Naive vs. Conscious Literalism

Naive vs. Conscious Literalism October 18, 2008

In a recent post I mentioned the distinction Marcus Borg makes between naive and conscious literalism. At heart, the difference is as follows. Naive literalism involves someone (e.g. a Biblical author) treating something as factually true because he or she has no reason to believe otherwise. So, for instance, in the case of the ascension, why wouldn’t Luke depict Jesus as heading straight up into the sky? Presumably, had Luke lived today, he would have either described the scene differently, or mentioned dilithium crystals.

Conscious literalism means taking something written by a naive literalist, while having information (whether scientific or historical) that was not available to that ancient author, and deliberately choosing to ignore the more recent developments in our knowledge and understanding, and instead treat the naive literalist’s description as entirely factual.

Does this help make clear not just the difference between the two, but why the latter is so very problematic?
"These fake dinosaurs are a lot more authentic to the real ones than the Creation ..."

Prehistoric Planet
"I'm happy to say my Secular Frontier blog post of my interview with Edouard looks ..."

The Odious Penal Substitutionary Theory of ..."
"The name of the song was mentioned in the episode here is the full version ..."

Entering Strange New Worlds of Star ..."
"Thank you for sharing this. Where did you learn that about the Kenyan folk song? ..."

Entering Strange New Worlds of Star ..."

Browse Our Archives