The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

Thirith on 24/1/2007 at 11:20

Some of it is also straight forward narrative. Just because it's part of the story being told doesn't mean that anyone should read it as a model of how to behave. There's a clear difference in genre between passages such as the one you allude to, Stronts, and, say, the ten commandments or a fair number of statements made by Jesus. Most mythologies, folkloristic narratives and histories contain morally offensive stories. Do you criticise Greek mythology for all the incest, rape and family murders?

I had exactly the same objections as you seem to have here when it comes to much of the Old Testament. It's only after I actually read more of it and tried to divorce my reading from any bias (the Old Testament portrays God as eeeeevil) or expectation (everything in the Bible pretends to be there as obvious moral lecturing) that I realised they were based much more in whatever rubbish many people say about the bible (and that's both Christians and non-Christians) than in the actual text. Mind you, all of this was before I decided to explore faith as anything else that an intellectual conundrum.

P.S.: There's still enough in the text concerning God as an entity and as moral being that is problematic and worthy of discussion, even when you're fair to the text. It's just a bit pointless to criticise a text for something if that's not what the text is about. (You wouldn't say that Tolkien is crap because there aren't enough space battles and Transformers...)

SD on 24/1/2007 at 11:58

Quote Posted by Thirith

Y'see, that's just it. There is no distinction. It's just all there, and we're supposed to work out for ourselves what bits are parable or allegory, what bits are straightforward stories with no underlying message and what bits are DO THIS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

I mean, who's to say that I shouldn't interpret that passage as "Sacrifice your womenfolk to stop your male friends from being bumraped"? It's not like the Bible comes with Cliffs Notes. God might be the most powerful being in the universe, but he's a fucking horrible writer.

Quote:

Do you criticise Greek mythology for all the incest, rape and family murders?

Anthologies of Greek myths aren't generally advertised as handbooks for how to life your life though.

Convict on 24/1/2007 at 12:33

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

That's right. The Crusades were nice christian folk saving us from the scary muslim horde. History books are available from the shops.

Quote Posted by The Australian

Richard Owen, Rome
March 21, 2006

THE Vatican has moved to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the "noble aim" of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.

The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day "jihad against the Jews and Crusaders".

The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim-Christian reconciliation by asking "pardon" for the Crusades during the 2000 millennium celebrations. But John Paul's apologies for the past "errors of the church" -- including the Inquisition and anti-semitism -- irritated some Vatican conservatives.

According to insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey's Muslim culture is at variance with Europe's Christian roots.

At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Italian historian Roberto De Mattei recalled that the Crusades were "a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places".

Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 helped provoke the first Crusade, called by Pope Urban II at the end of the 11th century. He said the Crusaders were "martyrs" who "sacrificed their lives for the faith".

He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades "do not know their history". He attacked Ridley Scott's recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as "utter nonsense".

Professor Riley-Smith said the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was "historically inaccurate". "It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality." It fuelled Islamic fundamentalism by propagating "bin Laden's version of history".

He said the Crusaders were at times undisciplined and capable of great cruelty but the same was true of Muslims and troops in "all ideological wars".

American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West, as well as the Arab world, that the Crusades were "an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world". In reality, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.

5 char.

Thirith on 24/1/2007 at 13:17

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Quote:

Anthologies of Greek myths aren't generally advertised as handbooks for how to life your life though.

Thing is, I do think the text signals (most of the time) what should be read as what. The Ten Commandments signal, by means of their name and by means of their transmission, that they're Commandments, i.e. they're moral instructions. Christ's parables are clearly examples of moral teaching by means of allegory. And much of the Old Testament is clearly history. (You say yourself that you haven't read much of the bible - well, you need to do more than that in order to make valid, informed and intelligent statements about whether the book allows you to make the distinctions you mention.)

By and large, people nowadays don't have very good reading skills. They don't get implication; they don't get genre (and genre conventions); they don't get metaphor or irony (if you leave out the emoticons) or other ways of making non-literal statements. That is true for Christians as much as for atheists or Muslims or whoever.

As fett said (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting him here), the bible as a whole is a collection of very different texts. It's not The Good Life for Dummies. Anyone who claims so is ignorant. As such, your criticism stands, but as far as I'm concerns it's valid criticism of ignorant Christians and their reductive readings of the bible, not of the book itself.

You can blame people for being bad readers. You can blame the bible for being (overly) complex and requiring intelligence and reading skills, and once that's established you can definitely criticise lots of other things. Blaming a book for its worst readers doesn't make much sense to me, frankly.

ilweran on 24/1/2007 at 13:33

Quote Posted by Uranium - 235

Religion is fundamentally based on the mantra of 'ignorance is bliss'.

Maybe these days that's true of the major religions now, but isn't it generally thought that religions started out as a way of explaining the world?

The problem is that people stick to rules long after their usefulness has ceased- dietary restrictions are a good example. Very helpful when you don't have a fridge, less necessary these days.

That's why even though I was brought up christian I'm now pagan. Even if I did decide I was atheist I wouldn't automatically have to give up my religion unless I wanted to :cheeky:

fett on 24/1/2007 at 13:54

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Stronts -there's a strong distinction. It doesn't jump back and forth every few verses. Jews (and even christians) learn very early on what those distinctions are, yet for some reason, critics continually ignore them - thus producing the strawman argument you're presenting right now.

The Jewish scriptures (OT) are divided into three catagories:

1) Law/history: Genesis - Esther. These are laws or straight forward narratives. Each section denotes which it is by a comment such as 'this is the law given to _________' or 'this is the genealogy (read:history) of ______________.' It's self-explanatory if you read it. So if some guy gives his daughter to a mob to be gang-raped, it's not an instruction, it's a narrative. History supposedly records what actually happens, both good and bad. The Bible does not automatically endorse everything it reports (and neither does any other book). Now - if it said, 'this is the law given to_______ at the beginning of the section, then instructed you to let your daughter be gang raped, there would be an obvious problem. But you won't find anything like that if you read it.

2) Poetry: Job - Song of Solomon. Allegory, figurative language, songs; in other words - literary license given to exaggerate and say things that are neither true history or doctrine.

3) Isaiah - Malachi: Prophecy - and clearly stated to be such ('this is the vision given to _________') near the beginning of each book. Daniel is an odd one because the first half is history, the second half is prophecy, but the division is clearly stated and marked in the text.

The Jews called the scripture the 'TaNaK' - T, N, and K, being the first letters in Hebrew for 'Law', 'Writings' and 'Prophets'.

Each section is interpreted according to the intention of that section - just like when you read the newspaper, or any other literature that is a combination of books or types of writing. Granted, there are a few sections that may include a bit of something else, but it's it stated within the text. There is no room for confusion if you read the whole thing and not just the bits and pieces you pull out to criticize. Your example of Lot giving offering his daughters to be raped is perfect. If you read the entire narrative, it's recording the events that took place in Sodom a 'wicked' place - so wicked in fact that a good man like Lot had been corrupted by it. It also makes the point that even good men have cultural blind spots (i.e. 'women are property') but that doesn't exempt them from a higher moral accountability. Lot fails the test. The Bible isn't championing this - it's reporting it, and like most literature, credits the reader with enough brains to realize that. But when you pull out a single verse or passage, ascribe god's acquiescence to it, then argue that the bible is green-lighting gang rape, you've demonstrated (especially to christians) that you don't have an objective viewpoint (again - the hallmark of atheism), because you don't treat any other piece of literature that way. You read novels and textbooks from beginning to end so you don't screw up the context. Right? Why should the bible be any different? To expect it to be because 'it's the word of god' is a cop-out on both sides because it ignores the bible's stated identity as both divine and human. It's almost as if you expect to open it to any random passage and magically receive some profound instruction for how to live. It doesn't work that way, and says so itself (Isaiah says it must be processed 'line by line, precept upon precept' - just like any other collection of information that has a human element to it...).

The issue here is that you're ignoring the human aspect to the Bible - context is everything (isn't it that way with any type of communication). The fact that some claim it to be 'god's word' doesn't exempt it from the rules governing all literature, and most christians understand this.

the_grip on 24/1/2007 at 15:09

Quote Posted by Uranium - 235

First I will say 'shame on you'. You are deriving your idea of this book from a wikipedia article, and I hope I'm not the first to tell you that 'neutrality' on Wikipedia is a foreign concept when it comes to religion. Last I checked, the 'History of Christianity' article had three sentences written about Christian persecution, and an entire section describing how hard Christians have it. So your first mistake is lambasting a book based on what a handful of total strangers paraphrased it into.

Uranium,

i was not trying to say the Wiki explained the book accurately or in a fair manner - that's why i asked if STD would clarify those points. If you look at the Wiki, it lists a fair number of magazine, etc. critics at the bottom (which i made mention of) plus provides some quotes out of the book (which i also made mention of). i was simply probing to see if this book is worth my time.

You're also certainly free to feel that "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to religion, and that's fine and dandy by me. i don't ask you to blindly accept any idea of a god nor do i claim to be able to prove His existence. My point was that this book *appears* to be aimed at a particular group of folks who are as red-faced sounding as is Dawkins - just on the other side. The majority of Christians i know don't walk around trying to prove God's existence in a scientific or philosophical argument nor do they expect folks to line up and blindly believe what they think. i don't presume to prove God in a scientific manner, and i don't want a burden of proof to do so. If someone wants to find out if God is real, then i leave that up to them and God. i'm happy to answer questions or talk about stuff, but i don't claim to have some empirical study that will prove/disprove the existence of God. It's like gravity - if gravity is such a powerful force, why can i jump in the air? Does that mean gravity is not powerful? No, it just means that i don't understand all of its workings, and i can say "Ooh, wow" to things like the M-Theory and agree to them - but i can't prove them (okay, to be fair, someone else who is insanely smarter than i am can prove it, but i don't have to have it proven to say, "Yes, that could be reasonable" - that's my point).

However, if someone wants to come along and claim that Christianity is "mental abuse" for children, that anyone who is religious is necessarily deluded or ignorant, etc., then i do raise an eyebrow because it is insulting and demeaning. Have i offended Dawkins in some way? No - he just has a bone to pick, and that's fine. i just find it distasteful and undermining his case when the insults roll out (which is unfortunate because i find the overall topic interesting).

That said, such insults and generalizations for the most part come from ill presented arguments, misinformation, or lack of understanding - just as it does when some redfaced nut stands on a college campus with a washboard claiming everyone is going to hell unless they agree with his take on things. i don't know if Dawkins's book is ill presented or has misinformation, but, from the surface, things don't look promising (which again is why i asked STD if that is the case).

Quote:

why was 'Genesis' considered the literal sequence of events?

Are you referring to modern Amercian good-'ol-boy God-a'fearin' folk, or are you talking about historic Christianity? i won't defend the former (since i don't pretend to even agree with that stance), but, if you are referring to the latter, then it really is too broad a question to answer. In a nutshell, i could say that it provided something that people with less scientific development could understand, but there is not anything in historic Christianity which would dispute evolution being a plausable method of how things came to be or the like.

Quote:

Atheism is about free-thinking. It is NOT just about worshiping science.

Agreed.

Quote:

For example, we KNOW that almost the entire Old Testament is fiction. We KNOW that many parts of the New Testament are fiction.

Sources? i'm not necessarily disputing what you are saying here, but it is such a broad generalization that i can't comment. For example, yes there are some things in the Old Testament that very well could be fiction (Job, Jonah, etc.), but they don't have to be 100% historical truth - they are not meant as history. i'm sure you are referring to material beyond that, but it's hard to address a generalization without specifics. Scholars, both Christian, Athiest, Muslim, or what have you, devote their entire careers to studying this stuff, and most come out saying, "There is some history here, and there is some bias from the authors." i would agree with that sentiment - mainly because i'm not concerned about the Bible being a history textbook (it isn't meant to be understood that way).

Quote:

If we assume that X% of the Bible is fiction, why should we assume that ANY of it isn't fiction?

Simply because the rules of logic don't let you do that. i can't say, "Some Muslims are violent, thus all Muslims must be violent."

Quote:

Unfortunately most of the passages that are in direct contradiction with everything we know about physics have absolutely no metaphorical interpretation. "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]". How is THAT a metaphor?

The whole jig about God creating everything out of nothing is the point of Genesis 1, and you are right - that part is not metaphor. However, it doesn't say *how* that happened in a scientific sense, so i presume it could have happened with a Big Bang or however else things came to be. i don't know that this necessarily contradicts physics - there is no scientific "how" being brought to bear in Genesis 1.

Quote:

Assuming that the Bible is actually the 'word of god', why would he have his book written in such a way that can be interpreted so wildly?

Wildly? Can you be more specific?

Quote:

How come, for the last 1,900+ years, has the Bible been interpreted literally, and only recently is a metaphorical basis coming forward?

i think you would be surprised if you read some ancient Christian writers. Augustine, Origen, St. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc. They will treat the Bible as Christian truth, but they won't treat it like a modern fundie literalist.

Quote:

And once again, if X% of the Bible is 'metaphorical', then how do we know that ANY of it is literal? How do you know that Jesus (of which, I should add, for being such a significant person, there is disturbingly little third-party historic documentation about) is not just a metaphor?

On Jesus, there is quite a bit of third party evidence - it just depends on what you are looking for. There are a great many writers in the ancient world who look at Jesus as a historical figure: i.e. the early Christian writers, early Gnostic writers, historians (i.e. Josephus, Eusebius, etc.). There is some historical information that exists as well, but, to be fair, much of it is drawn inferentially. Supposedly there is a Roman record somewhere that records the crucifixion of someone who is most likely Jesus, but i'd have to try and look that up if you want to see it.

Quote:

Why do parts of the Bible suddenly become 'metaphorical' once they're proven wrong?

i don't think things are necessarily proven "wrong" - for example, Genesis 1 and 2 were read as historically accurate when even scientists thought the world was only a few thousand years old. To parallel, less than 200 years ago scientists surmised that the sun burned coal to maintain its energy... they were wrong about the "how", but they still new the sun was burning. In a similar vein, it is only fair to treat people in history with the means and understanding that had available to them.

Quote:

How many Christians believe that Jesus was actually born on December 25th (the same exact day that Pagans held their Winter Solstice celebration on the Roman calender)?

How is this relevant? Maybe some do, maybe some don't - i have no idea.

Yours,
the_grip

the_grip on 24/1/2007 at 15:14

STD,

Quote:

Y'see, that's just it. There is no distinction. It's just all there, and we're supposed to work out for ourselves what bits are parable or allegory, what bits are straightforward stories with no underlying message and what bits are DO THIS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

I mean, who's to say that I shouldn't interpret that passage as "Sacrifice your womenfolk to stop your male friends from being bumraped"? It's not like the Bible comes with Cliffs Notes. God might be the most powerful being in the universe, but he's a fucking horrible writer.

Not to butt in, but i do agree with you to some extent here. There have definitely been quite a few folks, especially in the modern US, who have taken their interpretation of the Bible and run with it (even though there is explicit language in the Bible prohibiting that). All kinds of moralisms and reactionary stuff comes out of that, but that stuff stems from 19th century culture and thinking (all of the modern religions - Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. come out of the same period - not coincedentally).

From a Catholic perspective, the Bible is part of the voice of Christianity throughout the ages - indeed, it is the account of God's dealings with man, His expectations of us, how we should treat each other, etc. etc. In a nutshell, Christianinty considers it God's revelation to man. It is therefore the heirloom of the Church (from a religious perspective) and is meant to be understood in light of Christian tradition - not understood by some Joe Blow who picks it up and starts some fanatical line of thinking based around a few verses he/she read.

Anyways, hope that helps clarify where i'm coming from at least.

jay pettitt on 24/1/2007 at 15:22

Quote Posted by "fett"

idiot

You'll note (upon reading my offending post and the post immediately before to which I was replying) that I made no attempt to describe the events of 100 years of crusades. I merely suggested someone reads up on the subject for a better understanding of why it's not unreasonable for Dawkins to refer to historical events when criticising the effects of religion and dogma.

Neither did I make a claim to statistics, bring up the subject of parenting or even use the word 'stuff'. Ok, I did use the word stuff. So the things you wrote were more than stuff? Apologies if I offended your ego.

What is your point again?

The Alchemist on 24/1/2007 at 15:56

Quote:

However, if someone wants to come along and claim that Christianity is "mental abuse" for children, that anyone who is religious is necessarily deluded or ignorant, etc., then i do raise an eyebrow because it is insulting and demeaning.

No, that's not at all the point. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on camp with the atheists, I'm agnostic, but I was raised by a very devote Catholic hispanic family. I was taken to church as a kid every day and taught that I was doing wrong if I didn't go and didn't live the catholic life style. I'm not about to fling statistics out of my ass (cause you know 70% of statistics are made up etc) but you can come to a very easy and logical conclusion that the majority of kids who grow up with families like that are going to remain Catholic. That's what they've learned, that's what their family does. And going against this isnt easy, weather your family is tolerant or not, this is what they obviously think is right because this is what they're pressing on you, so it's not easy to rebel against that and that stems the roots of belief. They are filled with a love and belief in God from an early age and that is very hard to discard. I do understand that as we grow older our religious beliefs change, such as mine have. I used to be atheist but as I grew older and questioned my beliefs (or lack there of) and the beliefs of others I've gone through several reconsiderations and solidifications. Whenever I am to raise children I intend to raise them with open minds, to teach them about all the religions of the world, and to explain to them my beliefs that God is undefinable, improvable, and likely a concept beyond the abilities of our minds. To me, my understanding of God makes the most sense due to the multiplicities of definitions of God in the hundreds of religions that exist, and while I do not believe in a creator entity, infinite regression in the understanding of the universe shows me that I cannot, as a scientifically inclined mind, deny the possibility that at some point in the ladder there will be (and already are) questions unanswerable, and concepts undefinable, and therein lies God. The atheists will come to claim that this is a mechanism of using God as a trump card for ignorance, but that is not at all what I meant, so don't bother.