Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Religious Language and Science
Message-ID: <6261@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 17:45:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6261
Posted: Mon Jun  3 17:45:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Jun-85 08:07:20 EDT
References: <6114@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1009@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 43
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1634 net.religion:6628

In article <1009@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>A good example of such [religious] language is:
>
>> Now we have arrived at the heart of the problem.  Why is the bible 
>> inerrant?  It is the absolute word of God.  And what do you mean by
>> that?  Let me quote the Episcopal catechism:
>> 
>>      Q.  Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
>>      A.  We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human
>>          authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
>
>If this translates into anything other than the famous Circularist
>catacombism:
>
>	Q: Why is the Bible the Word of God?
>	A: Because it says so in the Bible.
>
>then I would greatly appreciate such a translation.

Well, there are two different answers to this; the first, direct, (and
somewhat wrong) answer is that one can readily see that the Episcopal
catachism does not refer to any claim in the Bible.  The response is an
elaboration on the phrase "Word of God".  We are claiming that we see in the
Bible the "voice" of God.  The question of what we base that claim upon is
totally separate.

The second, unsatisfying (but more correct) answer is that a demand for a
translation misses the point.  There would be no need for religious language
if the things could be talked about directly.  Religious language is much
more strongly metaphorical than, say, scientific language; when one attempts
to say something about God that is definite, the language of direct
discourse breaks down.  It's not clear how one compares the "Word of God"
with the "Word of Arthur Pewtey"; a moment's thought should make it clear
that the phrase is really an anthropomorphism, and thus a metaphor.  The
phrase is attempt to describe a relationship between God and the Bible; but
it's not clear (to me at any rate) that the phrase implies divine dictation,
or any other means of transmission.  Again, look at that word "inspired".
It is very indefinite about what is "transmitted" between God and the author.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

    "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour."  C. Swift