first chapter

This chapter really reminds me of the very first class i walked into at duke: intro to philosophy (freshman seminar) in the sense that it tries to use logic to argue everything. The rules of the game are to making sound/cogent arguments, and the arguments are always directed against skeptics.

I guess the author took a really general skeptic view of language and truth to pick a fight with. From what I gathered, the argument connecting language and God is that the fact that we can derive meaning from language suggests that there is something universal to be described, and that language actually carries meaning about the world. And then a step further, accepting that there is such thing as meaning in the world means there are certain truths, but these truths have to be defined (and most people think we're not capable of defining these truths), and that's where God comes in. But skeptics argue that there is no meaning, no absolute truth in the universe. Language has no higher meaning, no authoritative power. *skip a few steps* therefore, there is no God and the Bible is just a book with no meaning or truth.

The author's argument against this was pretty much just exposing a paradox (which i found really unsatisfying). She basically said, 'well if words have no meaning, then the skeptics' words have no meaning either and they contradict themselves' you cant say there's no absolute truth because believing that there is no absolute truth is in itself, a truth you believe in. *sigh* i really dont like logical arguments cause they're so pointless to me, it's just playing a game. agreeing with others and their methodology just to say "i beat you at your own game.. but dont worry i don't play that game anyway.. i rely on faith.. which is illogical in itself." ???

it reminds me of the "why is there suffering" lecture last year after proxe stations that left a lot of people (along with myself) unsatisfied.. it attempted to produce a cogent argument for an all-powerful, loving God to allow suffering in the world. It's like trying to use math to solve a reading comprehension problem. I believe that you can't use philosophy and logic to explain God.

as for the scenario on pg 24, i agree with you sabrina, language has changed a lot over time, especially with the bible. there are so many different translations, oral traditions, and even canons. not to mention the cultural barriers. i think the author was just trying to make another argument against skeptics who believe in essense that we think therefore we are. That we interpret whatever we read in our own context (culture, social, time, etc influences). any meaning we give to something we read is just a reflection of our background. but the author is saying that it would be impossible for us to learn something new if we came about learning everything based on what already defines us. But i would say that even in our removed cultural contexts we can still learn something new. I think the author got too wrapped up in making arguments against skeptics, that there is little conclusive, "how should we read the bible" application

i think it was good though how the author at the end says we should examine parts of the bible like who the authors actually were, why the wrote it, etc. i think that understanding historical background is extremely important. even though the author gives a tough example of how 2 people read the same thing once, they both reached completely different conclusions, cautiously.. i'm ok with that. i took a new testament class (historical basis) last year. it seemed like the non-christians in the class would take what they learned and strengthen arguments against God, while the Christians took what they learned and it reaffirmed their faith. I think that more important than where/who you grew up with, your background, your friends, family, etc your heart is still on its own. You can decide to give it to God or keep it for yourself. If your heart is set on something whether it be that God isn't real or that He is, anything you read or experience will probably be fit into that thought until you make a decision to accept God or not. Even if there is an absolute truth, if you're so bent on believing otherwise, you'll never find it. So to answer the question that is the title of the chapter, "Isn't it all a matter of interpretation?", yes, it's a matter of interpretation until you become open to thinking otherwise. When you let God in, when you seek with enough curiosity to look deeper into the bible, the meaning hidden between the lines, experience an answered prayer, then you find that you're not just interpreting a religious manuscript, you're interpretting God's will. Yes i understand this is very circular thinking, logically speaking, but i'm not gonna try to make a cogent argument for what i believe. I believe what I believe because I believe I've seen how God has worked in my life :)

P.S it's absolutely gorgeous outside!!!! dolphins! sand! waves! wind! warm! salty-air! VAST ocean! tell me there's no meaning in life... :D