On the difference between the literal and literalism
This to many may seem to be a small concern, and it probably is. But it has been a constant source of frustration to me in dealing with many who are still fairly enamored with a more Fundamentalist take on Christianity. I was having a conversation with several people at my church on the wearisome and fairly quixotic "divide" between science and faith (specifically in the form of the evolution vs creationism debate, etc...) Several were taken aback that I advocated that the book of Genesis was not a scientific textbook and that, given its purposes, there was no a priori reason, despite whatever prima facie differences there may have been, to say that the Genesis account and evolution are at odds with one another. I was accused, then, by several of them for "forsaking," the literal nature of the text into a fantasy realm of allegorical misrepresentation for the purposes of creating an artificial ecumenical harmony between faith and science.
This is, however, where my primary irritation comes in. Despite whatever your take on the whole debate of creationism, evolutionism, or whatever, to call "creationism" the "literal" sense of the text is petitio principii or begging the question in the favor of creationism. It has to assume that on its literal level the text is speaking to a real seven days of creation, a "factual" account, as it were. But this is not so. My argument is that the primary purpose of Genesis is against a creationist reading. Ergo creationism is against the literal nature of the text. One has to distinguish between a "literal" reading (i.e. what the text actually says in its proper context) and literalism which takes the words of a text at complete face value, disregarding the context in which they were given. In this case, specifically since the book of Genesis is not attempting to answer modern "scientific," accounts, it is hardly tenable that its "literal" reading is a scientific textbook elaboration in this manner.
Moreover it itself represents its embeddedness in its own context. We see that the Genesis creation account is very similar to other Ancient-Near Eastern mythologies of creation, but at several key points the narrative is altered. The stars, in the Genesis account, for example are no longer themselves seen as demi-god like figures who aid in creation, but are simply lights whereby God illuminates the heavens. The order of creation in the Genesis account is not so much outdated science, then, as it is an outdated controversy. Moreover given that whoever authored Genesis (be it Moses or whomever) there is a strong possibility of a type of literary redaction which fits the Genesis narrative account to an already established 7-day sabbath week as a type of narrative etiological framework. In this case what is occuring is not "fiction," but it is established for different purposes than a scientific account, hence its organization and content are displaying a meaning other than a factual elaboration on the beginning. In this instance then, the literal reading must be said to fit with the original intention.
It is not, of course, my purpose here to "disprove," Creationism or its reading of Genesis (though obviously I disagree with both). Rather my intent is simply to say that one cannot appeal to the "literal," meaning of the text in defense of their position, because this simply begs the question. Rather what has to occur is reasoned argument in order to demonstrate the plausibility of presenting something as the literal meaning. Anyway, thats my soapbox rant for the day.
This is, however, where my primary irritation comes in. Despite whatever your take on the whole debate of creationism, evolutionism, or whatever, to call "creationism" the "literal" sense of the text is petitio principii or begging the question in the favor of creationism. It has to assume that on its literal level the text is speaking to a real seven days of creation, a "factual" account, as it were. But this is not so. My argument is that the primary purpose of Genesis is against a creationist reading. Ergo creationism is against the literal nature of the text. One has to distinguish between a "literal" reading (i.e. what the text actually says in its proper context) and literalism which takes the words of a text at complete face value, disregarding the context in which they were given. In this case, specifically since the book of Genesis is not attempting to answer modern "scientific," accounts, it is hardly tenable that its "literal" reading is a scientific textbook elaboration in this manner.
Moreover it itself represents its embeddedness in its own context. We see that the Genesis creation account is very similar to other Ancient-Near Eastern mythologies of creation, but at several key points the narrative is altered. The stars, in the Genesis account, for example are no longer themselves seen as demi-god like figures who aid in creation, but are simply lights whereby God illuminates the heavens. The order of creation in the Genesis account is not so much outdated science, then, as it is an outdated controversy. Moreover given that whoever authored Genesis (be it Moses or whomever) there is a strong possibility of a type of literary redaction which fits the Genesis narrative account to an already established 7-day sabbath week as a type of narrative etiological framework. In this case what is occuring is not "fiction," but it is established for different purposes than a scientific account, hence its organization and content are displaying a meaning other than a factual elaboration on the beginning. In this instance then, the literal reading must be said to fit with the original intention.
It is not, of course, my purpose here to "disprove," Creationism or its reading of Genesis (though obviously I disagree with both). Rather my intent is simply to say that one cannot appeal to the "literal," meaning of the text in defense of their position, because this simply begs the question. Rather what has to occur is reasoned argument in order to demonstrate the plausibility of presenting something as the literal meaning. Anyway, thats my soapbox rant for the day.
Comments
I spoke to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis recently. I'm sure you know who he is. I asked him about literalism and he did some nice semantic manoeuvring and said that he didn't read Genesis in a literal way, but in a natural way. Kind of a dirty trick saying things like that, but I can't blame him, because I usually say that I don't take the text literally, I take it seriously. But the way he phrased it says a lot about to whom he is preaching: A crowd of theologically pretty much illiterate people who just want to get their "childlike" faith right. He can point to the big, confusing words and complicated ideas of theologians like us who take evolution to be true and say, "Look how they bend over backwards to fit evolution into Genesis. Let us rather simply believe what the Bible says, which is perfectly obvious to everyone - even you!" That's the strength of creationism, as I see it: It makes both science and theology, two very complicated spheres of knowledge not immediately accessible to normal people, and gives it back to the people. It's creates a false feeling of empowerment.