Folk Science and Science (Documentary Hypothesis Dept.)

Here's one that probably has no larger meaning, but it catches my fancy (and if any reader does extract a larger meaning, they'll get a special Underbelly medallion with oak leaf cluster).  Anyway, the subject is "science," versus bogus

"folk" science, as in "whatever passes for science in Texas or Louisiana. We all know the drills: scholarly/academic/scientific opinion crystallizes around some core complex of knowledge, only to get swept up in a prairie fire of opposition from those who say it is contrary to sharia law unBiblical, an affront to religion and an insult common sense. So climate change, so evolution and I'm sure we're not done yet. Beleaguered scientists draw their wagons into a circle, only to find that they have fanned the flames of rage and rancor among the insulted.
No news here folks, move along--except that it hits me that there is a curious precedent for the underlying discontinuity that drives these conflicts, much closer to the religious homeland. I'm thinking of the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis." Anyone who troubles to read this blog will recognize (at least in rough outline) the content, if not the tagline. I'm talking about a body of insights concerning the nature and provenance of the Bible.

Specifically by hallowed first principles, the Bible is the Word of God and in particular, the first five books. the Pentateuch, were (dictated, written down) by His servant Moses, he who led the chosen people to the Promised Land.

I gather that serious scholars found reason to doubt the single-author principle as long ago at the 11th Century.  I'm told that the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century was perhaps the first noteworthy person to say flat out that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.

Flash forward to the end of the 19th Century; we have a German "theologian" (heh!), Julius Wellhausen, who assembles the core of the "hypothesis" of which I speak.  Integrating the work of distinguished predecessors, Wellhausen allocates the authorship of the Pentateuch among four different authors, identified by convention as J, E, D and P.   From this, much follows: not only that the Pentateuch is the work of multiple hands (working at multiple times) but that the whole of the Bible is the accretion of work by countless contributors extending,  not incidentally, over a vast reach of time.

I lay these facts out in a tendentious manner to make an important point. Specifically, this is old news. The "documentary hypothesis" has been around for a century or more. It may have been radical in its time: Wellhausen was startled enough at his own insight that he resigned his academic chair of theology (he found employment elsewhere). But over time, the "documentary hypothesis" (allowing for differences in particulars) has become the very bedrock of received opinion among students of religion. Richard Elliott Friedman, perhaps its most visible modern expositor, says:

At present [sc. 1987], ... there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses--or by any one person. ...[T]he hypothesis ... continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it.

--Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible 28 (1987) 

So why am I spending energy on what is, by now, the religious equivalent of an ivy-covered monument?  Perhaps you anticipate me here: my point is that I suspect there are millions--literally--of self-professed Christians (and, I suspect also Jews, though I know less about them) who simply haven't got the word: who continue to believe, insofar as they consider the issue at all, that the Bible is a single self-contained immutable whole.  In other words, we have precisely the same discontinuity over the Bible that we see in politics over evolution and global warming: "respectable" scholarship on one side, the mass of believers on the other.

There is of course at least one notable difference between the discontinuity over Biblical authorship and that over evolution or global warming.  That is: over Biblical authorship, the flames have never glowed so brightly as they do over evolution and global warming.  Well: in the early days, proponents of the new view met resistance: there were heresy trials, people were stripped of employment and suchlike. But no one was  burned at the stake (okay, I grant that nobody has been burned at the stake over Darwinism either, though over global warming, I suppose you could say we are all at risk).  

Not exactly sure why we've had so little uproar over the authorship issue.  My impression is that the job of a professor of theology is to try to let the students down easy, to try to introduce them to the adult world without too abrupt a shock.  Aside from that, I take it neither side has any strong incentive to tell the masses; theology is not, at the end of the day, all that important.

Mainstreaming Climate Skepticism

Full confession: I still don't think I'm competent to make an independent judgment on whether Global Warming is real or bogus. I do know when you lose boring-centrist-PBS-talking-head types, you've--well, maybe not lost the war, but still been thrown back a zillion yards behind the line of scrimmage:

The Death of Global Warming

The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.

The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics. ...

That's the ever-so-respectable Walter Russell Mead in the usually-pretty-sane American Interest. Don't misread it: Mead is not a denier. When he says "bad science and bad politics.," what he really means is "bad politics." He says:

The urge to make the data better than it was didn’t just come out of nowhere. The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources — was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it was a conscious political strategy.