Believers can say “we’ve chosen to take it as a metaphor now”.
But if the believers make statements referencing the past or other believers, they can’t say that any more. And typically they do.
I believe you are making a charge (which I have heard made before) that the claim that some scriptural passages were intended as metaphors is a relatively recent innovation among believers to accommodate religion to modern scientific discoveries, and that it breaks with the traditional, literal interpretation of those passages. In fact, there is a long tradition among theologians to recognize that much of scripture should be interpreted metaphorically and/or allegorically rather than literally. Examples include Origen of Alexandria (late second—early third century CE) who took much of the Garden of Eden story to be allegorical, Augustine of Hippo who stated (in a work entitled The Literal Interpretation of Genesis from the early fifth century) that much of Genesis cannot and should not be interpreted literally, and Irenaeus of Lyons (second century CE) who interpreted the Garden of Eden story allegorically (in Against Heresies).
While it is certainly the case that some believers traditionally interpreted Genesis literally (and some still do), it is also the case that there is an ancient tradition of interpreting Genesis metaphorically/allegorically and so modern believers are by no means breaking with tradition if they interpret the serpent metaphorically.
Pretty much every variation on a religion you can think of has been thought up by someone, at some time in the past. You can’t use that as your criteria for “ancient tradition” without making the whole concept of “ancient tradition” meaningless because now everything is one. How mainstream was the belief that Genesis is not literal?
For that matter, since religion is supposed to provide eternal truth, the idea of having a minority tradition in sometinng seems problematic. If a religion has multiple traditions at once, how do you decide which one counts as the “real” one that nonbelievers should be criticizing? And if the ancients had beliefs A or B, but moderns only have A, how do you decide that that counts as the ancients believing A (so you can claim that moderns are following tradition) rather than as the ancients believing B (which means that moderns are breaking with tradition)?
How mainstream was the belief that Genesis is not literal?
Well, the three authors that I listed are among the most influential early doctors of the church, so their views are definitely mainstream (albeit not universally held).
You can’t use that as your criteria for “ancient tradition” without making the whole concept of “ancient tradition” meaningless because now everything is one.
I don’t know about that. I listed three very influential early Christian theologians who took much of Genesis to be non literal.
how exactly do you figure out which tradition is the “real” one
Your point that there are divergent views on the matter of how literally to take Genesis is certainly true and not in dispute. I alluded to that fact in my post when I said:
it is certainly the case that some believers traditionally interpreted Genesis literally (and some still do)
However, I don’t see how that conflicts with my point that one can interpret the serpent story metaphorically without breaking with early mainstream Christian traditions. Moreover, you wrote:
For that matter, since religion is supposed to provide eternal truth, the idea of having a minority tradition in sometinng seems problematic—how exactly do you figure out which tradition is the “real” one...?
I don’t see how the fact that there are divergent interpretations of some scriptural stories is particularly surprising or problematic, unless you are trying judge ancient religious texts against the stylistic standards of modern historical or scientific writing (which presumably most people would not recommend doing).
I don’t see how the fact that there are divergent interpretations of some scriptural stories is particularly surprising or problematic
It’s problematic because it provides a ready-made excuse to deny having changed when you get something wrong and you’re forced to change. “Oh, we didn’t really change anything, look, we’re following this old tradition”, even though you could have decided any one of several mutually exclusive things and still been able to claim you’re following a tradition.
Beliefs about whether or not the snake is literal are not, and never were, “core beliefs” of Christians. Core beliefs are the things that are contained in the creed, like that Jesus rose from the dead and so on.
If you found conclusive scientific proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, very few Christians would accept that. The reaction to that, no matter how strong the proof, would be very different from the reaction to evolution.
I suspect that two hundred years ago, most scientists believed that human beings were not descended from monkeys. That does not make evolution denial a “core belief” of science, nor do the beliefs of Christians two hundred years ago automatically constitute the beliefs of Christians today.
The attitude of science to its past and the attitude of Christianity to its past are very (and relevantly) different.
In science, everything is meant to be revisable in the light of new evidence; authority is always supposed to be subordinate to reason and experimental results; there’s a reason why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba.
Christianity, on the other hand, has authorities up the wazoo. (Different authorities for different sects.) The Bible (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church (held by many to be perfectly free from error, subject to certain conditions). The ancient creeds (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church. The Apostolic Fathers. Luther. Calvin. Aquinas. Augustine. Accepted as authorities (in so far as each one is, by any given Christian) not in the way that someone might appeal to, say, Murray Gell-Mann (“he’s incredibly smart and has been very reliably right before—but of course whatever he says can be checked by other people and anyone can make mistakes”) but simply because they’re Known Authorities.
In science, a discovery from 200 years ago may be admired as an impressive piece of work, but the assumption is usually that since then we’ve improved our techniques, done more careful analysis, and superseded it.
In Christianity, all the central ideas are centuries old, they are explicitly passed down the generations, and they are believed largely because there is a tradition (etymology: a thing handed down) saying that one should believe them—and, in many cases, because it is thought that they originally—centuries ago—entered the world at the command of God.
The best reason for accepting any given scientific theory is generally that there is good experimental evidence that it describes the world accurately. In principle, anyone—at least anyone with the right skills and equipment—can repeat the experiments and redo the mathematical analysis and arrive at the same conclusions. (Or, in some cases, arrive at different conclusions and show that everyone’s been wrong.)
The best reason for accepting the central doctrines of Christianity is that there is a ~2000-year history of other Christians accepting those doctrines and believing that they derive from the all-knowing all-good creator of the universe.
(Of course the above is a bit too black-and-white. In practice most scientists believe a lot of what they do because they heard it from other scientists whose judgement they trust. Some Christians believe some of what they believe because it just feels right to them, or because they consider that God told them directly. But the difference I describe is there and it’s a big deal.)
So, if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the scientists were wrong about something important, we should re-check any bits of their work that we’re still depending on, but science is a largely self-correcting enterprise and it’s probably no big deal. And our scientific opinions now are not supposed to—and generally genuinely don’t—depend on the judgement, or the character, or the rightness-about-any-particular-issue, of those scientists 200 years ago and more.
But if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the Christians were wrong about something important, it’s a really big deal. Because so much of what defines Christianity is what Christians of past ages have handed down, and because so often the case for believing X is something like “all the earliest Christians believed X”.
I agree with this, although I do not think it is a sufficient argument to prove that Christianity is false if taken alone, and I think it is inappropriate to criticize Christians both for refusing to update on evidence and for changing their minds when they are mistaken (not that you did this here, but I frequently see it.) People certainly should change their minds when they are mistaken, and yes this makes it more likely that they are also wrong about the other things that they haven’t changed their minds about yet.
I agree that it is nowhere near enough on its own to refute Christianity.
If someone (or some institution) has been wrong then they will be criticized for refusing to update if they stick to their old wrong position, and for inconsistency if they change; the fact that they are faced with these two opposite complaints doesn’t mean that their critics are unreasonable, it means that once you’ve done something wrong it’s too late for any course of action to render you immune to criticism.
Inconsistency isn’t really the right thing to complain about if they change; but, actually, I think the usual complaint made by skeptics about the less-traditional sort of Christian isn’t “boo, you changed and that’s not allowed”; it’s more like “you call yourself a Christian and offer your reasonableness as evidence that the Christian tradition is reasonable; but your position is very far from representative of the Christian tradition and your reasonableness doesn’t negate its flaws”. (With, perhaps, a side order of “you’re adopting a position that’s basically indistinguishable from ours, while wrapping yourselves in the apparel of the more popular other guys; that makes arguments with you frustrating and rather unfair”.)
Believers can say “we’ve chosen to take it as a metaphor now”.
But if the believers make statements referencing the past or other believers, they can’t say that any more. And typically they do.
I believe you are making a charge (which I have heard made before) that the claim that some scriptural passages were intended as metaphors is a relatively recent innovation among believers to accommodate religion to modern scientific discoveries, and that it breaks with the traditional, literal interpretation of those passages. In fact, there is a long tradition among theologians to recognize that much of scripture should be interpreted metaphorically and/or allegorically rather than literally. Examples include Origen of Alexandria (late second—early third century CE) who took much of the Garden of Eden story to be allegorical, Augustine of Hippo who stated (in a work entitled The Literal Interpretation of Genesis from the early fifth century) that much of Genesis cannot and should not be interpreted literally, and Irenaeus of Lyons (second century CE) who interpreted the Garden of Eden story allegorically (in Against Heresies).
While it is certainly the case that some believers traditionally interpreted Genesis literally (and some still do), it is also the case that there is an ancient tradition of interpreting Genesis metaphorically/allegorically and so modern believers are by no means breaking with tradition if they interpret the serpent metaphorically.
Pretty much every variation on a religion you can think of has been thought up by someone, at some time in the past. You can’t use that as your criteria for “ancient tradition” without making the whole concept of “ancient tradition” meaningless because now everything is one. How mainstream was the belief that Genesis is not literal?
For that matter, since religion is supposed to provide eternal truth, the idea of having a minority tradition in sometinng seems problematic. If a religion has multiple traditions at once, how do you decide which one counts as the “real” one that nonbelievers should be criticizing? And if the ancients had beliefs A or B, but moderns only have A, how do you decide that that counts as the ancients believing A (so you can claim that moderns are following tradition) rather than as the ancients believing B (which means that moderns are breaking with tradition)?
Well, the three authors that I listed are among the most influential early doctors of the church, so their views are definitely mainstream (albeit not universally held).
I don’t know about that. I listed three very influential early Christian theologians who took much of Genesis to be non literal.
Your point that there are divergent views on the matter of how literally to take Genesis is certainly true and not in dispute. I alluded to that fact in my post when I said:
However, I don’t see how that conflicts with my point that one can interpret the serpent story metaphorically without breaking with early mainstream Christian traditions. Moreover, you wrote:
I don’t see how the fact that there are divergent interpretations of some scriptural stories is particularly surprising or problematic, unless you are trying judge ancient religious texts against the stylistic standards of modern historical or scientific writing (which presumably most people would not recommend doing).
It’s problematic because it provides a ready-made excuse to deny having changed when you get something wrong and you’re forced to change. “Oh, we didn’t really change anything, look, we’re following this old tradition”, even though you could have decided any one of several mutually exclusive things and still been able to claim you’re following a tradition.
Beliefs about whether or not the snake is literal are not, and never were, “core beliefs” of Christians. Core beliefs are the things that are contained in the creed, like that Jesus rose from the dead and so on.
If you found conclusive scientific proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, very few Christians would accept that. The reaction to that, no matter how strong the proof, would be very different from the reaction to evolution.
I suspect that two hundred years ago, most scientists believed that human beings were not descended from monkeys. That does not make evolution denial a “core belief” of science, nor do the beliefs of Christians two hundred years ago automatically constitute the beliefs of Christians today.
The attitude of science to its past and the attitude of Christianity to its past are very (and relevantly) different.
In science, everything is meant to be revisable in the light of new evidence; authority is always supposed to be subordinate to reason and experimental results; there’s a reason why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba.
Christianity, on the other hand, has authorities up the wazoo. (Different authorities for different sects.) The Bible (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church (held by many to be perfectly free from error, subject to certain conditions). The ancient creeds (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church. The Apostolic Fathers. Luther. Calvin. Aquinas. Augustine. Accepted as authorities (in so far as each one is, by any given Christian) not in the way that someone might appeal to, say, Murray Gell-Mann (“he’s incredibly smart and has been very reliably right before—but of course whatever he says can be checked by other people and anyone can make mistakes”) but simply because they’re Known Authorities.
In science, a discovery from 200 years ago may be admired as an impressive piece of work, but the assumption is usually that since then we’ve improved our techniques, done more careful analysis, and superseded it.
In Christianity, all the central ideas are centuries old, they are explicitly passed down the generations, and they are believed largely because there is a tradition (etymology: a thing handed down) saying that one should believe them—and, in many cases, because it is thought that they originally—centuries ago—entered the world at the command of God.
The best reason for accepting any given scientific theory is generally that there is good experimental evidence that it describes the world accurately. In principle, anyone—at least anyone with the right skills and equipment—can repeat the experiments and redo the mathematical analysis and arrive at the same conclusions. (Or, in some cases, arrive at different conclusions and show that everyone’s been wrong.)
The best reason for accepting the central doctrines of Christianity is that there is a ~2000-year history of other Christians accepting those doctrines and believing that they derive from the all-knowing all-good creator of the universe.
(Of course the above is a bit too black-and-white. In practice most scientists believe a lot of what they do because they heard it from other scientists whose judgement they trust. Some Christians believe some of what they believe because it just feels right to them, or because they consider that God told them directly. But the difference I describe is there and it’s a big deal.)
So, if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the scientists were wrong about something important, we should re-check any bits of their work that we’re still depending on, but science is a largely self-correcting enterprise and it’s probably no big deal. And our scientific opinions now are not supposed to—and generally genuinely don’t—depend on the judgement, or the character, or the rightness-about-any-particular-issue, of those scientists 200 years ago and more.
But if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the Christians were wrong about something important, it’s a really big deal. Because so much of what defines Christianity is what Christians of past ages have handed down, and because so often the case for believing X is something like “all the earliest Christians believed X”.
I agree with this, although I do not think it is a sufficient argument to prove that Christianity is false if taken alone, and I think it is inappropriate to criticize Christians both for refusing to update on evidence and for changing their minds when they are mistaken (not that you did this here, but I frequently see it.) People certainly should change their minds when they are mistaken, and yes this makes it more likely that they are also wrong about the other things that they haven’t changed their minds about yet.
I agree that it is nowhere near enough on its own to refute Christianity.
If someone (or some institution) has been wrong then they will be criticized for refusing to update if they stick to their old wrong position, and for inconsistency if they change; the fact that they are faced with these two opposite complaints doesn’t mean that their critics are unreasonable, it means that once you’ve done something wrong it’s too late for any course of action to render you immune to criticism.
Inconsistency isn’t really the right thing to complain about if they change; but, actually, I think the usual complaint made by skeptics about the less-traditional sort of Christian isn’t “boo, you changed and that’s not allowed”; it’s more like “you call yourself a Christian and offer your reasonableness as evidence that the Christian tradition is reasonable; but your position is very far from representative of the Christian tradition and your reasonableness doesn’t negate its flaws”. (With, perhaps, a side order of “you’re adopting a position that’s basically indistinguishable from ours, while wrapping yourselves in the apparel of the more popular other guys; that makes arguments with you frustrating and rather unfair”.)