Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Ambitious Fiction: We Hold These Truths …
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
More beautiful words were never written. But if the gentlemen who penned our Declaration of Independence intended that “We” to refer to the nascent America as a whole, rather than to themselves only, then it’s largely fiction.
I am agnostic and lacking in faith but, paradoxically, the only portion of that glorious sentence above that rings true to me is the “Creator” part. Because I do believe that, throughout human history, men have believed the reality of a creator to be self-evident. I think evolution has wired us that way, to seek an explanation for our existence and our purpose and, if necessary, to invent one.
But is man’s equality self-evident? Does anything about human history teach us that something in nature or nature’s God suggests to men that every other man is in any essential sense his equal? I don’t think so. I believe we are created equal, but I don’t believe that is self-evident.
I’m not talking here about the superficial inequalities of physiology and circumstance but rather of the equality the founders meant: equality of value and worth and, yes, of rights as a fellow human being. These are the aspects of equality that make our rights intrinsic and fundamental to, and inseverable from, each of us: that makes them, in a word, unalienable. That is the equality that has, for most of our history, been far from self-evident — that in fact is still not embraced by much of the world’s population.
This post was inspired by Stina’s post “Where Rights Originate,” which asks a deep, important, and ultimately unresolvable question. She inspired an interesting discussion, and you should go read it.
My purpose here is much more modest and practical. I want to make the simple point that, wherever rights come from, and regardless of what we believe about where rights come from, nothing that we cherish about our rights or our equality is really self-evident. Rather, it must be taught, and it must be taught early: The torch of freedom has to be passed on to each child long before he or she becomes an adult.
If we are going to restore our nation, we will have to reclaim our children. Home school, private schools, and church schools offer an alternative to public schools and their increasingly sinister and tyrannical administrations. But confronting the public schools is essential, which brings us back to the need to assert our right to free speech and free assembly.
The current efforts of the Brandon administration to silence parents, to caricature them as terrorists for challenging the authority of school boards, suggests that the public education establishment understands how unpopular its policies are and how vulnerable those policies are to pushback from outraged parents.
Push back. Keep pushing back. And make sure that your children are learning those truths that, unfortunately, aren’t really self-evident: that we’re all created equal, and that our rights are integral and essential — despite whatever they may be learning in school.
Published in Culture
When you refer to Shakespeare, or Homer and expect most people know what you mean you have less assurance of historical integrity than you have when referencing The Bible. Everyone knows what The Bible is, even its detractors. This is silly.
Vince, no one reads Shakespeare or Homer and claims that what they read is the Word of God. That’s a claim made about the Bible. If people believe that the Bible is without error, then it does matter what they mean when they say “the Bible,” because they probably don’t — or shouldn’t — mean a particular version of the Bible. Because the thing for which SA claims inerrancy isn’t the thing those people are reading.
Clearly I cannot drink from the cup in front of you…
Now, now…
I somehow managed to miss this discussion, only noticing it when Spin threw in a Princess Bride reference. Huh.
2 + 2 = 4 is self-evident, but not axiomatic — though it comes pretty close. The numerical truth of the statement is based on a series of axioms credited to Giuseppe Peano in the 1800s, and on a definition of the addition function as an operation of numerical succession over the set of natural numbers.
One isn’t asked to simply agree that 2 + 2 = 4, as one would be if it were purely axiomatic. One is asked to accept the Peano axioms that underlie manipulation of natural numbers, and to accept the definition of addition, via set theory, as a recursive application of one of Peano’s axioms pertaining to succession. (And, strictly speaking, not even that: the definition of addition is itself built up using operations of set theory that are axiomatically defended; having accepted those, the derivation of addition as an operation proceeds logically, and doesn’t require “acceptance” per se.)
Jerry, your comment about non-Euclidian geometry reminded me of the succession of physical models ranging from Newton through Einstein and into the much less well-resolved quantum theories. Newton wasn’t quite as “correct” as Euclid, in that Newton was subtly wrong in his fundamental theory, but so subtly wrong that the error is meaningless in the non-relativistic context within which he worked. In contrast, while Euclid also was addressing a particular context, he was correct within that context: there was no subtle error, so long as his assertions were applied only to Euclidian space.
How do you know what someone passes off as Shakespeare, or Homer, or Hippocrates or any ancient writer is what was truly attributed to them?
I don’t. That was kind of my point: we don’t know that about various translations of the Bible, either.
Late to the party here, but I’ve never met a Christian who, when they say “I read the Bible” doesn’t mean the same Bible I read. People make a big deal about the translations. Having spent a fair bit of time comparing them, a big deal shouldn’t be made. We all know what we mean when we say “the Bible”. The vast majority of us believe it is the plenary, inspired, unerring Word of God.
Not trying to convince you, Hank, that it is. Just trying to push back a bit on the notion that we don’t all agree on what is meant by “the Bible.”
Spin, I think you’re exactly right: that’s what normal people mean when they say “the Bible.” It isn’t what SA means.
Having said that, I’ve known lots of people who hold a particular translation as the only legitimate Bible. (The KJV seems to win that honor most often.)
I guess I miss what he means. Which comment did he say what he means? I have talked to him enough to think that he thinks that he means the same thing I think he thinks he means, when he says the Bible.
They think it’s the only legitimate English translation.
I think you get the most in reading multiple translations, while some I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.
In an ideal world, one would simply ask SA what he means when he uses a word or phrase. Alas, we don’t live in an ideal world.
What SA means by “the Bible” is “the Tanahk and New Testament.” That’s pretty unambiguous. But he doesn’t mean modern translations of those things, since they may contain contradictions and errors, and he asserts that the Bible is without error. When he is referring to that inerrant Bible, he means a set of perhaps no longer existing texts from which modern versions of Bibles have been constructed through transcription and translation.
Would he say that the NIV, NASB, KVJ, NKJV, CSB, NLT, RSV, and MSG are all inerrant — that they all perfectly capture the meaning of those original texts? I don’t think so, but that would be something for him to answer.
Anyway, I think most people, when they express faith in what they read in the Bible, are referring to one of those translations.
It’s a small enough point, really. As a non-believer, I will happily concede that believers can claim inerrancy even of modern texts in some way that doesn’t make logical sense to me; faith and logic need have no hold on each other. And I’ll also admit that, to normal people, “the Bible” means something pretty clear: it means all of those acronyms I listed. SA, for all his charm and wit, isn’t a normal person.
Agreed.
I would ask him if he weren’t in Hong Kong. He’s probably snoozing.
Ok fair enough but I might suggest that most of those folks who are referring to the translations understand that those translations are their gateway to the original text. And therefore would include the original text. In fact I’d do more than suggest, I’d stipulate.
Okay, so I agree with both of you: I have translations that I like to read, and translations that I don’t choose to read — that I sometimes don’t particularly trust in terms of their fidelity to earlier texts.
But it seems to me that anyone who “wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole” any of these texts is suggesting one of two things: that they don’t consider the particular text to be “the Bible,” or they don’t consider “the Bible” to be “inerrant.” Because if you both believe that all of those popular translations are “the Bible” and that they are “inerrant,” then what you’re saying is that there are some inerrant translations of the Word of God that you wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.
Were I the Bible’s Author, I’m not sure how I’d take that.
And that’s where the ambiguity about just what is and isn’t “the Bible” comes in, in my opinion — at least, when the phrase is used by those who believe in Biblical inerrancy.
Do you apply this standard to anything else? Because I think you hold this to a pretty ridiculous standard.
Am I on solid ground reading just one translation of the Aeneid and coming to a pretty decent understanding of the text just by reading one translation? Surely I would gain additional insight by reading another translation… maybe they applied a different translation scholarship to it? Maybe it makes the text more dimensional? Have you ever read more than one translation of anything?
Not every translation is good. But everyone would benefit from multiple translations. Some are word by word, others are phrase by phrase. Others still are thought by thought. I use multiple translations and have benefitted from all. They are, in the main, the same. But what I eke out from the differences is in addition. So when NIV says “love is patient” and KJV says “charity is patient”, I draw the conclusion that charity is love in action and I have become more receptive to it because it is the expression of someone’s love for me.
Mormons believe this but Christians don’t.
We have more supporting documentation to support the authorship of the scriptures than any other written work…far more…than all others combined. If you think you can’t trust the authenticity of the Bible you’ve entered into can’t-trust-any-written-record territory.
And 5000+ is only Greek copies. Including other languages the total is over 20,000.
I’m not sure precisely what you mean, Stina. If I miss your point in my response, please feel free to elaborate. Thanks. ;)
I think that all of those translations are Bibles. I think “the Bible” is the name we give to those books (speaking loosely) which collect what has been largely agreed to be the canonical subset of ancient texts in various translations and interpretations. I doubt that any is entirely accurate; I doubt that there ever existed an entirely accurate written account of Jesus of Nazareth, nor of the thousands of years of Judaic history leading up to his birth.
I am impressed by the wealth of fragmentary evidence, by the sheer number and quality of ancient Judeo-Christian texts, by the degree to which they support each other. I’m impressed by the effort men of integrity and, in some cases, astounding bravery, have invested in the collection, translation, and distribution of the Bible over the centuries. And I think the Bible is unique, both in terms of its historical and literary richness and in terms of the inherent goodness of what it tells us.
I’m only being picky about it because of the inerrancy claim. The moment that claim is made, the question of what, specifically, it is that is being claimed to be inerrant becomes important; or, alternately, what does one imagine “inerrant” means? That’s tricky with the Bible, because there are lots of different versions, each with its idiosyncrasies.
None of this matters with Shakespeare, or Homer, or any other author, because no sensible person claims that any other text is inerrant. And I wouldn’t try to determine exactly what a normal person means when he or she says that “the Bible is the inerrant word of God” because I would simply assume that it was said in a casual way, the way a normal person defends the Trinity or asserts any other divine mystery. I engage SA only because he isn’t, as I said, a normal person.
Speaking of Shakespear. He may have written it.
Man I love Ricochet. How’d we get to discussing translations of the Bible?
Me too, Spin.
And I’ll say it again: If you want to avoid having a cat, you have to say no to every kitten.
That’s how things like this happen. It happened way back in #20, and it was my fault.
Learned that one the hard way.
Yes, it can. And dark is not a thing in itself, but a lack of light.
On faith, yes, and also on reason. I explain the structure of the reasoning in this article. Apparently I’m the world authority on the subject. (We live in sad times. It shouldn’t have been me!)
Of course not. That’s not my theology. That’s not what the doctrine of inerrancy means. That’s not the theology of any informed inerrantist.
You thereby commit yourself to a thorough ignorance of what a great many religious claims mean. Here’s my article on that. (Among numerous other examples, it explains how inerrancy can be falsified.)
And here is where we get to the main point: You have no idea what I was talking about in # 57.
You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting me completely. Inerrancy categorically rejects any idea of “the Bible as an abstract ideal text.” It starts with the only correct and commonsense way of thinking about an ancient text. You should go back to # 57 and answer my question.
Good for you. Seriously.
All it reminded me of was Lovecraft.
I’m pretty sure HR is the one missing what I mean.
Hence my question in # 57.
We can even try it here.
HR, Aristotle said in Nichomachean Ethics that happiness is “an activity of soul in accordance with virtue.”
Is there some reason I shouldn’t say that, HR? Once we’ve recognized that it’s a thing in an Aristotle book, is it ok to say something about what he said there–to agree, disagree, or even just to observe that it’s interesting?
As a rule, I stick with the dictionary.
Well, that’s true.
(Except maybe the part about charm and wit.)