Thomas Swan has a PhD in experimental psychology. He specializes in the cognitive science of religion.
Interpretations of the Bible vary substantially depending on the cultural climate and the psychological condition of the reader. For example, in the Middle Ages, the Bible was used to justify holy wars against Islamic countries. In modern day Africa, it's used to justify the burning of witches.
How people interpret scripture determines how they understand God’s supposed will. Any uncertainty regarding this instruction can lead to atrocity. Indeed, there may be no greater weapon than the belief that one's actions are divinely endorsed. The following five problems detail the real and potential costs of interpreting scripture in the wrong way.
1. Psychology Influences Scriptural Interpretations of the Bible
There are four criteria that determine the depth and direction of scriptural interpretation.
- Plausibility dictates the depth of interpretation. If something sounds too ridiculous to be true, it won't be believed. Conversely, if something directly contradicts a religious text, it won't be deemed plausible either.
- Cultural Pressures determine the direction of interpretation. If there's a Muslim invasion of a Christian country, Christians will be motivated to form an interpretation that derogates Muslims. If Western culture pressures the Church to see women as equal, interpretations will arise that allow for female preachers.
- Personal Motivations will alter the direction of interpretation in similar ways. If a person feels they've been wronged, they'll often look for a reason to justify vengeful behavior by reinterpreting parts of the Old Testament.
- Method of Transmission will affect the depth and direction of interpretation. For example, people receive a preacher’s interpretation in Church but, when alone with scripture, one can produce a unique interpretation shaped by personal motivations, credulity, and cultural pressures. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, "whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth". The changing interpretation of scripture epitomizes this unfortunate abandonment of truth.
2. Bible Interpretation Cannot be Literal or Immutable
The Earth is a frenzied cauldron of life with various species bubbling into prominence before descending back under the cosh of their competitors. Humanity has ascended above all other species; an ascent that may see a reversal or continue unabated until the death of all life on Earth. Our journey to the pinnacle of terrestrial existence would have been impossible without a curiosity for the natural world and an ability to invent new ways of ensuring our survival within. Should a pandemic or an asteroid descend on mankind, our extinction could only be averted by the produce of human curiosity. Thus, natural selection demands that we adapt or die, change or stagnate, such that the generation of new ideas is a gateway to survival and supremacy. For example, when Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity explained the laws of motion in a way that superseded Isaac Newton’s renowned 17th Century model, it epitomized the ascendancy of progress over enduring faith.
Bible interpretation must follow this model. Failure to do so renders it irrelevant at best; pernicious at worst. An unchanging holy book makes this difficult to achieve; as do the attitudes of traditionalists and those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Many believers would, for example, contend that if a scientific theory is only a hundred years old, it's far less deserving of our faith than one which has remained unchanged for a millennium (e.g. Copernicus challenging geocentrism). As we've seen, this attitude threatens our survival by hindering progress. Indeed, European civilization endured the Dark Ages under the political and cultural authority of the Catholic Church. For over a millennium, assumptions based on immutable or literal Bible interpretation produced a level of intellectual stagnation unparalleled in the history of our species.
3. Contextual Bible Interpretation Must Be Impersonal
Interpretations of the Bible are not completely immune to our whims, and different cultures and eras have interpreted scripture in different ways. In the Middle Ages, an interpretation of the Bible allowed for the extermination of Muslims during the Crusades. This changed once the threat of Muslim incursions into Europe was over. Thus, the personal whims of the people determined God's supposed word. Clearly, this must be avoided.
These personal, contextual mistakes occur throughout history, illustrating a wealth of contradictions. For example, even though today’s Christians declare the Crusaders ungodly, those same Christians would have been executed as heretics a millennium ago. Whether we examine the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, persecution of homosexuals, or the murder of abortion doctors, each new criminal proclaims their predecessors ungodly because their current interpretation of the Bible allows them to. Future generations of Christians will no doubt look upon our present religious masses as vile beings that were never infused with God’s love. Did the Crusaders get to heaven because they believed they were doing God’s will, or did their good intentions pave the way to hell?
It's fairly clear that changing interpretations of scripture depend on the cultural climate developing at the time. For example, while early Christianity was an exclusively masculine institution, its epicene evolution has followed the rising status of women in society. Nunneries first appeared in medieval times and, recently, female ministers have emerged in some Christian sects. Other cultural pressures affecting change include attitudes to homosexuality and contraception. In a century’s time, God’s word could be interpreted as embracing homosexuals, and Sodom and Gamorrah will define a new group of infidels more deserving of our hatred in the latest age of human conflict.
It's a rather sad state of affairs that the only thing unchanging about God’s word is the belief that the current interpretation is the truth. Whether to justify hostile acts, or to promote better social equality, interpretation reigns supreme. What makes our generation so enlightened when previous generations possessed the same arrogant belief in their righteousness?
4. Fundamentalist Interpretations of the Bible
As we've seen, interpretations of the Bible can be used to justify cruelty. Indeed, if a person is able to transfer culpability for their actions to an omnibenevolent being, their conscience is not only clear, it's reinforced!
Religion, unlike political or secular ideologies, deals substantially with moral absolutes. Thus, if God is thought to desire the death of a person or group of people, there's no reason to feel compassion, doubt, or remorse. A fundamentalist can therefore use religion to enact their will for destruction with a smile on their face and divine rewards in mind. While any political or secular ideology could be used to justify violence, only religion can offer divine permission and reward from a morally pure being. Thus, the fundamentalist's capacity for religious barbarism is as infinite as God’s righteousness.
A man's will is as strong as his greatest ally, and as fickle as the unchained caprice of his heart.
Violence of this kind needn't be attributed to "true" Christians or Muslims, and other believers are likely to condemn their behavior. Nevertheless, violent individuals use religion because it promises validation by an absolutely moral being. Without religion, fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible simply wouldn't be accessible.
5. Difficulty Finding a Modern Interpretation of the Bible
Two thousands years ago, we hated other cultures, hated homosexuality, enjoyed slavery, saw women as property, and thought the sun revolved around a flat Earth. It was therefore natural for these ideas to make their way into a book from that era. Two millennia later, the cultural climate is vastly different and, in order to survive, religions must learn to interpret scripture relevantly and responsibly.
Nevertheless, Christianity appears to have passed a tipping point beyond which there can be little chance of a return to the outright acceptance of religious dogma and literal interpretations of the Bible. This tipping point occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries when the Enlightenment allowed humanity to drift far enough from religion to experience what could be achieved in its absence. Christianity was left behind and, despite recent attempts to reinterpret religious scripture, the passage of time can only further our incredulity for its claims.
Still, dead religions are often replaced by others that are more receptive to cultural demands. While Christianity has little relevance today, a new religion could form tomorrow with just as long a shelf life. Indeed, Christianity supplanted the older pagan religions in precisely this way. While each religion differs in its capacity for cultural relevance, most survive because they fulfill our naturally evolved desires for such things as an afterlife, a benevolent deity, a human ideal to imitate, a feeling of moral rectitude, and a sense of superiority over nonbelievers. This formula for a successful religion is as enduring as the architecture of the human mind. It's possible that, in order to fulfill these motivations, new religions will interpret the Bible in a limited, culturally relevant capacity.
Despite this potential scenario, the association of such psychological benefits with a dying faith could lead to a long gap between the death of one religion and the birth of the next. If a new religion formed tomorrow promising immortality, perfection, and paradise, we would associate it with what we've come to reject. Only time will heal the wounds of one religion sufficient for us to endure the injury of the next. The continuance of religion is inevitable unless we can dissect its influence on the psychology of humankind. Only then may we understand the appeal of religious thought, and free ourselves permanently from its grip on our minds.
goliah from London on February 08, 2013:
I've been testing it on you! I've already confirmed it myself. And anyone who does so is under an obligation to make it known. Sorry to have bothered you.
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on February 07, 2013:
Apologies, but I don't accept comments with links promoting their sites. I had to delete it.
A little bit of research shows you've been promoting this interpretation on message boards across the web since 2006, so I wouldn't call it new. You say you're testing it yourself now? For 7 years? Don't lie to me.
You sound exactly like a cult leader when you claim you have all the answers but won't tell me what they are until I visit your site and commit to whatever you're peddling. You sound like a salesman when you say "with such potential one is compelled to act". Evidence and logic compel me to investigate something further, but you have offered nothing other than overt claims of ultimate truth. Christians do exactly the same thing, and I don't give them my time either.
I say this because your next tactic is to say "you don't even want to look at my truth, therefore you're close-minded". Well I haven't read the Qu'ran either. Offer me some evidence and I'll take a look at something, but TBH, your deception has already turned me off to your cult.
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on February 07, 2013:
The idea that judgement will occur in our lifetime is an optimistic one to say the least. It also depends on whether God exists or not. Both are examples of things we want to believe, but don't really have evidence for. As a result, we fix the evidence to get what we want; leading to new interpretations of the Bible as our wants and needs change. As I see no evidence for either proposition, I don't concern myself with it.
goliah from London on February 07, 2013:
"and if God exists, he wouldn't be happy with people declaring what he thinks."I have a feeling that is what 'Judgement' is all about! Could be interesting times ahead?
Thomas Swan (author) from New Zealand on February 06, 2013:
Thanks goliah, I look forward to reading about this new interpretation, and trying to understand how cultural and motivational influences have shaped Christian doctrine into a new, more agreeable form. You are right about one thing, it's a dangerous profession, and if God exists, he wouldn't be happy with people declaring what he thinks. Regarding this new interpretation, as I said, the only thing unchanging about God's word is the belief that the current interpretation is the truth. I don't see how the latest craze is any different,
goliah from London on February 06, 2013:
Scriptural Interpretation may in fact be the most dangerous profession any human being can undertake. For this all too human theological process, subject only to the dubious 'disciplines' of philosophy, can result only in self deception on the nature of God, revealed truth and ourselves.
The real question is: could two thousand years of scholastic exegesis, tradition and 2 billion 'Christians' have it wrong? . . . And this is no longer just a rhetorical question for mud slinging between atheist and religious, we are on the threshold of finding out, and the very real dangers of pretending to comprehend the mind of God will be all too evident!
For what science and religion, not to mention the rest of us, thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith.
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Titled The Final Freedoms and radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!
Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our flawed human moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question?