|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Quadralemma | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In Message 37 Glenn Morton presented this:
True, but there is a great conundrum that few want to face--the quadralemma. If God is able or willing to communicate reality to us, then he is God If God is unable but willing to communicate reality to us, then he is impotent. If God is able but unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is evil If God is both unable and unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is not God. ... in relation to whether events in the Bible should be considered as historical. In particular this was during a discussion of the Flood Account found in Genesis. I do not see either the relevance or significance of the statement. Nor do I see any dilemma or issues where that would even be relevant. In this thread I'd like for us to discuss whether there is any "Quadralemma" and if there is such an issue, whether it is more than trivial to resolve. Suggested for either Comparative Religions or Faith and Belief. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
I am going to explain why I think the quadralemma captures an important issue.
To me, the non-triviality lies in the question of the trustworthiness of God. We Christians trust Christ's sacrifice to save us from our sins. That sacrifice is based upon Adam's sin. As H. G. Wells famously said, "It was only slowly that the general intelligence of the Westernworld was awakened to two disconcerting facts: firstly, that the succession of life in the geological record did not correspond to the acts of the six days of creation; and, secondly, that the record, in harmony with a mass of biological facts, pointed away from the Bible assertion of a separate creation of each species, straight towards a genetic relation between all forms of life, _in which even man was included!_ The importance of this last issue to the existing doctrinal system was manifest. If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards."The fall, H.G.Wells, in his _Outline of History_ Vol 2 (Doubleday, 1961). 776-777 I want to narrowly focus the point of this for the present discussion. The point of citing Wells is not about evolution(which I accept), but about the dependence of Christian theology upon the Fall (thus, I am broadening this issue from the Flood thread because the same problem abounds elsewhere in Scripture). No Fall; no need for Christ. And notice that Wells cites the 'historical basis' of Christian belief. This collapse, of which Wells speaks is due to the loss of reality to the entire basis upon which Christian theology is built. Christ died in history, therefore the Fall must be historical. Modern atheists actually seem a bit deriding of the loss of historicity. Genie Scott, who, I am told, cited my web site favorable in her book, said this of attempts to do away with historicity. “The "accommodation" model, in which science and religion are more directly engaged; theological understanding is thought to be deepened through the understanding of science. Some Christians wrestling with the theological implications of Darwinism in the early twentieth century, for example, were willing to reinterpret basic concepts of the Fall, Atonement, and Original Sin in the light of evolutionary theory. These theologians were considering such problems as "If humans evolved from apes, there was no original state of grace and the concept of Original Sin must be reinterpreted" (Bowler 1999, 39). The accommodation seems to be largely a one-way street, with science acting as a source for theological reinterpretation rather than the reverse.” Eugenie C. Scott, “The Science And Religion Movement,” in Paul Kurtz, ed., Science and Religion, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), p. 113 The problem as I see it is this. Science is rightly perceived as telling us what is true and real about the world; Theology is widely perceived as telling us things which are not real and are totally unverifiable. All of this raises the question of why believe that which is false. Why trust a God who 'inspired' a false story? If I tell you that I am the prophet of the Great Green Slug, who created the universe by dropping feces which grew into our present universe and that the Great Green Slug wants you to send all your money to me, you would rightly think I am barking mad. What you wouldn't do is declare the Slug creation story a great theological lesson to be pondered and applied to our lives. But, when it comes to the Bible, too often I see people who claim that the Creation/Flood stories are total fabrication, but who then, turn around, and proclaim the great theology taught by these otherwise false stories. It makes absolutely no sense to me to believe anything good comes from a false story which otherwise would appear to be a historical account. Faith in a plan of salvation derived from a book which is utterly historically false reminds me what William James says. “...the faith you think of is the faith defined by the schoolboy when he said, "Faith is when you believe something that you know ain't true." I can only repeat that this is misapprehension.” William James, “The Will To Believe,” in Robert M. Hutchins, Mortimer J. Adler, and Clifton Fadiman, eds., Gateway to the Great Books, Vol. 10, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1963), p 56 Do we have faith in that which we know ain't true? That is the real question raised by the Quadralemma Edited by grmorton, : clarificatin Edited by grmorton, : No reason given. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As a first step, let me try to point to areas where you and I have basic differences. First, I do not accept the Fall or Original Sin or even that Adam sinned. Reading the account in Genesis I just cannot see any of those.
I do not believe that there was an Adam or a Garden of Eden. Yet I have faith and consider myself an active and devout Christian. So we have a difference in basic initial position. Before going much further I think we need to understand at least the initial starting positions each holds. You should also know that I do not believe that a belief in GOD or Jesus are a prerequisite for salvation, and that they are totally unrelated to salvation. I think that far more Atheists will be saved than Christians, and in fact that more Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Agnostics and Hindus will be saved than Christians. That said, I do believe that the Bible is a work inspired by GOD, as is the Qur'an, the writings of Mencius, of Confucius, of the Norse Skalds. When I read a morality tale, a fairytale, a myth, I can learn from them and the lessons I learn can help me in my day to day living, both with my fellow man and with GOD. The tales in the Bible are like that. As I pointed out in the other thread, when I read Genesis I see quite different Gods in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 I see an aloof, distant, transcendent God, one who simply wills or speaks things into existence. But that God is truly distant. There is no interaction between that God and creation. The God we find in Genesis 2 is entirely different. There we see a very personal God, one that creates by hand from the dirt of the earth, who shapes and molds and breathes life into Her creation. The God of Genesis 2 is not sure, is uncertain, makes mistakes, is not knowledgeable, is powerful but still something a human can grasp, can understand. The people that compiled and edited these stories still decided to put both in, even though the Gods appear to be mutually exclusive. The question then seems to be why? Why include both tales? We know they were not opposed to merging such tales, they did so in the Flood tale and it appears, throughout out Genesis after Genesis 2:4. Yet the stuck the younger tale intact into the books, and went further, they placed it first before the older tales we find beginning in Genesis 2:5. IIRC. I believe they did so because the purpose of the Bible is to help man towards understanding GOD. GOD is not the God of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, GOD is not any of the God's we see in the Bible. GOD is. The Bible does not reflect the limits of GOD communicating with man. The Bible, and all other scripture including the scripture you post here and on your website, reflects man's ability to communicate with man. I see the Quadralemma as trivial because something like the Bible does not reflect GOD communicating with man but simply man communicating with man. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You can't find God in your mind. Only in your heart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 859 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
riVerRrat writes: You can't find God in your mind. Only in your heart. Some people interpret their relationship to God differently because they do not see a dichotomy between 'heart' and 'mind.' This is because the brain is the seat of both thought and emotion, and because the body can't exist without the mind and the mind can't exist without the body. I must also agree with jar, the problem is trivial. This is because IMO one's relationship with God is continuous and unfolding rather than static and bounded. If stories are provided as a means to understanding, they should be interpreted as parables meant to exemplify a specific lesson under specific circumstances rather than final and unquestionable assertions of the total and precise nature of reality meant for all people throughout all time. ABE - To provide an example: Are semi-fictional stories, such as the plays of Shakespeare, completely devoid of any truths? And should they contain truths concerning the human condition, are we then compelled to forever use the concept of humours and noxious gasses as the basis of medicine? Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Edited by anglagard, : forgot nearly all plays based upon actual events
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The conditions in the Quadralemma are not simple binary positions.
Your apparent view is that God communicates reality to us by occasionally inspiring a few people to write - but providing us no objective way of working out whether a particular person was or was not inspired, or the extent to which they were inspired, or what the inspired words mean. I have to say that that does not seem to repesent much of an effort at communication and if God is unable or unwilling to do better then it is little different from being unable or unwilling to communicate at all. I cannot say that the idea that the stories must contain an element of literal truth does not seem to contribute significantly to actually solving the problem. If, as you say, nothing good can come from a story that is not literally true, why did Jesus teach in parables ? Surely any Christian must accept that a fiction can indeed carry a valuable theological message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Jar,
Ok, So, it is clear from your statement of your beliefs, that you do not hold to classical Christianity. I appreciate knowing where you are coming from because that makes things easier. If one assumes that all religious documents are cases of man communicating with man, then clearly the quadralemma can tell us nothing about the nature of God. What I can't figure out is why we needed a special thread to discuss this--it seems an extravagance. Depending upon the correctness or incorrectness of your assumption you will be correct or incorrect. Enjoyed the very short non-debate. Edited by grmorton, : No reason given. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
The conditions in the Quadralemma are not simple binary positions. Your apparent view is that God communicates reality to us by occasionally inspiring a few people to write - but providing us no objective way of working out whether a particular person was or was not inspired, or the extent to which they were inspired, or what the inspired words mean. I have to say that that does not seem to represent much of an effort at communication and if God is unable or unwilling to do better then it is little different from being unable or unwilling to communicate at all. I cannot say that the idea that the stories must contain an element of literal truth does not seem to contribute significantly to actually solving the problem. If, as you say, nothing good can come from a story that is not literally true, why did Jesus teach in parables ? Surely any Christian must accept that a fiction can indeed carry a valuable theological message. The creation is different than a parable. We believe the Big bang because the evidence indicates that it is real, that it actually happened. We believe the communication of the scientists because we trust that they are able and willing to communicate reality to us about what actually happened. My objection to having a creation account be historically false is that it treats religion as something special, it treats religion with kid gloves. A religion claiming to have the True God proclaiming the story of creation presupposes that the said God actually knows something about the events that actually took place. If the said God shows no evidence of knowing what actually happened, one can reasonably doubt the veracity of that God. Similarly, if a person, claiming to be a scientist says things about the Big Bang which shows that he really doesn't know what the data says, one can reasonably doubt the veracity of that person. Basically the quadralemma is raising the question of why we treat a god differently than we treat a scientist, giving God a pass for any nonsense he inspires and charging the scientist with fraud if he proclaims nonsense. Since jar's assumptions are incompatible with the quadralemma, this will be my last post to this thread. Got better things to do. Edited by AdminPhat, : spelling The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Rat writes: You can't find God in your mind. Only in your heart. That's just empty, cheesy nonsense... To use Nator's old trick... Can you point to God on this diagram? Edited by AdminPhat, : changed Buz to Rat. Buz no longer is here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It would be hard to say that Genesis 1 is the equivalent of a scientific account of the creation of the universe. It seems to have more in common with myth - and if that were the case then it would be more like a parable - the real message would not be the literal surface meaning. I would add that Genesis 1 itself does not claim to be the True God's account of the creation. So it seems that the real problem may be that your branch of Christianity is wrong in its idea of what Genesis 1 is.
quote: Then the unstated assumption of the quadralemma is that Genesis 1 represents an attempt by God to speak in the same way a scientist speaks. The text certainly demands neither that it is God speaking or that God is attempting to literally describe events. And that returns to my point. If Genesis 1 is God attempting to communicate the literal history of the creation He's done a lousy job. We can't tell it's Him speaking or even be sure that the account is intended to be literally accurate. So we really are stuck with God being unable or unwilling to communicate adequately IF we accept your assumptions on the nature of Genesis 1. So the Quadralemma represents a powerful argument against the fundamentalist view of God writing the Bible since it requires him to be unable or unwilling to actually make a good job of what he's supposed to be doing. The best escape from it is to deny the assumption that Genesis 1 represents an attempt by God to speak as a scientist speaks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Can you point to God on this diagram? I can find God in everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes.
Religion and religious documents are all the constructs of man. They are like any other thing that we have created. That does not mean that they cannot be inspired by GOD. It does mean though that they will exhibit all of the limitations of man. But they are also not the only testimony available. There is also the universe we live in which is a direct creation not of man but of GOD. The Quadralemma is only a problem if one worships a limited God. It is only a problem if one says that the Bible is something directly created by God, and in fact, that it is the only such work in existence. The Universe exists. The Bible attempts to explain how the Universe came into existence. If we take the premise of the Quadralemma seriously, we are then faced with the job of trying to shoehorn two stories into something like a one to one correspondence. We see the Universe. It is as it is. We did not create the Universe. We read the Bible. The Creation stories in the Bible do not seem to match the reality of the Universe we see. So to resolve the Quadralemma, many folk try to reinterpret the stories. The first thing they throw out is the meaning of Day. Then they say that one of the stories is the planning process and the other is the implementation. Then they say that God said "Let there be light" while Moshe said "And there was light" and that there is no indication of what went on between those two sentences. There is another possible approach, one that is still valid theologically, that avoids many of those conundrums. The Catechism of Creation expresses it this way:
Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe? These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. “Creation” in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all God’s wonderful works. The Quadralemma is a major issue if someone approaches the Bible as by necessity being a literal historical and scientific document. The reason I think this needs to be discussed is that I believe your answer to the issue expressed is false. The choices do not resolve to either make the Bible fit reality some way or abandon the Christian Faith. There are other possible resolutions, one being stepping back and asking "What is it that GOD is trying to communicate to us in these stories?" When Jesus spoke of getting his ass in a crack on the sabbath, it is immaterial whether his ass actually fell in the crack on the sabbath or if he was just creating an example. The lesson is independent of the factuality of the example. Once again returning to the Catechism of Creation, it examines the stories of Genesis 1 & 2 this way:
What theological truths about creation does Genesis 1 convey? Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good. Finally, Genesis 1 teaches that the Sabbath, God’s holy day of celebration and rest, is anchored in the act of creation. What truths about creation does Genesis 2 declare? While Genesis 1 emphasizes God’s transcendence or otherness from creation, Genesis 2, in poetic and metaphorical language, emphasizes God’s immanence or intimate relationship with creation. In the story of the making of the garden and of the first man and woman, God is present to every creature in creating it and giving it sustenance. The point is that my beliefs are not so far outside classical Christianity. The two tales included in the Bible have valid and unique functions as GOD communicates through man to man. Just as in evolution Natural selection operates as a filter on change, so do the limitation of man filter and restrict our ability to communicate with other man. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I can find God in everything. ...except the mind, presumably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Modulous writes: I can find God in everything. ...except the mind, presumably. Nice one, Mod. It makes me wonder how is he going to argue himself out of it. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024