How would you propose to understand the injunction not to steal, if not literally? Analyze that. Or, sticking with the issue of Genesis, how is one to regard, “In the Beginning”? For untold millennia, the Judeo-Christian tradition has understood that there was (is?) a beginning. Within the span of my own lifetime, Science seemed convinced that existence was in an eternal steady state. Thanks to Mr. Einstein and to the discovery of a cosmic background radiation, we have now come to understand that there was, indeed, a beginning.
But, the simple fact is that Hebrew, Greek, and English literary traditions, alike, all demand many levels of understanding when contemplating important literary works (certainly including Biblical tracts: 1) literal, 2) metaphorical, 3) allegorical, 4) doctrinal, 5) spiritual, 6) poetical, 7) story-telling (see, for example, I Cor 2:6-16). If one has the slimmest appreciation for Hebrew, Greek, and English literary traditions, then he can understand King James’ instructions to his biblical translators to create a new English publication of the Bible, the KJV, with the dual object to combine elegance of translation with faithfulness to the text (see In The Beginning, by Alister McGrath). Your “analysis” would reduce any such effort to the literalness of a recipe card or a lab report, dismissing anything else as “myth.”
I asked if your college astronomy teacher ever speculated on the question could something be the cause of itself? You responded by asking, “You mean like God? He always seems to get that special exemption to the logic.”
No. You’re confusing the philosophical issue of First Cause with the theory of Spontaneous Generation. Science has generally rejected the theory of Spontaneous Generation, as it pertains to the generation of life, as not plausible. Even less plausible, then, must be the theory of the Spontaneous Generation of everything. The Old Ones long ago concluded that an infinite regress of cause was not plausible, and therefore logically concluded the existence of a First Clause (Plato’s God of the Beyond).
Scientists thought they had solved the problem of First Cause by positing an eternal universe, but now that seems not a likely supposition. Your astronomy teacher seems to have solved his problem by embracing the Judeo-Christian tradition, but he then seems to reverse himself by rejecting Holy Scripture as “myth,” trusting rather in the revealed glories of existence (or do I attribute too many of your thoughts as his?).
You are over-analyzing a simple statement. If the Bible says X and observation shows Y, then there is a conflict if you believe X literally. There is no problem if you believe it as you say "2) metaphorical, 3) allegorical, 4) doctrinal, 5) spiritual, 6) poetical, 7) story-telling." Some people believe the entire bible literally.
Science has generally rejected the theory of Spontaneous Generation, as it pertains to the generation of life,
You are confusing the issue of spontaneous generation of complete organisms with abiogenesis, which is being actively researched today with some quite interesting results.
Your astronomy teacher seems to have solved his problem by embracing the Judeo-Christian tradition, but he then seems to reverse himself by rejecting Holy Scripture as “myth,”
No, he just wasn't a Bible literalist.
(or do I attribute too many of your thoughts as his?).
No, you are attributing his thought as mine. I was just explaining someone else's position. He didn't go in depth enough with me that I can debate it in depth with you.
This either/or situation that these anti-God and anti-Scripture types set up are based on false premises.
It isn’t either what they claim the literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis should be OR it has to be totally metaphorical. What they are offering as the only two possible options is not realistic at all. They are setting themselves up as the judges of what conditions are permitted to be considered and eliminating all others. They are offering two extreme scenarios and demanding that one only be allowed to choose only one of THEIR choices.
What they’re doing is creating a false premise. Of course the logic breaks down as their premises are totally faulty.
What they need to do and won’t, is look at what Genesis is really saying in the Hebrew, instead of demanding a simplistic, face value reading of the English translation or an acceptance of the whole thing as metaphor.
This is intellectually dishonest of them and unworthy of someone who claims to be an objective scientist. They are the tactics of someone with an agenda who’s afraid to look at the truth lest their preferred worldview collapse under too close scrutiny.