:59 -0000

Agreed. In the end they're all going to be "just so" explanations, and I find the divine origin explanation more satisfactory for several philosophical, rational reasons. I wish they'd at least acknowledge that their "reason" (= materialistic philosophy) is not enough for a definitive explanation and stop treating our preferred explanation as of an entirely different order (species, yes; genus likely, family perhaps).

Re: The vacuity of materialism

Jim731 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:41:50 -0000

Steve, I will happily join you in your skepticism. These are all fascinating attempts by physicists to come up with "explanations," but their explanations are themselves unprovable and untestable. I was watching a TV program the other night about Stephen Hawking and other physicists who have also speculated that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, and they proposed the argument that the matter for our universe may have originated in some other parallel universe, of which there are an infinite number. Having an "infinite" source of universes seems to be a popular explanation, but of course the idea of "infinite" is itself completely unfathomable, which just makes it all the more handy as an answer.

Of course, even for those of us who may lean toward a divine explanation, the claim of God's existence could easily be seen as the one glaring exception to the "rule" that "something cannot come from nothing." But the idea of a "creator" is still to me a much more plausible explanation than the spontaneous appearance of matter... and then life.

Re: The vacuity of materialism

Steve Douglas — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:01:27 -0000

Thanks, Jim.

Actually, Krauss's latest book A Universe from Nothing is his attempt to put to rest that very question, usually posed by some form of the cosmological argument, "Can something really come from nothing?" He tries to answer it in scientific rather than philosophical terms and is (typically) quite confident that he has succeeded. I haven't read it, but I'm a tad skeptical.

Re: The vacuity of materialism

Jim731 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:42:07 -0000

I am sure that Mr. Krauss is a very intelligent man... probably much smarter than I am. But his statement - "elements weren't created at the beginning of time, they were created in stars" - reminds me of a scene in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which Ben Stein asks another famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, to explain how life originated. Dawkins responds by saying that life on Earth may have come from another planet. Unfortunately Stein did not continue with what I see as the obvious follow-up question for Dawkins (and Krauss): "Ok, but how did life on that other planet originate... (and where did stars come from)?"

These very intelligent physicists think they are answering the "big" questions, but are actually not doing anything of the sort, for they are only delaying the answer by one more step.

I'm no genius, but I wish all these smart guys would quit insulting what little intelligence I have by expecting me to accept their shortsighted "answers" as explanations for things that they are just as much in the dark about as the rest of us.

Re: Believing in the Resurrection

Mike Gantt — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:41:21 -0000

Good point, Steve.

People sometimes confuse the argument you are making with the "2 Billion People Can't Be Wrong" argument, sometimes called the "One Out of Every Three People on the Planet Can't Be Wrong" argument. These arguments are, of course, weak and useless.

Your argument, however, is a very strong one. It asks, "How could Jews, not just in Jerusalem but all over the Mediterranean basin, in the period 30-50 CE come to believe that a crucified Galilean was the long-promised and keenly expected Messiah of Israel?"

The seven undisputed letters of Paul are generally believed to have been written in the decade of the 50's and are the earliest extant documents of the Christian movement. If you read those letters, you realize how widespread and intense was the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead, not just among Jews but also among an increasing number of Gentiles. Recall also that this is a period of time when many Jewish males returned to Jerusalem to celebrate feasts like Passover. When you include the people that lived in Roman Judea you realize that many of these people would have heard Jesus preach or seen him crucified - and, if not, many of them knew people who did. Imagine how six degrees of separation would have worked in as clannish a group as the Jewish Diaspora in that age when Jerusalem's temple was still the center of their devotional attention. And remember that none of these Jews was expecting their Messiah to be crucified. That was a curse and how could the Davidic Messiah be cursed? Something had to turn these people around to believe in a convicted blasphemer from Nazareth - and it couldn't have been something minor or subtle.

If there is some credible theory to explain all this belief in Jesus' resurrection other than the resurrection, I have yet to hear someone offer it.

Re: Tough love for my fellow post-Evangelical Christians

Jeff — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:27:08 -0000

I guess it's not fair to criticize a comment to a blog post for lack of rigor, but...this list isn't terribly rigorous, and seems based more on impressions and generalizations than on hard facts. I was expecting something more along the lines of data showing that evangelical churchers and believers compare unfavorably to mainline Protestants with respect to some metric of comparison. You might, for instance, start with charitable giving as a possibly useful metric, although I'm not sure that one actually supports your case. Anyway, as I said, it's the kind of subject that could be interestingly expanded on in a full post.

In the spirit of offering a suggestion rather than just nitpicking, how about this: end government-sponsored welfare. If this responsibility reverted to private organizations, churches would have no choice but to become more directly involved in ministering to the physical needs of those in need. This gets more believers off of the sidelines, which you will like, and it removes the government pass-through that eviscerates charity of its moral quality.

Re: Tough love for my fellow post-Evangelical Christians

Steve Douglas — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:47:23 -0000

I think I have talked a bit on the blog about the reasons this social consciousness has been stymied in mainstream (American especially) Evangelical circles.

I could indict the emphasis on evangelism as a prerequisite to meeting physical needs because the life-changing power of the Gospel is presumed to do most of the heavy lifting. We fund missionaries only enough to keep them alive over there long enough to tell unbelievers about Jesus, not envisaging the kind of large-scale, massively coordinated efforts that are needed and that we really could work arm-in-arm on to help. Whole swaths of dispensationalist futurists tell their congregations that the world's going to hell in a hand basket and Jesus is about to return, so we needn't bother rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of saving the lost while we've got a chance. There's also the burden of Republican ideology, to which most American Evangelicals are rather beholden, that stresses personal responsibility so much that the poor are looked on as reaping what they have sown, and so much sympathy is lost.

I could go on. But I'm more than willing to hear suggestions as to how to get the people I mentioned, a huge portion of conservative Christians, to change their mindsets so that they feel more motivated to put social action as a primary goal. It's just this sort of thing I want to happen.

Re: Tough love for my fellow post-Evangelical Christians

Jeff — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:01:36 -0000

Thanks Steve.

If my suggestion is of any value, I think a great place to start with a programme of engagement would be with this statement: "I emphatically agree that we need to make taking care of the oppressed, marginalized, and suffering in this world our chief priority as Christians, and that Evangelicalism doesn’t seem to have the tools or even the motivation to help us."

At face value, this seems to me to be a manifestly absurd statement (the latter half, not the former half), but I'm sure it didn't come out of nowhere. It would be interesting to hear you motivate this, and hopefully start a dialogue about how this commendable goal can be realized by those on all points of the conservative/liberal spectrum, and whether there are any structural barriers you see that prevent us from working arm-in-arm towards it.