OUR FEATURED ARTICLE: Do Talking Snakes Exist? by Rusty Entrekin

[Athanasius]

Hi Rusty:

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define a "theistic perspective". I am and I know a great number of theists in the field (most biblical scholars are still practicing Jews or Christians) but most also recognize that their own religious convictions and practices are quite separate from conducting their own research.

We are all subject to the influences of our own culture and time. "Metaphysical naturalism" has become the method through which academic research (in practically every field of study) occurs, but this is not through some sort of anti-biblical / religious bias. It happens because this is the most viable approach through which we can learn.... I can still approach the world and my work from a set of naturalistically informed presuppositions, and still maintain my own theistic ideals

Hi Agnostotheist,

Metaphysical naturalism, in and of itself, is not a method, although it can be used to guide one's scientific or academic methodology (methodological naturalism is an example of this). Metaphysical naturalism is the presupposition that there is no supernatural. By it's very nature, it is biased against theism. To say that it is the most viable approach through which we can learn about the Bible is about the same as saying, "Religious beliefs and convictions aside, the most valuable way to discern the truth about the Bible is is to assume that there is no God."

I personally would be unwilling to live in the compartmentalized schizophrenia of trying to hold to both of these metaphysical philosophies at the same time (theism and naturalism), one in my professional life, and the other in my personal life, which at their heart, are diametrically in opposition to one another.

I would like to point out though, that none of us is immune to the effects of society. Your own "orchestrated symbolism" is indebted to a form of linear historicism that owes a debt to the Enlightenment. You approach the biblical text in an effort to synthesize ancient and foreign worldviews with your own special brand of rationalism, and I would argue that this strategy fails primarily NOT for its theistic presuppositions, but because it removes the texts themselves from their cultural, historical and social milieux and situates them inappropriately into a modernized perspective. To do so completely bypasses the meaning of the biblical texts in many instances (such as the example from Genesis 3) in favour of something else.

I don't think that the apostles Paul (2 Cor 11:3) and John (Rev 12:9) would have disagreed with my view of Satan being behind the serpent. And Isaiah might not have, either (see Isaiah 27:1). In fact, my own perspective is influenced much more heavily from biblical writings than any other source. The New Testament writers certainly approached the OT scriptures from a theistic perspective. Your naturalistic approach seems much more modern.

I suppose the difference between you and I lies in our use of the biblical text: For my part, I am very interested in its function and meaning. I hope to improve my understanding through gaining a clear idea of how function and meaning have developed through time. From your article, it seems to me that you have already drawn your own conclusions and are most interested in "shoehorning" bits of biblical lore to fit those ideas.

You could make the same accusations of the NT writers. The fact is that either presupposition (theism or naturalism) draws conclusions apriori about the existence of the supernatural. Allowing either to guide our interpretative methodology results in a filtering of hypotheses which do not fit the underlying philosophy we have chosen. With methodological naturalism, for instance, any hypothesis that makes allowance for the supernatural is rejected from the start. So one cannot truthfully claim that a naturalistic methodology is less biased than a theistic methodology. Of course, my methodology is more than that. It is one which presumes that all of scripture, in the original autographs, is true. So I am not "shoehorning" as you put it, but rather adopting a harmonizing intepretative approach which seeks to allow each presumed truth to shed light on the other, just as the NT writers did. And given the presupposition that all of scripture is true, this is a valid approach because truths do illuminate one another.

I would agree, however that my article takes a topical rather than expository approach. However, I think that an expository approach would have been inappropriate for the editorial genre.

In some circles, this might be construed as a form of "idolatry" through which the "Bible" has supplanted God. At what point does one recognize where the "Word of God" ends and where the "person of God" begins?

I can see how someone who does not regard all of the Bible as the word of God, but portions of it (or even all?) as "lore" might think that. If believing that God has been at work through history, and has spoken through the scriptures, were a form of idolatry, I would be guilty as charged. I do not worship the Bible, though I do worship and trust the Source whom I believe inspired it.

Agnostotheist, you seem to be a very personable man. I hate it when I am compelled to disagree with a such a polished and polite fellow! But it cannot be avoided. At their heart, our methodological approaches to biblical truth are diametrically opposed in the perspectives which guide them. If we are to defend them, we cannot but clash. So please do not take my disagreement personally.

I do, however, sincerely wish and pray all ot the truly best for you!

[Agnostotheist]

Hi Agnostotheist,

Metaphysical naturalism, in and of itself, is not a method, although it can be used to guide one's scientific or academic methodology (methodological naturalism is an example of this). Metaphysical naturalism is the presupposition that there is no supernatural. By it's very nature, it is biased against theism. To say that it is the most viable approach through which we can learn about the Bible is about the same as saying, "Religious beliefs and convictions aside, the most valuable way to discern the truth about the Bible is is to assume that there is no God."

I disagree with your assessment somewhat that "metaphysical naturalism" is biased against theism, in that I don't necessarily think that all brands of theism must adhere to a belief in supernatural activity. In much more of a deistic approach, God could be imagined as adhering quite strictly to the governing principles of nature, and thus not "supernatural" at all. In fact, I would expect that the early Hebrews in particular would not have described God as a "supernatural" being, especially given that in their perception of reality, there was only the natural world, and God was very much a part of it. I can still worship, serve and experience God in "nature" without at all resorting to an insistence that he must or ever does intervene counter to what always naturally occurs.

I personally would be unwilling to live in the compartmentalized schizophrenia of trying to hold to both of these metaphysical philosophies at the same time (theism and naturalism), one in my professional life, and the other in my personal life, which at their heart, are diametrically in opposition to one another.

To each his own, I guess. In many respects my naturalistic approach to God coupled with what I consider a healthy sense of agnosticism has actually proven to be quite beneficial to me spiritually. Skepticism and questions are what drive me to pursue God, and not to be complacent in a false sense of certainty. On the other hand, I could no longer bear to deceive myself and to lobby on behalf of a biblicism that did not square with reality. It was both intellectually and spiritually freeing to come to a place in which I was able to treat the Bible honestly and critically,as part of a wider context of Ancient Near Eastern literature, religion, culture and society.

I don't think that the apostles Paul (2 Cor 11:3) and John (Rev 12:9) would have disagreed with my view of Satan being behind the serpent. And Isaiah might not have, either (see Isaiah 27:1). In fact, my own perspective is influenced much more heavily from biblical writings than any other source. The New Testament writers certainly approached the OT scriptures from a theistic perspective. Your naturalistic approach seems much more modern.

Again, I disagree. There is no indication at all that Paul and the Apostles saw that Satan was "behind the serpent". For all we know—and we really have no reason to assume otherwise—they believed that the snake WAS the devil, and that this creature had the natural ability to talk. I completely agree that the NT writers obviously approached the Scriptures from a "theistic perspective", but that is not really my criticism here. The Apostles were operating from a limited base of knowledge, and from within a worldview that tolerated such ideas as talking snakes. Yours does not, and that is abundantly evident in your elaborate attempt to explain HOW such a thing could possibly take place in a creature that cannot physically produce the necessary sounds to be able to speak. I'm fairly certain that all of them would have found your essay quite baffling because you have attempted to marry a modern sense of rational and scientifically informed sensibility to an ancient worldview of mysticism and mythology, and they simply do not work well together...at all.

You could make the same accusations of the NT writers.

Absolutely.

The fact is that either presupposition (theism or naturalism) draws conclusions apriori about the existence of the supernatural. Allowing either to guide our interpretative methodology results in a filtering of hypotheses which do not fit the underlying philosophy we have chosen. With methodological naturalism, for instance, any hypothesis that makes allowance for the supernatural is rejected from the start. So one cannot truthfully claim that a naturalistic methodology is less biased than a theistic methodology.

Fair enough. But I think that we can agree that some biases are simply much more profitable to certain arenas of research. Science demands a naturalistic methodology because it is concerned only with nature. My own interest is literature, religion, culture and history, and given the way in which the biblical literature fist within its surrounding milieux, my own approach will necessarily draw the simplest and most practical explanations for things from these comparable pieces of data.

Of course, my methodology is more than that. It is one which presumes that all of scripture, in the original autographs, is true. So I am not "shoehorning" as you put it, but rather adopting a harmonizing intepretative approach which seeks to allow each presumed truth to shed light on the other, just as the NT writers did. And given the presupposition that all of scripture is true, this is a valid approach because truths do illuminate one another.

But given that there is no such thing as an "autograph" (this is a scholarly construct that is gradually being rejected within the realm of biblical studies), and given that your own measure of "presumed truth" rests on a burden of proof that would have been unassailable to the biblical authors; given the extent to which our knowledge of this world has increased since the time that these texts were spoken and then written, to merely presume that they are "true" (in what sense?) is a particularly massive presupposition to make in the first place. I understand the approach as I once subscribed to it. But my own experience with harmonizations too often did not square with other pieces of historical, cultural or scientific evidence; so much so that it no longer made any sense to pursue something that was so clearly futile.

I would agree, however that my article takes a topical rather than expository approach. However, I think that an expository approach would have been inappropriate for the editorial genre.

Understood. My apologies. As I said, I found the article interesting, and it struck me as I read it how far the interpretive branches for this particular text have stretched and twisted from its original sense.

I can see how someone who does not regard all of the Bible as the word of God, but portions of it (or even all?) as "lore" might think that. If believing that God has been at work through history, and has spoken through the scriptures, were a form of idolatry, I would be guilty as charged. I do not worship the Bible, though I do worship and trust the Source whom I believe inspired it.

Perhaps my last statements were a bit harsh, but it is a common criticism from other branches within the Church (particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy) that Evangelicals are "biblicists". I expect that you don't "worship" the Bible—at least not in a traditional sense—but I am very leery of approaches to faith, God and religion which are so certain in their understanding of the Bible. I think what troubles me is that the Bible and its interpretation is a symbiotic process that has changed dramatically over time. The doctrines of sola Scriptura and inerrency threaten to replace the authority of Scripture—which was always a dynamic community "project" that extended well beyond the primary texts!—with rather an infallible method. If we are bound to this method, how can we hope to learn anything at all?

Agnostotheist, you seem to be a very personable man. I hate it when I am compelled to disagree with a such a polished and polite fellow! But it cannot be avoided. At their heart, our methodological approaches to biblical truth are diametrically opposed in the perspectives which guide them. If we are to defend them, we cannot but clash. So please do not take my disagreement personally.

I do, however, sincerely wish and pray all ot the truly best for you!

Thank you.

And please, do not feel at all bad about causing any offense. I live for the dialogue.

[kudos]

Darwin argues in On the Origin of Species that our classification of animal species is based largely on our outward observations of them, and that these classifications have limited merit in delineating them ancestrally. Well, huh, that's what Genesis at least implies:
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19-20 (KJV)
It's always been man that classified with nomenclature the living things on this planet. For the Bible tells me so! You guys don't give Genesis enough credit. It says He made them all the same way "out of the ground"--a reasonable enough explanation for abiogenesis and the following evolutionary formation of the life on the planet, especially for nomadic sheepherders. I submit that it's possible He didn't name them Himself because, to Him, they were all one and the same, exactly as He purposed. And don't get me started on "creative days." The sun and moon were "set in the firmament of heaven" on the fourth day. I'm thinking I need the sun set in the firmament for a 24 day. The Genesis account allows, rationally, that at least days one through three need not be 24 hours long. What does set in the firmament mean? Just a guess, but how about the earth and moon settled into the standard regular orbits and rotations that we now see. Is it really so improbable? As for talking snakes--if you don't believe in spirit beings capable of speaking through an animal, you're not going to be able to swallow the overarching story in the Book, that God, in the Person of His Wisdom, the Son, came and died to save us. That's something that requires relational knowledge, knowledge of the eternal, the timeless, beyond cause and effect and so untestable. It's called faith. You can't get there by experiment.

[Athanasius]

I disagree with your assessment somewhat that "metaphysical naturalism" is biased against theism, in that I don't necessarily think that all brands of theism must adhere to a belief in supernatural activity. In much more of a deistic approach, God could be imagined as adhering quite strictly to the governing principles of nature, and thus not "supernatural" at all. In fact, I would expect that the early Hebrews in particular would not have described God as a "supernatural" being, especially given that in their perception of reality, there was only the natural world, and God was very much a part of it. I can still worship, serve and experience God in "nature" without at all resorting to an insistence that he must or ever does intervene counter to what always naturally occurs.

I agree with you that not all brands of theism believe in supernatural activity. But pure metaphysical naturalism simply posits there is no supernatural at all. It sounds to me as though you believe in a weak form of theism (with a God who keeps his hands off nature, perhaps from the big bang to the heat death of the universe), but choose methodological naturalism as your philosophy of science and biblical study. If that's the case, then your methodology would rightly complement your view of God, and I must apologize for accusing you of "compartmentalized schizophrenia."

I think perhaps you meant to say methodological naturalism is not biased against theism. This is the philosophy of science which holds that for purposes of science, we should assume there is no supernatural (whether there is or not). While it does not does not deny the supernatural per se, it does do so in practical application. So there is still a great degree of bias against the supernatural - complete bias, in fact - in the application of the methodology itself.

Of course, in order to conduct science effectively, an agnostic or theistic philosophy of science - the kind that guided Newton and Mendel - must not be completely anti-naturalistic. These men still had to assume that except where God intervenes, the laws of nature prevail. Provided this is done, useful science has been, and still can be conducted with these approaches. And I think they are preferable to an exclusively naturalistic methodology, because if God has interacted with His creation, pure methodological naturalism completely ignores this. Thus, it is not an open and unbiased inquiry into the truth.

Christian theism (and by this I mean a theism which is in accord with the teachings of the NT), offers explanations for sin and death, and a just but loving God who desires to rescue men from the consequences of sin. He also has stepped into time and space, especially in the person of Christ, to reach out to man in His fallen condition, and to offer us salvation from it.

But to me, a deistic God- especially one who takes a "hands off" approach to the universe, seems cold and aloof from his creation (if we could even call it a "creation," since He simply allowed it to happen naturalistically). The philosophical problems with such a God are many. In addition, He seems quite disposable, since the world would be the same with or without Him. It is only a small step to move from this kind of deism to outright atheism.

Skepticism and questions are what drive me to pursue God, and not to be complacent in a false sense of certainty.

How can you pursue a God who remains aloof from His creation? Or do you believe that He is willing to interact with man? If He is, how can we be certain there are any boundaries beyond which He refuses to interact with His creation? And if it is possible for you to interact with God, might He not have interacted with the prophets and biblical writers, and with nature itself when He chose to? If this is possible, then it seems to me that an academic methodology which is open to these possibilities - one that is not exclusively naturalistic - is more fitting and reasonable.

Lastly, do you not even believe that there were original autographs of the NT epistles?

[Agnostotheist]

...How can you pursue a God who remains aloof from His creation? Or do you believe that He is willing to interact with man? If He is, how can we be certain there are any boundaries beyond which He refuses to interact with His creation? And if it is possible for you to interact with God, might He not have interacted with the prophets and biblical writers, and with nature itself when He chose to? If this is possible, then it seems to me that an academic methodology which is open to these possibilities - one that is not exclusively naturalistic - is more fitting and reasonable...

There is a lot here that I hope to address adequately, but I just got back into town and need to get some sleep. To whet your appetite, I think there is a problem in some of your assumptions of my position whereby the denial of "supernatural" activity is the same as denying the interactivity of God. I just don't see it that way. I believe that the prophets and the apostles were proclaiming the word of God in their writings (and I need to to be clear that I do hold the "word of God" to be the simple and plain presentation of what was written in the Bible; it is more akin to the "purpose", "nature" or "reality" of God). However, I do not think that this requires an extraordinary event; nor do I feel that this renders said writings as immune from human errors or what we would consider errors of culture.

Lastly, do you not even believe that there were original autographs of the NT epistles?

Whoops. Not exactly. My research is in Second Temple Judaism so I tend to default to the Old Testament and Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal literature. I don't believe that there is any hope of retrieving an "autograph" from a single piece of writing from the Old Testament. The NT is different, in that the canonical Gospels are probably much closer to their original form, but even there again, it becomes difficult to determine what that even was (i.e. Oral tradition or enacted symbolic narratives?) The Pauline epistles are probably the closest we have to reasonably clear representations of the autographs, but this is a slim selection of the entire contents of the Protestant Canon.

[Hooks]

Their is no legitimate disagreement among scientists on the theory of evolution, which simply is that life forms change, and often become more complex, evolving from (or to use less contentious wording "came into existence after changes in") less complex life forms through a process of natural selection. One can certainly hold a position that they believe that the theory of evoution will eventually be proven to be invalid. But it has not been proven invalid. Scientists are welcome to try to prove it is wrong, and hopefully some will continue to do just that. However, until it is proven invalid, it remain a valid theory. To say any rational person can say, "I don't believe the theory of evolution," is not much different than saying, "I don't believe the New York Yankees won Major League Baseball's World Series in 2009." One is entitled to believe what he or she choses, but in the case of not believing evolutionary theory is valid, there is no basis for that belief in reality.

[Athanasius]

Their is no legitimate disagreement among scientists on the theory of evolution, which simply is that life forms change, and often become more complex, evolving from (or to use less contentious wording "came into existence after changes in") less complex life forms through a process of natural selection. One can certainly hold a position that they believe that the theory of evoution will eventually be proven to be invalid. But it has not been proven invalid. Scientists are welcome to try to prove it is wrong, and hopefully some will continue to do just that. However, until it is proven invalid, it remain a valid theory. To say any rational person can say, "I don't believe the theory of evolution," is not much different than saying, "I don't believe the New York Yankees won Major League Baseball's World Series in 2009." One is entitled to believe what he or she choses, but in the case of not believing evolutionary theory is valid, there is no basis for that belief in reality.

Where in my posts above did I ever deny the scientifically popular (though not universal) theory status of macroevolution (which you seem to equate with the broader word "evolution")?

This type of strategic posturing "Evolution = macroevelolution, and you either believe evolution, or you don''t." combines an overly broad definition with an either-or fallacy, when in fact there are other options. No informed biblical creationist is going to tell you that there is no validity at all to evolution. Yes, we think that Darwin got some things right!

We are nearly all agreed that natural selection and variation occur, and that natural selection tends to "select" variations most conducive to the survival and reproduction of a species. Most of us do not deny that speciation occurs, either. We are not attempting to deny either of these realities. What we deny is that new complex structures can arise through this process, so that one "kind" of animal (roughly the equivalent to the "family" taxonomic level) can give rise to another "kind." While micro-evolution has been observed, this kind of macro-evolution has not.

So, we do not deny that evolution is an unconscious "tinkerer." What we question is the idea of a "blind watchmaker" (as Dawkins phrases it): that given the laws of this universe, non-intelligence can ever produce complex systems with the mark (or appearance, as Dawkins would say) of having been designed by an intelligence.

It takes no intelligence to tinker. But it does take intelligence to engineer a complex machine.

The very term Dawkins uses, "blind watchmaker," seems to imply some sort of conscious awareness. But this makes natural selection seem to appear as somewhat more than it actually is. in reality, it has no consciousness.

Paley's argument (and natural theology) is more valid now than ever, now that we are aware of the incredible complexity of the cell. In fact, Paley anticipated Dawkin's argument long before it was written:

Sixthly, he [a man who found a watch] would be surprised to hear that the mechanism of a watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so. (From chapter one of Paley's Natural Theology.)

Considering the magnitudes of complexity of biological structures beyond even that of a simple watch, at the most fundamental level, which is the most reasonable idea? That the mind-bogglingly complex biological machinery of the cell (or any complex organ), was designed by an intelligence, or formed by unconscious, unintelligent, natural events? Which of these two propositions is the most reasonable to bet your eternal destiny on?

[emulator]

*see below

[emulator]

Also, your barayim hypothesis is impossible. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 5-50 million species on Earth. To be fair, we'll say 15 million. It's laughable to say that a few "barayim" would produce that number in a few thousand years fresh from the Ark. Not to mention the millions of other species that have gone extinct. How many events of speciation would that involve per year?

That's a little trick I call math.

Well this is rather easy to be honest; since several other posts regarded this statistic, I thought I might chime in. if the species only double twice per millenium:

let's say there were 8,000 species on the ark we propose.
500 years later there are 16,000 species
500 years later there are 32,000 species
500 years later there are 64,000 species
500 years later there are 128,000 species
500 years later there are 256,000 species
500 years later there are 512,000 species
500 years later there are 1,024,000 species
500 years later there are 2,048,000 species
500 years later there are 4,096,000 species

That's forty-five hundred years after the flood, it's close to you're estimate and it doesn't even take into account fish and other creatures of the sea or bacterium etc..

The scientific method is heavily reliant upon observation and repeatability of the experiment. Noone can reasonably/scientifically make a conjecture regarding the origins of the universe without making assumptions and having beliefs that direct their faith. That is your imaginations are subjective to your notions. Atheists forget that most of the people who had their hands in the recent stages of Scientific thought actually believed in God (Einstien, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton.) To say that modern scientists (as you define them) are open minded is a fallacy. Anyone who suggests creation as a valid possibillity will be immediately and informally dismissed as another crackpot (for evidence see the other posts or the movie Expelled by Ben Stein.)
In any case I really enjoyed the article, Trout, and can only pray that I avoid the kind of bigotry that Maher so often employs.

[Athanasius]

Well this is rather easy to be honest; since several other posts regarded this statistic, I thought I might chime in. if the species only double twice per millenium:

let's say there were 8,000 species on the ark we propose.
500 years later there are 16,000 species
500 years later there are 32,000 species
500 years later there are 64,000 species
500 years later there are 128,000 species
500 years later there are 256,000 species
500 years later there are 512,000 species
500 years later there are 1,024,000 species
500 years later there are 2,048,000 species
500 years later there are 4,096,000 species

That's forty-five hundred years after the flood, it's close to you're estimate and it doesn't even take into account fish and other creatures of the sea or bacterium etc..

The scientific method is heavily reliant upon observation and repeatability of the experiment. Noone can reasonably/scientifically make a conjecture regarding the origins of the universe without making assumptions and having beliefs that direct their faith. That is your imaginations are subjective to your notions. Atheists forget that most of the people who had their hands in the recent stages of Scientific thought actually believed in God (Einstien, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton.) To say that modern scientists (as you define them) are open minded is a fallacy. Anyone who suggests creation as a valid possibillity will be immediately and informally dismissed as another crackpot (for evidence see the other posts or the movie Expelled by Ben Stein.)
In any case I really enjoyed the article, Trout, and can only pray that I avoid the kind of bigotry that Maher so often employs.

Good points!