Quote:
Originally Posted by julieisafemme
See but this is the problem. The Torah can be interpreted many ways because it is a metaphor. There is no need to explain things in factual terms unless you want to read it literally. In fact that is kind of a bummer.
Here is a good article by my rabbi. It talks about exactly what you guys are discussing here in the tension between science and religion and evolution. Maybe it will be interesting. Sorry to butt in!
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000...2-935.aspx?p=1 |
However, those who seek to read Torah as a history book, or worse, as a science primer, may well miss the spiritual significance of the text.
Fundamentalists and other Biblical literalists often pounce on naturalistic explanations of Torah events, such as the Red Tide, as "proof" that the Bible "really happened," and thus possesses authority even beyond that of profound religious and moral instruction.
Yes, this exactly. As long as sectarians of various stripes do not try to rope science into 'proving' that their holy book is the actual factual account of how things really work or went down, then I am perfectly happy for them to believe what they wish. As Jefferson put it, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. If, however, the demarcation lines get crossed then I think that it is absolutely in bounds to play by the rules of the house. If we are having a topic on some question that is clearly in the realm of the sciences (how do stars burn, why are there birds, etc.) then the house rules are those of science. If we are having a discussion about this or that point about the nature of the afterlife, then the house rules may be that of one or more religion.
What I'm not comfortable with is special pleading. Religious rules applied to scientific questions without having to worry about scientific questions being applied to religious statements. If a Christian and a Hindu are talking about this or that point of theology, there's no need for science to be invoked. It has no place there and if either partisan invokes science I think it should be called out of bounds OR they should concede that the rules have just changed and now they're playing by the house rules of science.
So yes, what your rabbi said, exactly. I would apply that up and down the line. It applies to New Age invocations of quantum mechanics or chaos theory or relativity theory and it applies to Christian fundamentalist creationism. Trust me when I say that most scientists I know and have ever met would just as soon NOT be dragged into conversations about whether this or that god is strict or not.
Cheers
Aj