Hi, William, At 04:48 PM 10/3/03 +1200, you wrote: >>So, the story goes, God dictates to the favoured few. I am a bit confused because >>this is God-text isomorphism, but not a text-reality isomorphism (not isomorphism >>between words and reality) ....<<
I think they would say that God reveals what is "real." As I suggested before, the dogma of verbal inerrancy *is* a form of naive literary realism. The words in the original mss are assumed to by them to exactly represent reality. Some fundamentalists would even extend that realism to the King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible. >>Does the Literalist think that because God dictated this text the words in it are >>isomorphic with reality?<< That is strict literalism, also called "dictation theory," yes. To them, God operates by what might be called automatic writing (though most literalists I have known would certainly object to this comparison with psychism). Other variations, such as superintendence, would preserve the rational independence of the "channels" while insisting that God guides them and, where necessary, corrects any errors. >>That seems clearly mistaken.<< Of course, I think that conventional views of inerrancy *are* mistaken. Even the texts written, or dictated, by the Prophets are not, in my view, realistic representations of truth. They are historically, culturally, and literarily contextualized guideposts. Sociological realities, including all the varieties of text or discourse, are constructed and reconstructed by volitional agents, i.e., structures or sets of rules. These realities are not, by some magical means, inherent in the texts. >>God, for all we know if all we know is that He dictates to some favoured few, >>dictates words that have to be understood in their context. Or that should not be >>taken at their face value. Or God may love irony and metaphor.<< What would dictation mean where the vehicle is language? >>However, my argument against the implication of God-dictation may support your view. >>Literalists' interpretive practices really spring not from believing God-dictation >>but from believing isomorphism. As you say, "It *is* that a belief in isomorphism, >>or what I once called scriptural materialism, leads to reading all prose according >>to its apparent meaning." Maybe, In any case it is not the belief in God-dictation >>that is doing the work.<< From my personal experiences interviewing biblical literalists, I think that isomophism most often springs from a desire for security and certainty. Many fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals even use the term "eternal security" to refer to their belief that one can know without a doubt one is going to heaven. Why? Because it says so in the Bible. >>I suspect that as isomorphism as a rational basis for literalist interpretive >>practices is looked at by Literalists more closely, then both, isomorphism will >>become less and less attractive, and it will seem less and less the real basis of >>literalist interpretive practices.<< It is primarily religious scholars (i.e., religious studies) and theologians who look at these matters closely. The average fundamentalist (not neo-evangelical) is relatively less educated than the population norm. It would never even occur to them to analyze this subject. They simply believe. >>They will come to see, and I think it is true, that they may carry on their >>interpretive practices much as before without the doctrine of isomorphism, since it >>was never actually used in making interpretations.<< Most of them wouldn't have a clue what isomorphism and realism mean. Those are terms I am using to describe what I have observed. >>And isomorphism is a philosophical assumption.<< Not to most fundamentalists. It is believing in the Bible the only way they know. For instance, to most literalists or fundamentalists I have met, if a person argues that the two Genesis creation accounts are symbolic, she or he doesn't have an alternative interpretation. She or he has rejected the Bible and isn't a Christian. It is that cut and dry. It is also the "appeal" (and seduction) of Christian fundamentalism. >>And let us note, they must in fact be rejected. First, because there is all this >>higher criticism around, and second, because taking into account context is after >>all, not so out of the ordinary in making sense of words.<< Yes. Many of them see it as a conspiracy of liberals, socialists, communists, humanists, evolutionists, journalists, defense lawyers, and Hollywood celebs. There is a fundamentalist Christian who posts regularly on one of the CompuServe sections I supervise. No matter how many times people correct him, he insists on using the term "liberal socialists." To him, they are both the same. (Personally, I *wish* liberals were socialists, but I know that isn't the case.) >>I want to bring out the difference I have in mind by making a contrast. Contrast a >>naive Literalist with a - what? - faithful literalist. A naive Literalist has no >>idea there is any other way to read the Bible than he and other Literalists do, and >>so he does not resist other ways of reading it. Our naive Literalist does not, I >>think, at least not in the same way as a faithful Literalist, believe in >>isomorphism. A faithful Literalist, has, however, to resist other ways. He does that >>by making 'philosophical' assumptions about the way the language of the Bible works, >>assumptions like isomorphism. (An analogy is how most scientists treat astrology. >>They don't look at the evidence but assume it is 'in principle' mistaken.)<< Maybe. The distinction you are drawing is really one between fundamentalists and moderate neo-evangelicals. >>Now, if you can follow me this far, what now? Well, I am inclined to think that >>isomorphism does not really do the job the faithful Literalist thinks it does, >>because the whole idea falls apart as you look at it more closely.<< Sure, it is a non-starter, but most fundamentalist Christians are not intellectuals. >>What position is the Literalist in once he no longer believes in isomorphism, and >>once he sees that the whole idea falls apart?<< Often she or he simply loses faith. I have seen it happen. Most former fundamentalists I have met are now atheists, not liberal Christians. >>He may carry on as before because no longer believing in isomorphism will change >>nothing in the way he interprets a text - if he wants to go on as before.<< Again, those are my terms to describe the beliefs of a largely uneducated population. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
