User:Caius/LiteralismDebate

Andy, #1
By the way, on the account of creation in the Bible opinions vary as to what should be interpreted literally and what is figurative. However, there's no dispute among Christians (and other religions) that God could have created the world exactly as written in one of the accounts in Genesis.

Ames, #1
And thank you for your reply about the separate accounts of creation. As a further question, who decides and how which parts are to be taken literally? A question of faith, I assume?

Andy, #2
Questions about literalness of passages in the Bible are no different from questions about other historical documents. Pierre de Fermat, an entry I've been working on, wrote that he had a proof of his "Last Theorem." Was he being literal? Many mathematicians would say it doesn't matter, while others like to speculate about it. Atheists seem obsessed with materialism and literalism. Since all (except the few atheists) agree God could have created the world as literally described, why the obsession with the details?

Ames, #2
Also, on the literalness issue: what I've found out so far (correct me if I'm wrong) is that creationists do not take all of the Bible literally. Rather, they read elements figuratively, and elements literally. As near as I can tell, there are no objective indicia for deciding which passage should be read which way, which (to me) signifies a problem with the idea of literalism - although literalistm suggests that the text speak for itself, if you concede that the Bible is meant figuratively in places, it seems to me to fall apart.

The reason that people like myself (agnostic, by the way) have problems especially with literalism is that, to us, it confounds the idea of faith and moderation in all things, subordinating reason and an academic approach to religion (like, say, the Christianity of Augustine) to the blind obedience and the shallow restrictive worldview that any type of literalism always compels. It stifles debate and growth. And worst of all, it leads to poor "science," and conflicts (like the evolution versus creation debate) that would otherwise not exist. As a person who approaches the Bible figuratively, I doubt very seriously that God ever intended to disclose fully every bit of information about creation, and life, as He knew. I also doubt that He *could* do that, even if He wanted to, since the idea of an omnipotent being communicating infinite wisdom to a finite mind (to say the least) raises a few problems. Further, even if God did intend to disclose his entire knowledge to humanity, I doubt that humanity could come by it from merely a pretextual glance. Rather, deep study, introspection, and comparison with the rest of human experience must surely be required: a study that does not discount, but rather credits wisdom acquired from other sources (say, science). Literalism of course stifles this more expansive view of learning.

Now, you say that God *could* create the world in seven literal days, so why does it matter if he did? Obviously it matters a great deal. As I sit here, in my apartment, I *could* go on a murderous rampage. I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find a weapon somewhere. But, of course I will not do that now, nor will I ever! I would say the distinction between potential and actuality for me, then, is very significant indeed. More so for God. An infinitely powerful God could do anything He pleased, including destroy all of humanity at any minute. It matters a great deal whether or not He does actually do that, and anyone who believes strongly in God should dedicate his time to discovering what God actually did, rather than ending the inquiry at his potential. This is just the type of line of questioning, though, that literalism has the tendency to stifle, halting human knowledge and progress at a fixed point in time, and preventing the gathering of knowledge, which is (surely) one of our most important tasks in life.