Where are the metaphysical explanations?

[juliod]

It has occured to me that what we have in modern times is neo-creationism, a distinct belief from traditional creationism. And the difference is that neo-creationism essentially lacks metaphysical explanations. Traditional creationism might have been just as wrong, but at least it explained things. I have started using as my main complaint against creationism that it is only "ad-hoc non-explanations". Ad hoc in that it is just made up one the spot. Non-explanatory in that neo-creationists don't actually even try to explain things. It's just a denial of science.

What is a metaphysical explanation? I can only give a few examples, because I don't really know much about them. For one thing, they are still used by New-Ager's and TV psychics. But these are very poor examples, mostly just illiterate babble. In the past, pre-renaissance, metaphysical explanation was the norm.

Here's an example I know of. The question was, how many epistle's did Paul write? A lot of epistles of Paul are known, but several had their authenticity questioned right from the start. In the world before the advent of academic textual criticism, one of the main arguments in this controversy was that there are 7 authentic Pauline epistles. Why seven? Because the book of Revelation refers to 7 churches. The argument is that there is something mystical about "seven" and so there should (must) be 7 authentic epistles from Paul.

Of course, that's just an absurdity today. But if supernaturalism and mysticism were true it might be a valid explanation. See? It's a metaphysical explanation.

There are other examples. In fact I think there were thousands. Everything, prior to the advent of science, was a metaphor for a biblical or mystical truth. The rose, for example, was simply a representation: red for the blood of christ, thorns for the suffering on the cross.

These were not mere poetic images. They were what passed for "science" prior to the rediscovery of ancient greek learning and the slow crawl out of medieval mysticism.

Of course, one big example is the rainbow. A bronze-age semitic tribe believed that the rainbow was a special communication between themselves and their god. It was a sign of a covenant between them. That's what it was. That was the explanation.

But there is the problem for neo-creationists. Rainbows are created by refraction from droplets in the atmosphere. Modern creationists understand that. So they must advance ad hoc non-explanations to avoid the conclusion that the rainbow was always present and not created by god at a spoecial time. Thereby, creationism has lost the ability to explain. Neo-creationism has become the denial of explanations and their replacement with nothing.

DanZ

[Curious]

And the subject of debate is? oh right, where, or what, are the metaphysical explanations. Wait for some very strange posts in this thread.

[juliod]

Wait for some very strange posts in this thread.

Even stranger, there are no posts.

C'mon, creationists! Don't you have any feelings about the traditional classical view of christianity? How can you have a metaphysical belief system that lacks any metaphysics?

DanZ

[israeltour]

Wait for some very strange posts in this thread.

Even stranger, there are no posts.

C'mon, creationists! Don't you have any feelings about the traditional classical view of christianity? How can you have a metaphysical belief system that lacks any metaphysics?

DanZ

Like what? Like my belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and then rose from the dead after three days, so Heaven could be ours just by repenting for our sin? Is that the kind of metaphysical explanation you're looking for?

But since this is for the creatism vs. evolution forum, let me then offer you this: I am willing to grant you, for the sake of argument, that the big bang, evolution, dinosaurs, etc. all happened, exactly as secular scientists say. Given that, I actually believe (as I've posted elsewhere), that it is exactly that account that Moses was attempting to capture in Genesis 1 and 2. Let's suppose next that I had already explained to how it all lines up, and that you at least understood how it all lines up in my eyes (to my knowledge, my theory is original). What then is the meta-physical explanation of Genesis 1?

I believe that God's point in having Moses write the creation story wasn't to document a scientifically accurate account of what happened. After all, Moses didn't know the scientifically accurate account, and didn't have the background to express it to us at the time anyway. So, what was God's purpose?

I think God was creating a foundation for the coming of Jesus. Frankly, to a Christian, what better meta-physical explanation could there be? For Jesus to die for our sins, we had to understand sin, where it came from, what it results in in our lives. The point of the creation story isn't the creation of the world, or else the world's creation would have been described! Yet, clearly from Genesis 1:1, the earth existed before God said, "Let there be light". No, the creation story is the creation of Sin. In fact, it's the metaphysical explanation of why the two creation accounts are such close proximity in the Bible. The first account (spanning in my opinion 65 million years ago to 2 million years ago) explains that we are to have dominion over the animals and the earth. The second account explains how sin entered the world.

This of course begs the question (dozens I'm sure): if mankind existed for almost 2,000,000 years without sin, then why introduce it 10,000 years ago? The meta-physical answer, one that some of you are probably annoyed at hearing from Christians, is that God wants us to enjoy a relationship with Him in Heaven, and this required allowing us to sin. "Don't eat the apple" was the first law given verbally by God, and so was the first one broken, and therefore the first sin, in a purely legalistic sense. It is therefore also the first oppotunity mankind had to experience distance from God, and therefore the first opportunity to desire closeness to Him.

I fully admit that this stuff cannot be thought through exhaustively, and that eventually one stops, either because you have faith or because you don't. So let's agree to that as a premise in this thread, or it will undoubtedly end up as the conclusion.

Is this juicy enough for you Juliod?

[QED]

The first account (spanning in my opinion 65 million years ago to 2 million years ago) explains that we are to have dominion over the animals and the earth. The second account explains how sin entered the world.

This of course begs the question (dozens I'm sure): if mankind existed for almost 2,000,000 years without sin, then why introduce it 10,000 years ago? The meta-physical answer, one that some of you are probably annoyed at hearing from Christians, is that God wants us to enjoy a relationship with Him in Heaven, and this required allowing us to sin. "Don't eat the apple" was the first law given verbally by God, and so was the first one broken, and therefore the first sin, in a purely legalistic sense. It is therefore also the first oppotunity mankind had to experience distance from God, and therefore the first opportunity to desire closeness to Him.

Now in the thread asking if there was any evidence of special creation we had this exchange:

A significant consequence of all this is that it is folly to suggest that we are liberated from the instinctive behavior patterns of other animals while all the while acknowledging greed, lust, murder etc. as being human sin. How can it be justified as anything different when it looks, smells and feels just like the counterpart in the wild?

Are you saying that animals are capable of acknowledging greed, lust, and murder in some abstract, value-driven way? Or are we mistaken in our own perception of inner morality?

Are you sure you want to stick to 2,000,000 years of mankind existing without sin? You see, I think that if we take off our rose-tinted glasses, all our baser instincts are just as much in evidence as are our physical similarities to other animals.

I'm pretty sure that the notion of original sin was invented to account for all of our innate tendencies. Without an appreciation of DNA, genetics and evolution through natural selection, Iron-age man could be forgiven for imagining that he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think his focus would understandably be very much on his enlightened consciousness, so what better device to account for all the puzzling varieties of "animal magnetism" than original sin?

[juliod]

Is that the kind of metaphysical explanation you're looking for?

No, that's just a statement about your religion. In fact it doesn't explain anything.

A metaphysical explanation is like the one about the rainbow, or how many epistles Paul wrote.

For example:

Why are there four Gospels in the bible?

Textual explanation:
1) The Gospels are composed on one text dating significantly later than the others, and three that share many features. A close examination of the Gospels and known surviving texts and fragments, reveals that the three closest ones shared a single original source, or possible two, if we count the proposed lost version Q as an original.

Metaphysical explanation:
2) There are four Gospels because there are four points to the compass.

Before the reestablishment of science nearly everything had a metaphysical explanation.

What then is the meta-physical explanation of Genesis 1?

There wouldn't be one. If you believe as you say, then I would not count you as a creationist. Genesis, in your view, is a metaphor or allegory. But of course, the traditional creationists did not accept that.

DanZ

[israeltour]

The first account (spanning in my opinion 65 million years ago to 2 million years ago) explains that we are to have dominion over the animals and the earth. The second account explains how sin entered the world.

Now in the thread asking if there was any evidence of special creation we had this exchange:

A significant consequence of all this is that it is folly to suggest that we are liberated from the instinctive behavior patterns of other animals while all the while acknowledging greed, lust, murder etc. as being human sin. How can it be justified as anything different when it looks, smells and feels just like the counterpart in the wild?

Are you saying that animals are capable of acknowledging greed, lust, and murder in some abstract, value-driven way? Or are we mistaken in our own perception of inner morality?

Are you sure you want to stick to 2,000,000 years of mankind existing without sin?

Sure. The reason is because the biblical meaning of sin is "missing the mark", and before telling Adam not eat of the tree, God had given mankind no "marks" by which to measure themselves or their actions.

I think that if we take off our rose-tinted glasses, all our baser instincts are just as much in evidence as are our physical similarities to other animals.

Hmmm... my glasses must be missing the rose-tint, because mankind's baser instincts are indeed as evident to me as to you. What God gave man that He gave no one else is the ability to act in a manner contrary to our baser instincts... something even the most moral people do not do often enough.

I'm pretty sure that the notion of original sin was invented to account for all of our innate tendencies. Without an appreciation of DNA, genetics and evolution through natural selection, Iron-age man could be forgiven for imagining that he was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think his focus would understandably be very much on his enlightened consciousness, so what better device to account for all the puzzling varieties of "animal magnetism" than original sin?

And I'm equally sure that the need to discount the doctrine of original sin stems from people's tendency to view God as a creation in man's own image... instead of the reverse. I see it both within the church and without. Within the church, I see splintering based on the tendency only to see the parts of God that validate themselves... expressing love for the parts of God they like and ignoring the parts of God they don't. Without the church, I see people who reject God because of the church's own tendency to portray a God in their image... and that image is not very flattering for a God, so who would believe in it?

The unfortunate thing is that God even inspired His apostles to write about these very failings, to point out to people that faith comes from the Holy Spirit, and not from viewing others. In fact, if someone ever comes to know God through me, it will not be because they see me, but because they see God's love flow through me. And once someone perceives that love and accepts it for what it is, and asks God to come live in them, too, it's suddenly clear to them that God created them with that base nature that animals have, yet also with the spirit and free will to control that nature if they choose. I say this based on experience, scripture, and observation.

Are we getting metaphysical yet?

[QED]

Are we getting metaphysical yet?

I don't think so. You seem to portray us as being made of the same stuff as animals who have evolved their way through history by applying simple strategies such as: look for lunch/don't be lunch. But then say that god has given us a special "upgrade" that's meant to intervene with our decision making to make us more civilized. But for reasons that have been rationalized to the point of absurdity (IMO) this upgrade is a bit shaky, and doesn't always work as it's meant to.

The facts are clear enough though: We are subject to the full gamut of instinctive impulses and in order to get by in our societies we find ourselves moderating our behavior to some degree or other. From here on it's all down to speculation.

[israeltour]

Are we getting metaphysical yet?

I don't think so. You seem to portray us as being made of the same stuff as animals who have evolved their way through history by applying simple strategies such as: look for lunch/don't be lunch. But then say that god has given us a special "upgrade" that's meant to intervene with our decision making to make us more civilized. But for reasons that have been rationalized to the point of absurdity (IMO) this upgrade is a bit shaky, and doesn't always work as it's meant to.

It works exactly as it was meant to... we make decisions that a purely instinctual being would not.

The facts are clear enough though: We are subject to the full gamut of instinctive impulses and in order to get by in our societies we find ourselves moderating our behavior to some degree or other. From here on it's all down to speculation.

Yet we're both pretty sure of what we know.