As you know I have difficulty with that latter concept. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to say if A then B in this particular situation.
I agree. Hence my answer to Wil's maths = scripture kind of comment; we're back down the empirical rabbit hole again.
The 'if A then B' held a lot of sway in Europe when Bultmann was active 'demythologising' Scripture, then Bultmann was himself demythologised when logic showed that 'if A reads like B' that does not mean, as Bultmann assumed, that A and B belong to the same genre.
Wil's in the same camp, I think: empiricism rules and the physical sciences will one day explain everything, and anything they can't explain can't be true/exist/happen ...
For me it's a given that the world's
sacra doctrina occupies its own sphere in the world's literature. If leading philosophers can accept that, then so can I, without invoking some kind of 'Catch 22', it's just the nature of the thing. It's simply not the same as other texts, even though its bears many of the similarities.
... and have spent a lot of time trying to comprehend how some people believe scripture can be taken literally. Whatever the answer is has remained beyond my ability to grasp.
The issue, I assume, is with the Abrahamic texts which insist certain events
actually happened?
Texts that offer the Noble Truths, for example, are easily acknowledged, even if accepted. The western maxim that Buddhism is 'a philosophy, not a religion' is just another example of western rationalism at work.
The only offering I can make is that sacra doctrine speaks to the heart, not the head ... As Paul Ricoeur said, there's a distinction between 'critique' and 'conviction' and one cannot confound the two. Invariably, as the evolution of science and knowledge generally occurs, it begins with a conviction (that the question can be answered) and ends with critique (the answer). The same process with Faith, which begins as a conviction (even if a culturally received conviction) and ends with a critique if the believer finds it necessary to do so ... some of the most enlightened don't ... and as much as those insist that it should be necessary, it really isn't, this argument us usually made by those who don't profess a faith.
The biggest stumbling block, I suppose, is miracles. How can one logically, reasonably, rationally, accept a miracle?
Most, I reckon, accept and don't question, on the basis that they don't actually believe because of the miracles, they believe in a broader narrative of which the miracles is a part.
The rational mind says miracles are impossible. But that's only the case within the mind's model. The same minds hold that the laws of nature are fixed and immutable. Are we so sure? Does not Quantum Physics infer a certain plasticity? And is God not savvy enough to work within His creation without ripping the whole thing apart?
Again, I find it easier to believe Christ restored the sight of the man born blind than I do that Elvis is alive and well in a parallel universe — something that apparently QP assures us is the case.
And while physicists can argue the state of Schrodinger's cat, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that it is not alive and dead at the same time.
And all this blether really boils down to ... the mental model you're working to.
Math modeling is an exact science.
OK.
Scriptural modeling, or any language modeling for that matter is an inexact science.
Inexact in that the modelling for maths is deficient when applies to other situations. We're back to 'if A then B' assumption which I challenge.
If something transcends the boundaries of empirical exactitude (Good Lord ... am I becoming American?
) then it's unfair to declare it 'inexact' when comparing it to something far simpler.
It's about meaning, not matter; its qualitative, not quantitative.
In school, math tests were easy to grade; either one got the right answer of one did not. In english, writing an essay response is up to opinion as to how well the student grasped the material. A paper in favor of a proposition and a paper opposed to the proposition can both be excellent papers and awarded A's even though they come to opposite conclusions.
Quite, but the exams are no less 'real' and are harder to mark because they require more of the examiner.
(Surveys have shown that more CEOs and Board Directors have a degree in history, where it's not about the facts but about interpretation, because there's more to the world than facts.)
When I did A-level Art (at 18) part of the paper was a 15-hour themed piece. We were all slaving away in the studio. My best pal was going through something of a teenage trauma. Lots of anger, lots of angst. Pressured by staff, in protest he turned up without any kit and managed to borrow a paintbrush and three tubes of paint. He painted the paper black, then did a red squiggle and a yellow one, then walked out. He was in the room for no more than 15 minutes. He got an A.
I can ridicule the whole system on the basis of that. I can justify the 'A' as his was the more real piece of work. Depends what mood I'm in...
