Can a Skeptic Take the Bible Seriously?

Google Image

This blog is called Skeptical Faith because one of its goals is to show that skepticism and faith are not mutually exclusive. That’s because though our religious beliefs may not be provable through the kind of evidence used in the “hard sciences,” faith is nonetheless reasonable and rational.

The evidence for the existence of God, for instance, is at least as rational as evidence that is commonly presented in a court of law. Such evidence includes the testimony of millions – perhaps billions - of witnesses over the centuries, and inferences from studies on the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Inferences aren’t “proofs,” for sure, but in most parts of our lives, inferences are the best we have.

Here’s what I mean by inferences. Since moving to Colorado and doing a bit of hiking, I’ve been more interested in identifying footprints in the snow and mud. Looking at them carefully, you can make inferences about the kinds of animals that have passed by, and even how recently that has happened. You can’t be absolutely certain of the kind of animal in question, but as I’ve mentioned often in these blogs, certainty is hard to come by in this life.

Ancient "Gobbledygook?"

Many people are especially skeptical about the Bible, seeing it as ancient “gobbledygook,” not worthy of the attention of contemporary “thinking” people. My view is that just because something is old (like me), it’s not useless to contemporary people.

Literature, music and art are in this category, seems to me. Scientists study them today to learn how they originated and how they have affected societies in the past and society today. They don’t lose their relevancy, and neither has the Bible.

Contemporary scientists – archeologists, paleontologists, historians and linguists also study the Bible, revealing much more than has ever been known about the culture, lifestyles, economies, politics and social relations of biblical times. Those revelations help us understand the Bible’s message.

Google Image
So, how does this help skeptics to take the Bible seriously? For starters, it helps them distinguish between the factual material in biblical writings and what may not be, and their teachings, which are paramount. It reminds us that the Bible is “the word of God in the words of men.”

I vividly recall years ago while in the seminary learning that many incidents described in the Bible are not historically accurate. I was shocked, and so were many of my classmates. Sure, I had had my doubts, but learning that several popes, dating back over a hundred years, had endorsed the study of the Bible using modern sciences to better understand the Bible was a wakeup. And it allowed me to take the Bible seriously.

Those sciences have included archeology, study of ancient literature and languages, and giant strides in understanding the “manner of speaking, relating, and writing used among the ancients (Pope Pius XII, 1943).” And the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Biblical Commission in a 1950 document, said that the results of these studies are to be generously shared with clergy and laypeople.

Among the incidents modern biblical scholars believe to be mythical are the “crossing of the Red Sea,” part of the description of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, and the “infancy narratives,” the enchanting description of Jesus’ birth. The first is from the Hebrew Bible; the second from the Christian Bible. Factual or not, these stories have great value, similar to the value of the Gospel’s parables.

Shaken Faith?

I believe many clergy fear that if lay people knew about the church’s position on study of the Bible, their faith would be shaken. They may think that if God didn’t part the Red Sea as described in the Bible, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead – as if those two incidents were factually equivalent.

Personally, I think people’s faith suffers precisely because they see the whole Bible as factual (or all non-factual) and don’t understand that each book of the Bible, each incident, each word has to be understood in its religious, historical and cultural context. The dozens, perhaps hundreds, of authors of the various books of the Bible used factual, historical material, as well as mythical material – often stories they heard from their ancestors or borrowed from other cultures – to illustrate God’s relationship to his people.

So, the short answer is “yes,” skeptics can take the Bible seriously, especially if they go to the trouble of studying it with the help of modern biblical scholars. Many of these scholars, perhaps most, are believers and show their readers how they can read the Bible skeptically and still be resolute in their faith. And studying the Bible, I believe, is crucial in the search for God in the Jewish and Christian traditions.

Here's a recommendation for a summary of biblical scholars' insights on the gospels: "Jesus, An Historical Approximation," by Jose Antonio Pagola. Available on Amazon.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more