From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:56:35 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:08:32 +0000, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   >:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means   
   >>>>>>>>>that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation   
   >>>>>>>>>allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>That's right.  Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in   
   >>>>>>>>English.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the   
   >>>>>>>meaning of "literal", or his error (an error he has   
   >>>>>>>admitted).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Check your jerky knees.  My comment is an *affirmation* of your point   
   >>>>>>to his error.  That means it has everything to do with your point,   
   >>>>>>contrary to your point to me.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The literal point is that it's silly to argue about THE literal   
   >>>>meaning of THE Bible when THE Bible being referenced is an   
   >>>>interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation.   
   >>>>Children who play telephone know this.  Even if there was a literal   
   >>>>omni-everything God who literally quoted Its pearls of wisdom   
   >>>>literally directly to some mortal, finite humans in their limited   
   >>>>native languages, there is literally zero chance they would have   
   >>>>literally understood what It literally meant.   
   >>>>   
   >>>I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any   
   >>>religious text is a fool's game, as nonproductive as   
   >>>conjectures about angels dancing on pinpoints.   
   >>   
   >>I disagree.   
   >>   
   >Your prerogative.   
   >>   
   >> Science is a particularly useful way of finding out stuff   
   >>that we can verify through testing and experimentation but there are   
   >>many things that are simply not open to scientific investigation and   
   >>it is an inherent part of human nature to try to figure out how those   
   >>things work, how those things have happened.   
   >>   
   >>That is where approaches like theology and philosophy come into play;   
   >>whilst they are very limited in verification techniques in comparison   
   >>to science, reasoning and debating can give us better understanding of   
   >>areas not open to science - not perfect understanding but still   
   >>better. For example, it is theology and reasoning, not science, that   
   >>has pushed the Western world to try to move away from warfare as a   
   >>means of settling disagreements   
   >>   
   >>The problem comes when someone tries to hold onto a theological or   
   >>philosophical idea when science throws up contradictory but clear-cut   
   >>evidence. That is the problem with Bible literalism, there is so much   
   >>contradictory evidence against a 7-day creation or God creating man   
   >>directly by breathing into dust that it is outright foolishness for   
   >>someone to try to hold out against that evidence which damages   
   >>religious belief in the way St. Augustine warned about.   
   >>   
   >I don't know how long it will be until the idea that   
   >religious belief can be addressed by the methods of science,   
   >or that science can be addressed by the tenets of religion,   
   >can be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas, but it can't   
   >come any too soon.   
      
   Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that science can be used to   
   directly uphold religion or vice versa but I do think both can be used   
   collaboratively to give us a bigger picture. That's where I think   
   organisations like Biologos, the Templeton Foundation and the   
   Pontifical Academy of Sciences make important contributions.   
      
   >>   
   >>>But *my*   
   >>>point was that I didn't comment about the content, only   
   >>>about the meaning of "literal" (or, of course, "literally"),   
   >>>and MarkE's assertion that "The measure of literalism is in   
   >>>the *interpretation* of the text of  Genesis, not the   
   >>>quoting of it.". I thought I made that clear with my further   
   >>>comments made in reply to him and others. IOW, he misused   
   >>>"literal", which is defined (OED online) as (paraphrased)   
   >>>"exact or actual meaning, not allegorical or figurative".   
   >>>"Exact or actual meanings" do not allow of interpretation,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)