In the course of my Twitter conversations over the weekend, the atheists I talked with were, by and large, a lot more open to discuss than were the Hamites, and there were a few guys with whom I was able to have a civil discussion and clarify a few things. Nevertheless, it is hard getting to that point because in the “Twitterverse” it is much too easy to just get caught up in the a cage match, rather than a discussion. Ken Ham posts what he posts because he’s looking to stir things up and tick people off, and the people who comment are people who are ready to be ticked off, and who want to land a few punches themselves.
In any case, I’ve found that at the very least that the atheists who comment in these “creation/evolution debates” at least have a handle on what evolution actually is, although it’s clear to me that they don’t have a good handle on what the Bible is or what historical Christianity really is about. The Hamites on the other hand not only do not know what evolution really is, but they also have an understanding of the Bible that is particularly wanting.
Thus, I’ve found that both the Hamites and many atheists have this notion that the whole purpose of the Bible is nothing more than to make crazy supernatural claims and to dictate morality. Therefore, both sides tend to think that the whole Christian life consists of (a) mentally asserting that those “crazy” supernatural claims really happened, and (b) obeying God’s Law so you can be a good boy.
It is on this point, that of understanding just what the Bible is, where the root problem in the whole “creation/evolution debate” lies. If you understand what the Bible is, then you’ll see that science and evolution are not a threat or a problem. If you can do this, then you can let science do science, and you can get around to the business of actually interacting with the Bible on its own terms, rather than trying to reduce the Bible to make it fit in with modern scientific paradigms, and thus render it useless.
The Twitter Question of Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
This question of what the Bible is came up in one of my conversations on Twitter over the weekend. I had made the point that Genesis 1-11 isn’t doing science, and isn’t attempting to give actual history. Ken Ham was wrong for claiming it does, and therefore it is equally wrong for an atheist to say Genesis 1-11 “isn’t true” because it isn’t scientific and historical—it’s not trying to be. It’s a different genre. Well, a certain atheist (we’ll call him “Jeff”) pointed out that was just my opinion, and that other Christians think it is science and history. That was one of the reasons why he rejects the Bible: there’s nothing objective to it; it’s all subjective. My claim that Genesis 1-11 wasn’t science/history was just another subjective claim with no proof.
His major bone of contention was that since the Bible (particularly Genesis 1-11) is interpreted so differently among the 20,000+ Christian denominations, that it was impossible to know precisely what was really true or not. There was no objective standard to know what the Bible was, therefore all of it was unreliable. Science, for him, was the only objective means for ascertaining truth.
For example, I said Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of myth. He basically responded with, “How do you know?” If Genesis 1-11 really was myth (and not history), then, “Why is this not stated in the book itself? Why do you get to make the subjective decision on the matter?”
I responded by saying the original audience would have understood what Genesis 1-11 was, therefore there was no need to explicitly state, “Hey, this isn’t history, it’s myth.” We need that, because we’re not them; we are not living in their time, and therefore we are going to miss some of what was obvious to them.
Jeff’s response was, “Exactly. But one should assume that the ‘Perfect Word of God’ would not be subject to clarification.” He then restated his basic question: “I’m just trying to understand why you would claim something as true which cannot be shown to be true.”
Now, if you take the time to think about it, Jeff’s question is a very good one. In fact, it gets to the heart of the reason why so many people, both Christians and non-Christians alike, get so tripped up in not only “creation/evolution” questions, but questions regarding the Bible in general. The basic assumption is this:
The Bible is (or claims to be) a perfect book written by God. Therefore, its sole purpose is to make historical/scientific claims and to dictate God’s Law of morality.
That assumption is more akin to the Muslim view of the Koran than the historical Christian understanding of the Bible. If you’re working from that assumption, there’s a whole lot you won’t be able to understand. And that’s why Ken Ham and young earth creationism (and to an extent, much of Evangelicalism) is so problematic: the very way they present the Bible has led to needless confusion and frustration.
So let’s see if I can help the situation.
What is the Bible, Objectively Speaking?
Let me first say, I’m not going to try to give a full and comprehensive explanation of the Bible. That could very well take a book in and of itself. What I am going to try to do is just clarify a few details that stem from “Jeff’s” question regarding the Bible, objectivity and subjectivity.
First off, the Bible is not some sort of “perfect” book that dropped out of Heaven, directly from the throne of God. It is, in fact, an anthology—a library, if you will—of what is considered to be the inspired writings of the Jewish people (and later, with the New Testament, that of the Church as well). Christians believe it to be inspired, but it is not (or should not) be seen as one monolithic rule book/fact book.
Being an anthology, it is comprised of many different types of writing and literature: legal documents, narrative, poetry, wisdom literature, songs, parables, myth, as well as many others. Simply put, it is a creative work that does a lot more than simply convey history (although it obviously does that). It interprets that history in order to show God’s purposes in history.
Regardless of whether or not you are a Christian, when you come to any piece of literature, be it biblical or otherwise, part of what you need to do to make sure you can read and interpret it correctly is to make sure you understand the particular genre of that given text.
Figuring out the genre of a given text is not a matter of subjective opinion. For example, is Jesus’ story of the Prodigal Son a parable or historical account? It’s a parable—that’s not open to opinion. If you think Jesus is trying to convey a historical event, you are getting it wrong. It is objectively a parable, because we know the characteristics of a parable and we can measure and compare the Prodigal Son to that criteria and conclude that yes, it is a parable.
The same holds true for most everything else in the Bible: we can say objectively that Psalms as poetry, that Proverbs is wisdom literature, that I Kings is historical narrative, etc.
Yeah, but what about Job and Jonah?
Having said that, there are parts in the Bible that Christians don’t agree on, parts like the book of Job, Jonah, and Genesis 1-11. Evangelicals like Ken Ham see these three all as historical accounts. The fact is, though, the question regarding what these are is not just a subjective quagmire. Ken Ham is objectively wrong to claim these are historical. Job is clearly categorized along with the Wisdom Literature in the Hebrew Bible; Jonah has all the hallmarks of a parable; Genesis 1-11 has all the characteristics of ancient Near Eastern mythology. These are not in dispute by the majority of scholars who have studied them.
Granted, there are many Evangelicals like Ken Ham who dispute this, but they are provably wrong. If “Jeff” is going to discount the entire Bible as subjective, and therefore unreliable, simply because there are some people who disagree with the scholarly consensus regarding the genre of Job, Jonah, and Genesis 1-11, he would have to discount the theory of evolution as subjective and unreliable as well—after all, the same people who think Job, Jonah, and Genesis 1-11 are historical are the same people who think evolution is an atheistic religion.
My point is simple: there are things that can be objectively known, but that won’t stop some people from rejecting that known reality and coming up with their own bizarre claims that are not rooted in reality. Even though some things are objectively true, that will never mean that 100% of people will agree with that objective truth.
This is the problem with young earth creationists: they present a demonstrably false picture of parts of the Bible that is not rooted in reality, and that has caused them to reject the objective scientific truths of evolution—those scientific findings conflict with their already false understanding of Genesis 1-11.
What is the Bible, Subjectively Speaking?
This is not to say that everything in the Bible, when it comes to genre recognition, is clear-cut. There was a historical figure of Jonah, but the story about him is in the genre of parable: so how those two facts coincide leads to scholarly debate. Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of myth, but at the same time what it is doing is something drastically different than your typical ancient Near Eastern myth—how does that work? That opens the door for scholarly debate. It is at this point that the notion of subjectivity comes is.
Once the genre is clarified (and this is a fairly objective, clear-cut enterprise), the next step involves understanding and interpreting what is being said, and this can be subjective, but not entirely. When authors write, they are writing to convey something, and if we believe that communication is possible—that it is possible for us to use our reason to correctly figure out what the author intended—that meaning can be objectively known.
Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to address the Pharisees who complained that Jesus was hanging out with the wrong kind of people. The point of the parable, therefore, was to say, “The Kingdom of God has arrived, and it is welcoming to those who have gone astray; therefore, you Pharisees are like the eldest son, who is really good at keeping the rules. The father’s challenge to the eldest son is my challenge to you: are you going to join the celebration that the Kingdom of God is saving the lost, or are you going to pout and keep away, because you think you deserve it?”
That’s the point of the parable. You can use your reason, read it in context, and figure it out. Of course, the truth that the parable is conveying isn’t simply some “objective fact.” It is an existential challenge, and therefore subjective in the sense that it is fundamentally relational. The point isn’t to convey facts, but to issue a relational, existential challenge.
The same goes for Genesis 1-11: its point is not to convey historical/scientific facts. It is mythological literature that is trying to convey the truth about the nature of God, creation, and mankind. It’s not trying to claim that the universe was literally created in six days, a mere 6,000 years ago; it’s claiming that God has brought order and purpose to the universe, and that it is good. The “six days” format is a poetical/mythological way to creatively explain this existential truth; it’s not a scientific claim.
This is not my “subjective opinion”—it is objectively clear that Genesis 1-11 is not trying to give “scientific objective facts.” It is objectively clear that Genesis 1-11 is mythological literature that is trying to explain things like the purpose and meaning of creation, and the nature of God and mankind.
What Does All This Mean?
Let me wrap this up and bring it back to Jeff’s question: “I’m just trying to understand why you would claim something as true which cannot be shown to be true.”
When it comes to objectivity, there are some basic things about the Bible that can really be known, namely the genre of its various writings. I would argue that my claim that Genesis 1-11 is myth is an objective claim that can indeed be shown to be true. If you use your reason, and look at Genesis 1-11 in light of other ancient Near Eastern myths, it becomes abundantly clear that that is its genre.
Now, even though I can prove it, that doesn’t mean everyone is going to accept it. Like with everything, there will always be those who refuse to acknowledge objective reality, whether it be that Al-Qaeda blew up the twin towers, that the earth revolves around the sun, or that Genesis 1-11 is mythological literature. Just because some people might not accept it doesn’t mean the Bible is all a matter of subjective opinion—it just means Ken Ham is wrong.
Yet, when it comes to the existential claims that are being made in a text like Genesis 1-11 (i.e. there is one God, creation is good, etc.), those claims are not “objective” claims in any scientific sense—they are by their very nature existential claims, and therefore cannot be “proven objectively.”
I believe there is a God and that He has created this world. I also believe evolution is the process by which He continues to create. An atheist and I will agree that evolution is that natural process that brings about variety within the natural world—that can be objectively shown. But whereas I believe there is a God behind that process, the atheist will disagree. But he can’t point to evolution as proof that he is right on the question of the existence of God, for evolution doesn’t and cannot address that issue.
Now, most of this post has had its focus on claiming that it can be objectively known what type of genre Genesis 1-11 is. When it comes to understanding what various books/sections of the Bible are in terms of genre, objective claims can be made an proven, similar to the way scientific claims in nature can be objectively claimed and proven.
The difference, of course is that whereas photosynthesis simply makes provable claims concerning what happens in plants, it isn’t trying to do anything more than that. In the Bible, particularly with historical narrative sections that relate historical events, they are not limited to just stating facts—they are trying to convey meaning to those facts in history. For example. II Kings 18-20 tells us about the historical facts surrounding Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, but it’s not just relating facts. It’s telling a story about those events in the attempt to convey something about God’s purposes. You might not believe what II Kings says about what those events meant in the grander scheme of God’s purposes, and you might even question some specific facts. But if you’re honest, you’ll have to believe that II Kings 18-20 is telling of a real historical event.
It is in this sense that everything in the Bible is considerably different than the field of modern science. It’s not just trying to describe natural phenomenon—it is conveying human history, and testifying to the reality of something that is beyond mere nature, but yet that makes itself known within history.
And so, the question is not whether or not what is contained in the Bible is “objective”—it isn’t. It is written with purpose, creativity, and a point of view, even the parts that deal with history. Still, the parts that deal with history are historically reliable.
The question as to what genre certain sections and books in the Bible are—that is (for the most part) pretty objective.
But I’ve rambled on long enough…although not one of my more coherent posts, hopefully this has been interesting and thought-provoking.
