I don’t like “piggy-backing” on someone else’s post, but doing so in this case permits me to say something about the author of the post that prompts this one. Jerry Coyne has just put up a post about the Bible. In “The Bible is Boring and Insipid” — as it often is — Jerry tells us about his latest “religious” project: to read the Bible straight through. It’s not a labour of love, and, as anyone who has done this knows, it can be almost stultifyingly dull — and not only in the “begats” either. As Jerry points out, the parts where the priestly author spends so much time describing the construction of the Tabernacle — which is to house the Ark of the Covenant (which is also described in tedious detail) — is anal as well as banal — and unintelligible too, if it is thought to come from a transcendent being. As Jerry says:
I don’t get this at all. He’s GOD, for crying out loud: omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. Why the hell does he need people to praise him all the time, and why does he kill those who fail to do so? If he’s perfect, he wouldn’t need that kind of constant reinforcement. For example, some of the Israelis [Israelites?], wandering in the desert, are getting sick of eating manna all the time, and kvetch about not having meat. So what does God do? He makes it rain quails—thousands of luscious birds falling from the sky. And then, when the people bite into those toothsome birds, God smites them with the plague for their lust, killing many of them. What? They deserve to die because they want some real food?
The point, however, is that Jerry is actually doing this. Atheists are so often accused of knowing nothing about religion or theology, but the truth is that many serious atheists do try to find out about religious teachings, and Jerry Coyne is one who takes this seriously as an obligation. If you’re going to criticise something, and dismiss the entire premise of that thing, then you have some responsibility to do your homework. No one can say that Jerry Coyne doesn’t do this. He reads much more theology now than I do, and his latest project — will he persevere to the end, I wonder? — while obviously an onerous labour, has already produced good things.
However, while I am ”piggy-backing” on a Why Evolution is True post, I’ve also had the intention of putting up something about the Bible over the last few weeks, ever since Richard Dawkins defended the Education Secretary’s (Michael Gove’s) decision to send free King James Bibles to every school in Britain. In an article in the Observer entitled “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible,” Dawkins says:
I am a little shocked at the implication that not every school library already possesses a copy. Can that be true? What do they have, then? Harry Potter? Vampires? Or do they prefer one of those modern translations in which “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity” is lyrically rendered as “Perfectly pointless, says the Teacher. Everything is pointless”? That is Ecclesiastes, 1:2, as you’ll find it in the Common English Bible. And you can’t get much more common than that, although admittedly the God’s Word translation provides stiff competition with “absolutely pointless” and the Good News Bible challenges strongly with “useless, useless”.
As Robin McKie (the Guardian science editor) says — obviously a bit surprised by Dawkins’ decision to back Gove’s decision:
Church leaders have approved, but the plan has fallen foul of most non-believers. An online Guardian poll showed an 82% opposition, while the National Secular Society said the £375,000 proposal wasted money and favoured Christianity in multi-faith state schools.
That ”multi-faith state schools” is a bit of a surprise. Wouldn’t “secular state schools” be better? There are lots of “faith-based” state-funded schools in Britain, and those which are not faith-based take children from homes where different faiths are honoured and passed on, but also from secular homes, where religious belief is neither honoured nor taught.
Besides, despite Dawkins’ rhapsody over some of the lyrical and expressive language of the King James Bible, much of that lyricism is spent on palpably tedious and rebarbative text. It may be important, in order to understand much English literature (at least until the present), to have some familiarity with the English Bible, but surely this could be done without suggesting that the whole thing, from cover to cover, needs to be read. Some of the texts, such as Ecclesiastes or Job or the Song of Songs, should be read, no doubt, for these are texts which have resonance whatever your religious beliefs or lack of them. But much of the Bible is simply mind-numbingly boring, as Jerry Coyne points out. As for literary allusions, it would probably be better to have people learn them by reading the literature in which the allusions are made, and have them pointed out and explained. English culture may have been marinated in the English Bible, but should this continue? And, more importantly, should this continue by the reading a book (whether enforced or just recommended) in which the sacred text of Christians is given to children in the form of precisely this collection of books within the same covers — especially if, as is almost surely the case, the title is given as the “Holy Bible”?
There is another problem with the King James Bible. It is true that the language is often poetic and moving; but it is also true that the prose style is the same throughout. It does not reflect the style of the original. Some of the “books” of the Bible are written in graceful, literate Hebrew and Greek, some of it is unschooled and vulgar. In the English text, however, it all sounds the same, and it is this very sameness that gives the Bible its distinctiveness, and separates it from other works of literature. The style itself may be thought to give the Bible a kind of pious haze, and so, by style alone, to make it seem holy, set apart and distinct. The same is true of the Qu’ran, which, for similar reasons, is not held to be translatable. A translation of the Qu’ran is not the Qu’ran, just as many people think that the English Bible is not really the Bible, unless it has the penumbra of holiness that centuries of repetition in the English of the early seventeenth century has given it. And I have been told that even this is not true, and that the English of the King James Bible was deliberately written in an artificially archaic style precisely to give it, from the beginning, the appearance of being unique, set apart, holy.
So, when Dawkins writes, in his Observer article, about the wealth of literary allusion in the Bible (or, more properly, texts in the Bible to which literary allusion has been made), the question surely arises whether reading the Bible itself a necessary exercise in order to know this:
Ecclesiastes, in the 1611 translation, is one of the glories of English literature (I’m told it’s pretty good in the original Hebrew, too). The whole King James Bible is littered with literary allusions, almost as many as Shakespeare (to quote that distinguished authority Anon, the trouble with Hamlet is it’s so full of clichées [sic; participe passé féminin pluriel du verbe clicher]). In The God Delusion I have a section called “Religious education as a part of literary culture” in which I list 129 biblical phrases which any cultivated English speaker will instantly recognise and many use without knowing their provenance: the salt of the earth; go the extra mile; I wash my hands of it; filthy lucre; through a glass darkly; wolf in sheep’s clothing; hide your light under a bushel; no peace for the wicked; how are the mighty fallen.
Of course, it may be true that English would be the poorer for it, were it to lack its biblical clichés, but when he complains (in the quote above) about the Ecclesiastes phrase, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, saith the Preacher,” being translated into contemporary prose in terms of ‘uselessness’ — although ‘pointlessness’ or ‘emptiness’ or ‘meaninglessness’ might be closer to the original meaning — and more evocative for us too? – is something lost or gained? It is not obvious to me that losing the King James language here would be a great loss, though the passage “To everything there is a season …” (Ecclesiastes 3.1 et seq.) is still very evocative. But is it evocative, I wonder, because that’s the way I first heard it, or because modern English cannot achieve such lyrical prose?
Dawkins adds to this that:
A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian. [my italics]
And that is no doubt true, but surely entire Bibles are not necessary for the purpose, and the only purpose served by the distribution of Bibles to schools, King James or otherwise, is to enforce precisely the point that the churches were so happy to support: that this text is somehow distinctive, special, and should form, not only the literary, but also the moral foundation of people’s lives. And this is where supporting the distribution of Bibles is deeply ambiguous. Sir Ian McKellan, the great English actor, whose Lear I was watching last night, takes some justified pleasure in tearing out the pages from hotel Gideon Bibles where homosexuality is condemned as an abomination, the penalty for which is death:
But this is not the only part of the Bible which should be ripped out. (I have occasionally removed Gideon Bibles entire, and thrown them in the trash.) There is, first, the division into Old and New Testaments (in the Christian Bible), which is inherently antisemitic, but many passages in the New Testament which are explicitly and damagingly antisemitic — as well as many other things. There is the misogyny, the genocides, the justification and support of slavery, the questionable morality of obedience, the commendation of faith without evidence (as in “doubting Thomas”), the apocalyptic vision of vengeance in the book of Revelation (or the Apocalypse) — which, whether meant to comfort persecuted Christians or not, is a nightmare that some Christians still anticipate with cruel joy, however evocative the description of the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” may be. Watch it if you have the stomach for it (I couldn’t make it all the way through). The text read in the video is printed below it on youtube:
So, here’s the problem. The Bible is not only boring and tedious in places, the Bible is often deeply immoral, an immorality that underlies so much violence and hatred, misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism, that putting such texts into the hands of children is not something to be welcomed or endorsed. It should be opposed. If understanding English literature, or the source of some English expressions, depends on some knowledge of the Bible, it is not necessary to go through the mind-numbing task of reading the Bible itself, straight through or otherwise, nor to be presented with it in its Christian form, with the aura of sanctity which will accompany it in many contexts. A few important texts might be provided, accompanied by some instruction on the part these texts have played in literature in English. Northrup Frye’s The Great Code would be a good place to begin. However, it also needs to be added that literature in English now extends far beyond the bounds of people whose literary debts include the English Bible — to Salman Rushdie, whose fiction owes much more to Islam than to Christianity, or Chinua Achebe, the great Nigerian novelist and critic, whose debts are as much to the oral tradition of the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, as to Christianity. While it is important to be aware of these debts, it is not necessary to read through the Bible to learn about them, and, while I understand Dawkins’ concern, there are considerable dangers in suggesting that putting the English Bible into the hands of children is a salutary thing to do.
It’s not so much that the Bible is great literature – it’s more that if you want to understand great literature, the Bible is something you’re stuck with.
We need some good literary guides to the Bible, for those who want to brush up on it for the purpose of enhancing their literary critical powers. There’s this, but it appears to take a theological approach rather than being a guide written by a literary critic for critical understanding.
“multi-faith state schools” is more accurate than “secular”. The law states “…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.”
http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights
It is incredible that this is the same Michael Gove who wrote Celcius 7/7.
I for one think that cover to cover reading of the Bible should be encouraged. Admittedly it is an onerous task, a daunting challenge. If you are a believer, the chances are that you will come out of the experience as an atheist or agnostic. If you are an atheist, you will have one up on the door-step missionaries, ask them if they have read it, then tell them to eff off and only come back when they have.
My favorite passage is Ecclesiastes Ch. 9 Vs. 4-10. There is no afterlife, you get one life only, so live it to the full.
Stonyground, I agree with your sentiments, but I don’t think it should be placed into the hands of schoolchilren, where it can be so easily used as Christian propaganda, and besides has so many bad moral lessons for them to learn. Before recommending its use in schools, people should read the damn thing, and realise that it is a collection of very variable quality, both aesthetic and moral, and is not, and should not be used, for children’s education, except in so far as it used purely as a reference to explain various features of English literature and history. I think the whole of Ecclesiastes and Job may be usefully read, but if Job is read it has to be pointed out how unsatisfactory is the response of God in the great theophany towards the end, when he challenges Job to say whether he was there when he — god — created the wild asses, and so on.
If Dawkins doesn’t like the RSV, I wonder what he would make of the Lolcat Bible:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
or the Lego Bible:
http://thebrickbible.com/
Perhaps these would be acceptable substitutes.
@“many serious atheists do try to find out about religious teachings, and Jerry Coyne is one who takes this seriously as an obligation”
Why do they I wonder? Why did I when I was atheist? I can’t imagine now what was to be gained? Probably I was looking to find out why some people believed in a God. I doubt you’ll find the answer to that in the bible.
I hired three acrow props last week to use in replacing some sagging joists that are holding up my ex’s 500 gallon water tank. To get the new steel joists in place I need to raise the bottom of the tank about 4“. Even though I waited til the tank was emptied down to its outlet vent there’s still plenty of weight in it and I found the handle on one of the props was starting to bend as I screwed it up to try to raise the sagging structure.
Why don’t they make them with heavier gauge handles? I guess because they’re not really meant to be used as jacks.
When I go back to it today I’ll use a car jack with a 3m length of 4×2 to jack it into position, and then screw up the props to hold it there while I slide the new joists in. Used that way the acrow prop is a more than useful tool.
To say that the bible has been a more than useful tool for me in the 7 years since I “discovered” God would be an understatement. As I pointed out a few days ago, it’s chocful of clues regarding His nature and what His purpose was in creating our universe.
Living as we do 2000 years after Jesus’ time – Jesus who I believe, yes based on bible evidence, was the human that God became as part of his grand plan – it’s the ONLY source of clues left when you find yourself at this stage of the search. It’s an invaluable link to the past, to Jesus’ lifetime and before.
If you don’t believe any of that stuff then it’s not an enjoyable read nor a productive one. It may seem to an atheist to provide a lot of ammunition for debating theists, but a theist reads it with a completely different mindset. You seem to think we’re like atheists but with defective brains and bad information, but the difference goes much deeper. It’s really pointless revealing to theists the anomalies you see there; to people who believe in the existence and goodness of God they are quite explainable and not at all faith-threatening. I realize this makes us contemptible to many of you – if it doesn’t then you’re nicer people than I was back then, BC – but that’s the way it is.
In my opinion Jerry Coyne is wasting his time. I only made it to half-way through Leviticus my first time. Which was ironic when it later occurred to me what God was really getting at in those first 9 boring chapters. It was, is, an astonishing warning as to what lay ahead for those Israelites, and what awaits us, and a giant clue to the purpose of our life in this realm. But don’t let me spoil it for you
@“his latest “religious” project: to read the Bible straight through…..as anyone who has done this knows, it can be almost stultifyingly dull……much of the Bible is simply mind-numbingly boring”
Exactly. And the acrow prop is a useless piece of junk. When you use it as a jack.
My husband heard a radio interview with the head-teacher of one of the schools who had already received one of these “special government endorsed” bibles and she was apparently mystified as to why they would waste money on something that her school already owned. The government endorsed bible was apparently a gilt-edged, somewhat special-seeming thing, so she showed it to her pupils during an assembly and they gave the requisite “aahhhs” and then it was, apparently, locked in a display case. If her pupils wanted to read the bible then there were many others available.
I found the whole giving out of bibles thing rather bizarre, and Richard Dawkins response was also unnecessary. The bible may have some great lines in it, as do Shakespeare’s plays – but Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, Joss Whedon, Terry Pratchett, etc have also written some great phrases and/or lines that have become part of the vernacular. We don’t need to know where a phrase comes from to understand its meaning*.
* except for 42.
I need not be a car mechanic to appriciate the science of cars, I can observe results. Perhaps the mechanic has a greater appreciation than I do, but the deeper understanding is not a mandatory requirement for recognizing a disipline’s merits. The results can inform a layperson quite well. I can look to Christianity’s legacy and know that a complete knowledge of the Bible is likely not all that useful as a guide to living my life.
I would not choose to “remove” anything from the Bible, it should all stay for historical context, then be considered on its merits piece by piece. Children probably should have greater context in reading it, the raw copy is often too immoral and tedious for modern people to get much from at any age, much less a developing age.
Interesting video – Peter Jackson could have done something better with it though!
Saviourb..you seem to be saying that only believers can truly understand the Bible properly. That sounds like a cop out to me. It is rather like the story in the gospels where the disciples ask Jesus why he teaches in parables, but only explains the true meaning in private to his disciples. Jesus tells them that it is so those who hear will not understand, which seems somewhat perverse to me. Believers have always used a version of this to explain why others remain non believers – that it is because we do not understand, and if we did we would believe.
Christians who stop believing are often told that they were never true believers in the first place. Growing up in a religious household, I was often told that questioning the faith or the Scriptures was a mark of spiritual pride and rebellion against God. It is a useful lie for parents and others who have a vested interest in remaining believers, but it is a lie nevertheless. Reading the Bible “through the eyes of faith” is to read it just subjectively, while holding your critical faculties at bay.
Have you read the Koran, or the Bhagvad? The Book of Mormon or any of the Sutras? Any of the Chinese texts? These are sacred texts too. On what grounds do you regard the Bible as particularly special?
Believers never apply the same critical tests to their own religious texts that they do to other religious texts – they ringfence them – for obvious reasons. Take away the ringfence of faith away from the Bible and read it like you would any other text and it quickly becomes apparent that this text is as flawed and human as any others. Some of it is sublme, and some of it is dull, and some of it is downright vile. No word of God here, just a mixed back of human creativity.
IS it that easy to “look to Christianity’s legacy” John?
I feel like a gate-crasher at an atheists’ convention but there’s something that needs to be pointed out. Atheism defenders like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and others consistently base their case for the non-existence of God on the “legacy of Christianity”, meaning the atrocities that various religious organisations have committed in the past and their impossible-to-defend excesses and ridiculous doctrines that they still embrace today.
Eric and others on this site have objected to my defining Christianity to suit my own view, i.e. as followers of Christ, people sincerely devoted to Jesus and his teachings. I take their point that there are numerous ills that arise from the doctrines and activities of organisations that classify themselves as Christian and I’m not entitled to overlook their existence by tweaking the definition to exclude them.
Fine – let’s call the officials of these organisations Christians too. Is the value of the bible to humanity necessarily undermined by the human corruption and fallibility found amongst the cardinals and bishops and the televangelists? Does their existence make God’s existence less believable?
I would contend that it’s the selfless and loving acts of Christians, however defined, that stem from Christ and his influence. Their ignorant, misguided doctrines, such as the Catholic views on euthanasia, Eric’s particular bone of contention, and the cruel, stupid discrimination against homosexuals, do not come from Jesus’ teachings.
I sympathise completely with those who get nothing out of reading the bible. It’s not for everyone. But those of us who are genuine followers of Jesus appreciate it in a way that atheists cannot imagine. Atheists are not able to relate to this and that’s OK, it’s totally understandable. I don’t believe it makes a lot of sense to denigrate our book when coming from an atheist perspective; the bible would seem to be an irrelevance to someone who believes that God does not exist.
Sorry Mike I sent that last post before I saw yours come in.
I’m going to have a bath and some dinner. Later.
Antonio…. I’m glad you’ve changed your internet “handle”. Save your breath was both, from a Christian point of view, bordering on blasphemy, and also arrogant and preemptive.
“Eric’s particular bone of contention” (as you put it) is indeed the Catholic (and other Christian — almost universal) “views on euthanasia” (as you put it), but it extends to so many other faults in belief and practice that it is hard to single out one, and say that that is my particular objection to Christianity. The purpose of this blog is, specifically, to respond to the religious obstruction of people’s right to die, but my concern about religious intrusion into the public square extends far beyond that.
As to the Bible, just saying as you do, that
Yes, and it is that appreciation that causes so much of the problem, because the Bible is not only contradictory, and contains, within itself, so much development (progression and regression) of moral view (and consequent contradiction) that the Bible can be used for practically any purpose at all, from condemning and victimising homosexuals to establishing hospitals for the indigent.
Even the devil can cite scripture to his purpose, as your namesake Antonio says about Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, himself using scripture to label the Jew Shylock the devil. And this problem doesn’t disappear by denominating a group of “genuine followers of Jesus.” Indeed, the supposed separation of the genuine from the ersatz is itself a source of moral failure amongst Christians. You may be convinced that you are a genuine follower, as opposed to those who are not, but those outsiders will no doubt consider themselves insiders in relation to you, and no one is further ahead.
Sacred texts are themselves at fault. The naming of a text holy, and setting apart from others, on no reasonable foundation at all is the source of great evil, for who is licensed to provide the true interpretation of the text? And why should we accept that person or institution as the only acceptable hermeutic source of truth about the Bible? Can you not see, take whatever comfort you like from the Bible, that your interpretation, on which your comfort is based, is as idiosyncratic and as fallible as anyone else’s? As questionable as the supposed Magisterium or teaching authority of the church, for no one can supply letters patent as to their presumptive right to be the interpreters of record for the text. So, your comfort, though possibly genuine, is based on nothing more than sheer fantasy. Those of us who seek to base our lives on a firmer foundation, must look elsewhere.
Hi Mike I’m back.
@”Saviourb..you seem to be saying that only believers can truly understand the Bible properly. “
Well Mike I guess it depends what’s meant by understand properly. A person may enjoy reading the bible, or at least parts of it, may get a benefit from it, may appreciate the educational aspect of it, without being a theist. I was overlooking that I must admit. Sorry.
I think I’m right in saying that I would get a different understanding of what it’s saying from what an atheist would get, in that when I read (reed) a text that on the surface portrays God as unloving or unjust then I look for another explanation.
I realize that that is totally unjustified according to normal ways of assessing evidence, but I freely admit that these days I come to it already “convinced” (I’ll explain that) that God is real, ultimately loving, ultimately just, and probably a few other things. So there is no way I will accept what may appear on the surface to suggest He is otherwise. I’ll see that as an anomaly and I love finding these when I’m reading it as it gives me something to delve into, on the assumption there’s something to be learned here.
Now I feel I should apologise to all the atheists reading this. It really is an outrageous thing to say, if you are used to reading such material in scientific mode. I’m sorry, that’s the way it is. I said above I’m “convinced” that God, as described, is real. By convinced I mean I believe it to be true without technically “knowing” it. My belief is strong enough to cause me to live as if I know it to be true.
@”that sounds like a cop out to me. “
No definitely not a cop out mate. If I don’t know something I’m happy to confess my ignorance. I have no reputation to protect.
@”It is rather like the story in the gospels where the disciples ask Jesus why he teaches in parables, but only explains the true meaning in private to his disciples. Jesus tells them that it is so those who hear will not understand, which seems somewhat perverse to me. “
Well that’s a good example we can have a look at.
The 12 in his inner circle of followers had reputedly left their jobs and devoted their lives to Jesus. In this chapter in Mark (was it ch.4? – yes I looked it up, it is) it starts by saying there was a great multitude present. Jesus appears to have been something of a sideshow, judging from the number of followers he attracted. A lot of them may have come for a free meal. Btaim it was a safe bet for the most part they weren’t true believers, fwoabd. So no way Jesus is going to hand them salvation on a platter. When you study the scriptures for a while you discover that a key part of God’s plan for us is that we make a contribution to our salvation, namely we exhibit a certain amount, initially a quite small amount, of faith, voluntarily.
And this is what Jesus is telling his 12 here.
@”Believers have always used a version of this to explain why others remain non believers – that it is because we do not understand, and if we did we would believe.
“
No, it’s because you choose skepticism and the coolness it implies, over sincere desire for the truth and the risk of embarrassment that brings.
Sorry – just calling it how I see it.
@”Christians who stop believing are often told that they were never true believers in the first place. Growing up in a religious household, I was often told that questioning the faith or the Scriptures was a mark of spiritual pride and rebellion against God. It is a useful lie for parents and others who have a vested interest in remaining believers, but it is a lie nevertheless.”
I didn’t know your parents Mike but it sounds like you’re on the money there.
I’m sure God loves us to question everything, that’s really what seeking Him entails – lots of questions. He says in Jeremiah 33:3 “Call unto me and I will answer thee and shew thee great and mighty things which thou knowest not.”
And (Jer. 29:13) “Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
@” Reading the Bible “through the eyes of faith” is to read it just subjectively, while holding your critical faculties at bay.”
Right I can see why you’d say that. You’re almost right, the difference is subtle. I hope what I said above covers it. Let me know if not.
@”Have you read the Koran, or the Bhagvad? The Book of Mormon or any of the Sutras? Any of the Chinese texts?”
I bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita but gave up on it before I got halfway. I did read all of Autobigraphy Of A Yogi a couple of times and then joined Qan Yin and became a devotee of Suma Qing Hai for 4 years before giving it away. I spent a couple of years reading every popular book on New Age pantheism I could find.
@”These are sacred texts too. On what grounds do you regard the Bible as particularly special?”
I can’t be sure, it was a long time ago, but i think it was related to those Jeremiah verses above. It was a lot of little things, I remember thinking a number of times I should keep a record of them, but I never got round to it.
Every morning after I decided to give Christian belief a go, i.e. believe that Jesus was a real person and was God, that the gospel stories were true. Every morning I’d wake up and lie in bed wondering if I was an idiot for spending time on this. And then I’d try asking God if He was real and to show me He was. And later that morning something would happen and I’d think, that might’ve been Him doing what I asked. It was never such a big thing that I’d believe 100% from then on. And it was never so small that I’d dismiss it as just a coincidence. This would happen at least once a day, and the feeling of confidence gradually grew in me. It was like 3 steps forward 2 steps back every day. Each morning I’d wake up less confident than when I went to bed, but usually slightly more or at least the same level as the morning before. Not always tho.
Often the response, if that’s what it was, was something He’d show me in the bible. That was pretty amazing. I could read a passage 2 or 3 times and not notice anything remarkable, and then, when it was time for an encouraging sign, I’d get a completely different take on what I was reading, which would dramatically alter my understanding of the passage.
I guess it was as I came to understand the gospels and Paul’s letters in this way that my faith grew. But there were minor miracles as well. Answers to prayer when I was in a tough or dangerous spot working on the farm or out fighting a fire. After a few months I had become quietly confident that God was looking out for me and this feeling has grown steadily til today I am convinced of it and really quite fearless. And that’s something I never was, all my life. I’d always been fearful, and especially fearful of revealing my timidity.
And at some point, or it might’ve been a progressive thing rather than a point, my appreciation of what i was reading in the bible just changed gear. When you start to grow in confidence of God’s presence the bible becomes something else. E.g. when people tell me they doubt its authenticity, or they’re sure it’s bogus, I just say inside – Nope, that ain’t right. Don’t ask me why, it’s just what I noticed happened to me. Like I said, Jeremiah 29:13
@”Believers never apply the same critical tests to their own religious texts that they do to other religious texts – they ringfence them – for obvious reasons.”
I admit when I started test-driving Christianity I put the other reading and meditation and toning and yoga etc on hold. And I just never got round to going back to it. My faith in the God of the bible just kept growing and today it wouldn’t make sense to me to be keeping any other options open. I’m very happy to stick with this.
@”Take away the ringfence of faith away from the Bible and read it like you would any other text and it quickly becomes apparent that this text is as flawed and human as any others.”
That just wouldn’t be possible for me to do now, except as a temporary academic exercise.
@”Some of it is sublime, and some of it is dull, and some of it is downright vile. No word of God here, just a mixed back of human creativity.”
What can I say? Nothing really. I suspect we all have to do it for ourselves.
Nice talking with you Mike.
Eric, hello. Yes I changed the handle in WordPress quite a while ago but it didn’t seem to take. “Saviourbreath” was like one of those humorous bumper stickers, mildly amusing the 1st 15 times you see it then more and more annoying. For some reason I got a message earlier today or maybe yesterday that said something like “you are logged in via WordPress as Antonio. Click on …. To log off or change”. And when I did neither it stayed as Antonio.
My name is Anthony Cook btw. I live in northern NSW in Australia.
Indeed I’ve been called arrogant by two of my ex-wives, the 1st and the 3rd (the last), the middle one was a treasure, I should’ve kept her. These days I’m a lot nicer ☺
It was actually you who got me thinking about the euthanasia question when I first came across your blog. When I first became a Christian I just assumed, without too much thought, it would be wrong, Exodus 20:13 and all. So thanks for drawing it to my attention. As I said before I’m very sorry for your grief and the loss of your wife. I was grief-stricken when my last wife left me, I know it would be much worse to have her die, and to go through what you and your wife had to.
Eric I really should go to bed, it’s 1am. When I get started on this topic I could go all night but I’ve got a few things to do in the morning so I’ll save the rest of this til tomorrow night. I look forward to dazzling you with my insights then.
Adios
Not unlike your stream of consciousness ramblings on what a true xtian actually is, minus the amusing part.
An operative definition of faith in general and your endlessly protean flavour de jour of xtianity specifically.
Quick, change the subject before he comes back…
I for one think that it would be good if a school library had a bible. And next to it there should be a Qur’an, the Vedas, the Tanakh, the Book of Mormon, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, Principia Discordia, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and perhaps a few others. Even if you never open them, I think seeing them all neatly arranged on one shelf next to each other should already provide a teachable moment.
Point taken Steve. And Egbert. Sorry for rabbiting on, I tend to forget myself when people ask me about my becoming a Christian. (Btw, I think it’s spelt with one “t” Steve – like Christmas?)
Thanks for reading what I wrote. I’ll try to keep it short from now on.
Alex I think that’s a good idea if that’s what the school is inclined to do. Kids would benefit from knowing where the school authorities stand on religion. It’s no secret that atheists regard the bible as nonsense and those who read it as mostly idiots. Where’s the harm?
Well, a lot of it IS nonsense.
Only those who read it thinking that it is somehow special/divine
antonio, I wish you would stop speaking about atheists as if they were a collective lump that all thought the same, and then lumping each of us here into that category. Not all atheists think the same. It would be like me lumping you together with Catholics.
That’s obviously right Egbert, I apologise. Was there a particular comment you’re alluding to or is it a general attitude?
As for Catholics, I didn’t mean to be offensive towards them, just to make it clear we differ in many areas of doctrine. But I guess there’s more that we agree on. I haven’t come across any denomination whose doctrines I completely agree with, that includes the two whose services I attend on saturdays and sundays.
Nobody asked.
Yes I’m afraid they did Steve. Mike asked me: “On what grounds do you regard the Bible as particularly special?”
I see that as a question about my becoming a Christian, given that the grounds he asked about were my becoming a Christian?
And Eric asked:
“Can you not see, take whatever comfort you like from the Bible, that your interpretation, on which your comfort is based, is as idiosyncratic and as fallible as anyone else’s?”
I think that’s also one since whether I can see or not see it is determined by whether I became a Christtian, oops, Christian.
Sorry Eric I did write a reply but it was a bit long and I promised Steve and Egbert I’d keep my posts brief from now on. Seriously I think my beliefs are offensive to a few of your bloggers. I have been a bit verbose I admit. I just find this subject riveting.
Maybe just read what I said to Mike if you like.
I guess the bottom line, briefly, is it’s hard for me to relate to those problems you mention, We sit on opposite sides of the fence. You complain that the bible can be used by bad people for evil purposes, to me that’s a bit like taking to task Directories Australia for the police using phone books to bash suspects with. I don’t see it as a problem that’s caused by the bible, because I believe the bible is from God, used by God as a key part of His purpose here. You can never believe that because to you God is a figment.
You say the naming of a text as holy ….is the source of great evil. It sounds like you’re saying the church named it holy to make it holy. But they named it holy because they believed it WAS holy, they didn’t really have any option did they?
And as to why you should accept a person or institution as the only acceptable hermeneutic source of truth about the Bible, you shouldn’t. Ever. That’s a very Catholic idea. There’s no point in studying it if you then just accept what someone else says you should believe.
I didn’t mean to suggest that my seeking of truth was a search for comfort. It’s just that as it happens I do find the truth, if that is what I’ve found, comforting. And I wouldn’t say it’s fantasy at all. Fantasy can roam wherever you want it to, it requires no study, no rigour. I had to give up drinking and sitting up late at night watching TV so I could get up at 4am to fit in 2 hours study each day before work for the last 7 years (almost), and had to enrol in a biblical hebrew course for 9 months to help me unravel the cryptic messages in the OT. I bought Accordance for my Mac, with English, Greek and Hebrew texts and dictionaries, and I use them every day in searching and comparing texts and versions and usages.
Idiosyncratic? Certainly there are quite a few things I differ on from many Christians, the trinity doctrine for one, but obviously agree on the main things else I wouldn’t be a Christian.
Bedtime. Catch you later Eric. Thanks for the opportunity to compare notes.
No doubt I am only going to prompt another wall of text here, but since I was challenged I feel compelled to respond.
A book used to justify the Inquisition, the Crusades, antisemitism, and at times even slavery, cannot be a good moral guide. This is not to say that any of these things are a requirement of any particular brand of Christianity, but a navigation system that fails to avoid these hazards is a very poor moral guide indeed.
No doubt you will accuse those who did these things as not being real Christians, but you are just eliminating evidence that you do not like. With the same technique I could claim the Nazi party was a just and moral system, the people in it that did questionable and unethical things simply were misinterpreting the party line.
The way you manage to squint your eyes and cock your head to the side in order to see things just the way you want to see them is staggering. Edit your history and holy text however you see fit, but people here know what you are up to and will not buy it.
“No, it’s because you choose skepticism and the coolness it implies, over sincere desire for the truth and the risk of embarrassment that brings.
Sorry – just calling it how I see it”
Most people I know who do not beleive in the Bible actually used to be believers like me. Some of them, like me, started as simpel believers then did some academic study of religion and came into contact with mainstream scholarship, in my case particularly study of the Gospels. Now modern Biblical scholarship does not automatically lead to unbelief; but it does raise serious questions about the notion of these books being in any way divinely inspired. Many scholars are still believers, albeit they strike me as stranded sailors on a rapidly melting ice flow. Once you realise that the creation of the gospels was subject to historical happenstance, then you really have to go all the way with it, and that very quickly leads to scepticism about the claims made on behalf of these books by those who want to insulate them in some kind of timeless capsule of religious truth.
Yes there is scepticism, but it is the sincere desire for truth that leads to it, a desire to understand these books for what they really are, and how they came to take the form they eventually took, and it is that understanding that leads to scepticims about the ahistorical claims of naive beleivers who want to take these books out of the process o fhistory that formed them and turn them into something they were never intended to be.
I’ve said this elsewhere, but the only reason to read the bible would be if you’re planning on becoming a contestant on Jeopardy!. There’s almost always a biblical category.
I saw one show when the contestants were a Muslim, a Hindi, and a Jew and the category was “New Testament”. A lot of blank stares going on there, for sure.
If I need to know something about what the bible does or does not say these days, there’s Bible Gateway, which provides 20 or so different translations online with a keyword search. Great stuff.
But I did read the thing when I was a teen. Or at least the NT and some of the OT (got bogged down after the ‘begats’). I just don’t remember reading Job or Ruth, so somewhere before that.
Some of the psalms are 100% repetitive, as I recall. Didn’t those people have blue pencils back then?
Didn’t mean to overlook your post Rian (?), thanks.
I do think it’s special and divine but I think the same of you, and me and the rest of us – well, maybe not Steve. (That’s intended as humour Steve. I appreciate your input above all. I’m a bit like David Berlinski when it comes to name-calling. Bring it on!).
The bible’s just a tool. The key is coming to believe that there’s another world outside (maybe it’s actually coincident with rather than outside) this one. We can deduce that from the fact that there’s obviously stuff that our senses and our science don’t extend to detecting. So it has to be a philosophical investigation.
From there you may or may not see the presence of a “God”, an eternal Thing at the root of everything, characterised by life.
If you go down that path you must then try to find out what this Thing is like. And so on.
I eventually came to the bible – not as the end of the search, just a bit of the puzzle. But yes a divine bit, like everything else inasmuch as it’s from God and it has a purpose in “His” scheme. (Did I mention? There’s a scheme.)
Thanks again Rian
John (thanks for the post) the moral guide we all want want to use is our own intelligence and investigative powers.
So many treat the bible like a recipe book and read it to see what to do next.
As I just said to riandouglas, it’s a piece in a puzzle. It makes absolutely no sense to study it if you don’t already believe in God. It’s not there to be a path to discovering His existence, rather to help find out what He’s like and what He’s after.
Do you really think we, with our scientific endeavours and abilities, understand even a hundredth of what there is to understand?
If you think everything there is to know about our life and our world has either been understood or eventually will be understood by our science then stick with it, good luck to you.
I believe different.
I appreciate what you say Mike – I’m sorry for the generalisation.
Look, as I said in other posts, if you believe that this world, this life, is just a facade to another far more advanced, or far different anyway, world and life, you’ll be factoring that into everything you come across. It makes your daily existence completely different – much more exciting for one thing.
In that context I just don’t find any conclusive evidence from “modern Biblical scholarship” to deny that (a) God, some sort of God, is real, and (b) that the bible is not something “He’s” orchestrated the existence and availability of to play a key role in His plan for this world.
I can’t bring anyone else to the same point I find myself at in a few blog posts. It took me years of following the clues and living according to what I found. It’s just the way it is apparently, that these findings are for each of us to discover for ourselves. And it takes time. The best I can hope to do is to get someone who reads what i’ve written, just one’ll do, to GET STARTED.
And maybe one more tip I can give (I’m gonna regret this I know). This was key for me:
If you haven’t already done so, give up booze. It’s an illusion, you need to be discerning for this quest.
If I thought they’d have a category on Revelation I’d be there. I once had to memorise four chapters of it for a study I took. Still comes in handy when I’m riding up long hills on my mtb.
It is Rian.
That statement doesn’t seem to make sense.
This is far from obvious to me. For a start, if our “senses” cannot detect it, what possible grounds can you have to deduce it’s existence. It seems that you would have none.
So you propose to investigate philosophically something that you have no actual reason to believe exists?
That’s just more nonsense Antonio.
This also doesn’t seem to mean anything – it’s a “Deepity”.
But there is no reason to believe there is even a real path, or a “Thing”. It’s just semantic word games and wishful thinking.
But how do you know any of this, Antonio?
Is the Koran also Divine? The Vedas? The Gathas? The works of Shakespeare?
It seems to me that you’re either invoking special pleading for your favoured book, or you’re leeching any meaning from the term “divine”.
Oops. Let me repeat that:
@riandouglas
The contradictions that our senses can be aware of are what tell us there’s more. The universe’s coming into being with nothing preceding it is not the only contradiction we’re faced with. For example just its existence as a finite entity seems wrong. Where is it located? I can’t answer that question. Not, I don’t know where it’s located, I can’t begin to answer it. If it’s not infinite, if that’s not an option scientifically, where is it? How can it be all that is? How can any 3-D entity be all that is if being infinite is excluded?
Have to leave you, it’s about to rain here and I haven’t finished the water tank stand. Later.
I’ve just read the first chapter of Richard Holloway’s Between the Monster and the Saint (2008) and I have to admit, he comes to the same conclusions as I do about the nature of evil. I see he refers to the same sources as I do, in particular to the social psychologists.
I think if new atheism went down the path of trying to understand the nature of evil and how it manifests within ourselves, it would not have made the organizational and collective mistakes it is now making. And as some of us must be aware by now, how it is leading into its own self-destruction as a political movement.
But I still see a glimmer of progressiveness dominating Holloway’s thinking. I can see myself abandoning the progressive project completely, for some kind of virtue ethics instead (but obviously not of the Catholic kind).
Pingback: The Absurdity of Sacred Texts « Choice in Dying
Egbert,
Now I am certainly not part of a political movement in the USA, so this is not meant for me anyway. Still, to address the point: First I would need convincing that “evil” is even so much as a useful concept.
I can see “irrational behaviour”; “breaking the rules of your society”; “damaging other peoples’ interest to gain something for yourself”; and “hurting others needlessly or more than necessary”. The last is perhaps closest to how evil is commonly understood, but I do not quite understand how the label evil is more illuminating here than, say, the label sociopathic behaviour.
@Egbert,
I’m with Sam Harris on the matter of evil, what we are really talking about is human (and other thinking creatures to the extent that they can experience pain) well being and how our actions increase or decrease the well being of others.
The term “evil” has been so thoroughly contaminated by religion that it is useless, in fact less than useless, it’s counter-productive to use it in discussions of ethics and morality.
We seem to be agreed that our perception of what is must be deficient. It follows that there’s more to learn about what is.
If you mean there’s no evidence that the-universe’s-coming-into-being-with-nothing-preceding-it is not the ONLY contradiction, a second one we’re faced with is what I called the universe’s location.
I like what you said about the universe’s BEING the location. Let’s look at your next point to put that into context.
If you want to propose it’s not finite you’re in good company. I believe Albert Einstein said it’s not. But he said it in the context of “There are only two things which are infinite, the universe and humans’ ignorance”, which, since he was human at the time kinda negated the first part.
And if you don’t agree that his infinite universe assertion was negated that’s fine. I was only mentioning the current scientific consensus that it’s spatially finite to demonstrate that we can know there’s stuff we don’t know about its “situation”. Albert’s statement takes us to that conclusion better than I could.
Btw, if you’re going to propose that the universe might be infinite wouldn’t that mean that earth IS at the centre of everything? Isn’t that the game-set-match conclusion that secular science is desperate at all costs to NOT come to? The reason the balloon skin model was proposed, as a way of explaining the Hubble red-shift of all detectable distant stars without taking it as proof that we are at the centre?
I’m easy, if I thought Cosmology was veering back towards a spatially infinite universe I wouldn’t take that to mean it’s wrong to conclude there’s obviously something more to it than our senses and best science can detect. Just the opposite. Have you thought through the concept of a spatially infinite ANYTHING, let alone everything?
I like that also Rian. A “nonsensical” conclusion is exactly what I’m trying to detect. This was the starting point seven years ago of my existential experiment, the observation that it’s highly probable that the situation of our universe is more than what can be determined by our human senses.
Forgive me for saying so Rian, I think the multiverse hypothesis is priceless. A source entity that, as well as being necessarily eternal and of unimaginable power, also was a LIVING thing, is out of the question, but a self-generating multiverse with NO source is a reasonable proposition.
Has it occurred to anyone that if the origin of the universe and its occupants was alive, that might explain the mystery of where life originated? And that since whatever was responsible for the existence of humans has caused something like 150 billion of them to exist, and counting, that it might in some way bear some resemblance, have some characteristics in common with, those 150 billion?
Where were we?
No I didn’t make that clear I’m afraid. This, what I was telling you about, was the thought process that got me started on looking beyond my atheist view for what might be behind all this (hands wide apart gesture).
Initially God didn’t enter into it. The first hypothesis I tried on was the possibility of what I called a “Real World”, within which this virtual world might be being executed. The machine level to our ap level.
Is this clear? What I was doing was allowing for this hypothesis as being real, in my day to day living, and seeing how it stacked up against the evidence of my life over initially several months, seeing if it was negated, falsified, by any sense-experienced data or mental/intellectual processing in that time.
This experiment has been going on for seven years, with additional hypotheses being brought in along the way. What you’re getting here is a 5 minute potted version, perhaps 10. I’m not suggesting you be influenced in any way by it, unless you feel inclined to do your own equally exhaustive experiment.
At some stage when wondering about the possible occupants of this Real World, I came up with the possibility of a living entity, what I called the Source Of Beginning, as a downstream hypothesis. Since then I’ve been fleshing out this SOB with anything I could get my hands on. Somewhere down the line I got my hands on a bible, and that sort of brought the whole thing to life.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
As an option it’s a What that demands a How.
Fact? That’s what this is about, testing hypotheses before identifying what are facts.
We covered that already I think. The existence of a spatially infinite anything goes beyond scientific boundaries. When a cosmologist says maybe it’s infinite she’s really saying maybe this is not something science can investigate. It’s like him saying the balloon skin model is just a way of representing a 4th spatial dimension. That’s not a scientific concept it’s a way of saying it’s a meta-scientific problem. Which is what I’m proposing.
Thanks Rian.
Apologies for the length and high fisk-ratio of the post:
Yet it is you who makes the seemingly unjustified leap to there being something other than the universe we see around us.
No, I mean that the claim that the universe coming into being with nothing preceeding it is an unjustified assertion on your part. There appears to be no contradiction here, just a lack of knowledge on our part.
No, I want to propose that we simply don’t know.
You’re the one trying to supply definite claims, and yet the actual evidence isn’t sufficient to support your claims.
That consensus, assuming you’re right about it, would only apply to our commoving patch. And since you’re mistaken about the universe coming into being from nothing being the consensus position, I don’t feel required to take your claim here seriously either.
Wow – you are really adept at leaping to unjustified conclusions.
If the universe is infinite, then there would be no “centre”, or, alternatively, every point would be the centre, since there is infinite space in every direction around every point in space (the latter doesn’t seem right to me, however).
Not at all. If the earth is the centre of the universe, that would be a very surprising and interesting finding.
No, it’s because there is no reason to think that we’re in a privileged position, and in fact very good reasons to think that we’re not.
So the evidence of the finite or infinite nature of the universe has nothing to do with your claims? Then why did you bring it up at all as supporting evidence?
This is a nonsense statement.
If the universe is spacially infinite (or finite but without bound, or something similar), then it is the universe that is infinite, not EVERYTHING (ie. the earth is not infinite).
It’s not the conclusion that is nonsensical, but the question.
It’s like asking what is north of the north pole. It doesn’t make any sense.
And yet so far you’ve made unjustified assertions and mouthed nonsensical sentences in support of that claim. Things don’t look to good for your “existential experiment” Antonio.
Nothing to forgive – it just indicates to me that you don’t really understand cosmology. For instance, a multiverse is a prediction of various hypothesis, and these hypothesis are extrapolations from existing physics.
Not at all Antonio. Of course, the only living things we’re aquainted with are biological, hence this claim appears nonsensical (again) on the face of it. There’s also the complete lack of supporting evidence for this “God hypothesis”. But that doesn’t seem to bother you in the least, for some reason.
Indeed it is, simply because they are well formed hypothesis which rely upon “normal” physics and are, at least in theory, testable. The God hypothesis relies upon a completely mysterious “other substance”, involves several seriously problematic claims (immaterial anything, mind without brain, life without biology, etc).
It might indeed. Where is your evidence that the universe had an “origin” of this sort, that it is alive, and that it had something to do with seeding this planet with simply molecular replicators?
You’re big on claims, and VERY short on actual evidence.
There have been incredibly more bacteria than humans.
There have been incredibly more insects than humans.
You seem to be introducing ANOTHER unjustified claim – that humans are special by virtue of their numbers.
You really should try to limit the number of unjusified and ad-hoc assertions and assumptions you need to carry your hypothesis.
And yet you’ve not provided ANY reason to think there is something behind “all this”.
It seems you started your experiment from unjustified assumptions. I wonder why?
But presumably does now, which is what I was alluding to.
Why even begin thinking that this might be true. I mean, as a philosophical thought experiment it’s interesting, but there is no acutal evidence that this might be the case.
Perhaps you thought “The Matrix” as a documentary?
Judging by your 10 minute version, you’ve not been remotely rigorous in your experiment. You don’t seem to have tried to ensure that your claims are justified by the evidence, that your hypothesis be testable, that you eliminate bias where possible, that you compare with alternative hypothesis etc.
Why the bible? The texts are a mess, and contradict each other and empirical reality at every turn.
Did you look into Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoraostrianism, etc, etc, etc?
Or did you just settle on what appears to be the socially prevalent and acceptable “Holy Text”, and go from there?
The latter seems more likely to me thus far.
Perhaps it’s simply a brute fact?
It seems you want to have all of your answers RIGHT NOW, regardless of whether they’re true or not. I’m comfortable with “I don’t know, but we’re working on it” as a working answer for some things.
You seem to have missed the “Brute” part. Perhaps it simply is as it is?
Which is simply an assertion on your part, with no supporting argumentation.
No, what the comologist is saying is that it is infinite in spacial extent. This would be a feature of the particular cosmological model under consideration.
Your views so far seem, to me at least, to be founded upon ignorance and misunderstandings. It’s little wonder that you find yourself coming to nonsensical conclusions and making nonsensical statements with that sort of foundation.
Rian I do appreciate your going to the trouble of reading all of what I wrote and giving me your views. I’ll do everyone a favour and not come back with my responses to them other than to say that what you say is nothing I haven’t believed myself in the past. I guess what you’ve said gives me a clearer picture of your objections but I seriously doubt my telling you my objections to your objections will change anything for either of us. It’s tempting to think otherwise, to seize on any of your determined notions and try again to get you to see it the way I do, but I concede defeat. Life’s too short and enjoyable.
Speaking of which, if the quality of mine as I perceive it is an indication then I am satisfied with the new direction it’s taken. It’s not something I anticipated, certainly not the reason for going outside what I’d always considered to be the big, rational, picture, and not something I can bestow on anyone else by relating my story. I wish it was, but letting go of securely held beliefs is not something that talking about them, arguing about them, for half an hour can achieve.
Thanks for the discussion and the apology.
I would be interested in your responses. We could take the conversation elsewhere if you’re interested in giving them?
If your objections are substantive, or you are able to show that mine are unreasonable, then that would very likely change my view, at least to be more sympathetic to your own claims.
I find these discussions to be an enjoyable part of my life
Good for you – that doesn’t seem to be a reflection of the truth or otherwise of the claims you base your life upon, however.
But surely if your reasoning is sound, and the evidence supportive of your position, then you in fact could demonstrate the likelihood of your position being true?
But what’s in it for me?
I’ve tried living without God, this is better
So you’re unconcerned with truth, and solely concerned with what feels good?
That doesn’t seem to be a particularly good reason for your beliefs and claims Antonio.
That’s very funny Rian. I know you’re not seriously suggesting I’m unconcerned with truth. How would it be better if it wasn’t TRUE that life with God is better? Sure I’m concerned with truth. I think what I said is true, you think what you said is true, why would either of us lie about that?
Maybe you’re implying that continuing our debate, after all we’ve said already, will lead to one of us finding truth that we both are convinced the other’s ideas lacks.
Well, that does seem to be what your statement entailed.
You are claiming that FOR YOU life with God is better. There are numerous accounts from ex-theists that life without God is better. It seems clear that subjective appraisals such as this are not useful in determining truth.
But the subjective appraisal of your life being better with “God” seems to trump that concern.
You’re talking about subjective appraisals of our claims.
I’m interested in the justification for those claims, rather than how either of us FEELS about them.
Thus far, while you’ve made many claims, you’ve not provided anything like sufficient justification for them
Stranger things have happened. Actually, what I would prefer is that instead of making claims to having explanations, you admit that you don’t, and that your God belief (and your initial “Matrix” belief) are simply unjustified and unsupported by the evidence. You can keep your beliefs, but it would be nice if you’d stop acting as if you had good reasons for them (so far, it seems you do not)
Yeah I don’t want to argue about it Rian. You’re entitled to view my approach as unjustified and unsupported by the evidence and I can see you sincerely believe that. I’m convinced it is justified and completely supported by the evidence but I don’t care about winning the argument, nor in convincing you or anyone else reading this that I’m not deluded, or dishonest.
The existence of God is something it’s not possible to convince someone of, I’m surprised you haven’t discovered that yet. The funny thing is it is extremely easy to put it to the test. Not by talking about it but by actually wanting to find God. Being willing to live a life defined by a belief in Him, even though you realise there’s a good chance he’s a fiction and everyone will think you’re a dork. Over time, little by little, your belief will get stronger. There will be so many things that happen to you to support the belief that you will one day cave in and accept Him. That’s what happened to me, against my inclination. Nobody was able to TALK me into believing in God, I had to find out for myself. So do you. Peace brother, hope that helps.
You don’t want to argue, but you’re happy to come on to a website where such discussions take place, make a number of nonsensical and unjustified claims?
What I “believe” doesn’t matter. Thus far you’ve made various claims. I’ve challenged them. Now you’re saying you don’t want to answer my challenges – would you care to retract your claims?
And yet you refuse to demonstrate it AFTER having made various claims.
Isn’t that a little disingenuous?
If you’re not actually interested in discussion, as you seem to now be claiming, I’m curious as to why you originally posted?
Oh, I realise that most people are not willing to follow the arguments and evidence due to emotional reasons.
I don’t accept that you cannot be reasoned into accepting something that is true. Surely if God did exist, there would be good arguments and evidence supporting this claim?
But WHY would I even begin to do so? What reason can you give to think this is not simply self delusion? What reason can you give to think that this is the “correct” approach, and not simply trying to believe in Brahma or something else?
It really seems to me to be nothing but special pleading.
I understand that – you started from an unjustified position akin to “The Matrix”, that there was something other or more than reality, based upon no evidence, and now you seem to think you’ve found God, again based upon no evidence. It seems that you started of with Dualism as your default position, and based it upon misunderstandings and nonsense.
So you can offer no intersubjective evidence?
Nothing but personal subjective evidence for the objective truth of your claims?
Would you find the similar attestations of those whose beliefs are incompatible with yours remotely convincing?
Sounds like more special pleading to me.
Antonio, I’m TRYING to find out. But I don’t want to delude myself as you seem to have done. Not only that, but you seem to actually think this deluding yourself is a virtue.
It doesn’t make sense.
Let me explain Rian (is your name pronounced Ryan or Ree-an?).
It’s not that I wasn’t interested in discussing the topic, it’s that I don’t want to keep on discussing it when I’ve given it a shot and haven’t made any impression on your defences. I did give quite a detailed and lengthy breakdown the first time you asked me – see #40.
I strongly believe that a relationship with God is the answer to what ails and drives everyone, you included. I believe it so strongly because I’ve experienced it first-hand and continue to experience it every day. And I was recently in a room with well over a hundred people who told the same story. The fact that you cannot believe what I’m telling you does not effect the truth of it. What it does effect is the benefit to be gained from continuing to argue about it. Talk is not the answer in this case. I lack both the persuasive powers to change your mind and any evidence that would convince you, so there’s no point in labouring the issue.
As for retracting my claims, it would be dishonest to pretend I don’t believe something I have found to be absolutely true from my own experience. I don’t expect you to do what I did and walk the walk of a believer for a few months, it’s a very big ask and it’s perfectly understandable you would be suspicious of my claim – i.e. that you will see what I’m on about if you givce it a try. God knows I would certainly have laughed myself sick at the idea a few years ago when I was in your shoes.
As to why you would even begin to put it to the test and allow for the possibility that God exists, the God that I’m testifying to, as a serious proposition, I can’t think of any reason I could give that would sway you. I can’t prove prove to you my story isn’t self-delusion, or that it’s not a con. I expect it’ll only happen if you go out and find out for yourself. I realise it’s not going to happen anytime soon and I’m OK with that, it’s your choice.
That’s all I’ve got Rian. Unless you’d like me to describe to you what it’s like for me living in close relationship with God and how it compares to when I wasn’t, I’m sure I can do that
God bless mate.
And that lengthy break down was, as I demonstrated, based upon misunderstandings and nonsense. Basing your beliefs on such a foundation makes me nervous about the truth value of those beliefs.
Argument ad populum?
We actually agree here – the fact that you believe it to be true also doesn’t effect whether it is actually true – what you need is a reasonable justification for it, and I do not see this forthcoming from you.
You’re also claiming that I CANNOT believe, but I see no evidence for this claim.
Since you admit you lack convincing evidence, I have to wonder why it is that you yourself believe? It sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
You don’t seem to have been in my shoes Antonio – you don’t seem to have been interested in justification for your beliefs (and you don’t seem to be interested in that now).
I think I’m a reasonable person Antonio, and so all you’d need to provide is reasonable evidence – the evidence that convinced you is surely reasonable, correct? Why would you think that evidence sufficient to convince you but not me? Are you saying that I’m unreasonable?
I’m doing that, and I find the reasons given for belief to be generally quite poor – as I pointed out to you earlier in this comment thread.
Like I said Rian. You’ve gotta do what you think is right. All the best.
Antonio. You are of course free to believe whatever you want — fairies at the bottom of the garden if it comes to that — but the epistemic warrant for your beliefs, if they are as you suggest, are inadequate to support the weight of the beliefs that you pile on them. The question here has to do with the reasonableness of believing what you do. People believe silly things all the time, but do you not feel that you have some responsibility to support your beliefs with reasons that have some objective warrant? You seem to be suggesting that you know, but then you give no reason to suppose this true. You would be much better off to leave off the claim to rationality and accept that your beliefs, such as they are (and it is not clear that you have given any content to them), are based on sheer faith which you hold for reasons not immediately clear. To suggest that you were ever in a position such as Rian’s, who seeks to base his beliefs on reasons and evidence, is laughable, given the details of your spiritual quest. You see to have been always on the lookout for a religious world view with which you would at last feel comfortable. That you have found it at least for now is all, apparently, to your benefit, but your confidence is unwarranted, and it is this kind of unwarranted confidence that does so much damage around the world. You may think that your own confidence would never lead you to do anything inhuman or cruel. Perhaps not, but it will lead others to do so. Does this not worry you?
Eric I just finished a 3 page epic on one of your other topics, which I hope answers these questions.
I am truly sorry for the length of my posts and my feeble attempts to explain myself, which seem to have given rise to not a little annoyance amongst your bloggers. I’m determined to keep this short. All I’ll say is that the things I state (in my latest post prior to this) to be facts are clearly facts. If you don’t agree then I have no more I can say that will improve that situation.
And the things which I state as my opinions are in my opinion quite reasonable. Again, if you disagree that they are reasonable, there’s nothing more I can think to say to convince you otherwise.
In case you still feel this way, I must say I’m surprised at the difference in perceptions between us. I really feel that my approach is entirely rational. I have no way of knowing who amongst your contributors are scientists, I don’t want to embarrass myself more than is necessary by getting into an argument about science with a scientist. But btaim I have to observe that it’s surprising just how many here seem not to know that the findings by evolutionists that support their proposed age of the earth and the commonality of ancestry between species, is completely reliant on the prior assumptions that God does not exist and creation did not happen.
You accept that don’t you Eric?
What, that what I believe about the existence of God, His nature, His life on earth as Jesus of Nazareth and his role in giving all humanity the opportunity to be adopted into a love relationship with God, an eternal relationship extending beyond this temporal life? That those beliefs of mine will lead people to commit harmful or cruel acts? I can’t see how they would. Can you?
Are you worried that if I believe in God then that will promote belief in God generally, there will be more God-believers in the world, and given that there’s a percentage of them who are Muslim terrorists that might result in more acts of terrorism in the world? Something like that?
No I don’t worry about that. Should I?
As I think Eric has pointed out to you on another thread, this is quite simply false, and ridiculous to boot.
It seems that the vast portions of your “belief in God” are based upon misunderstandings, falsehoods, and unjustified assumptions.
I find it disturbing that this does not seem to trouble you at all – that your house is built errors..
Blockquote>Antonio: That those beliefs of mine will lead people to commit harmful or cruel acts? I can’t see how they would. Can you?
Well, that fact that you are peddling misinformation and falsehoods online and likely in your real life are harmful and could be seen as being cruel.
For more stark examples, one need only use a little imagination.
For instance, isn’t inflicting any amount of suffering in this life worth it for gaining salvation in the next for another person? Doesn’t this then license you to harm others in a variety of horrible ways in order to win souls?
You should worry about the promotion of poor thinking skills that you are doing – they can lead to very real harms. One only needs to look at recent cases of Christians seeking help for their sick children through prayer rather than medicine, and the children dying of very preventable and/or treatable conditions (diabetes for instance).
Do you worry about any of that Antonio, or are you satisfied in the world of misunderstandings and wishful thinking you’ve constructed for yourself?
Looks like there are a few things we differ on Rian, I guess that was to be expected given our opposite world views. It makes for stimulating reading when I have the time, thanks for taking the trouble to acquaint me with your latest opinions.
I hope you don’t mind me asking this: Has it occurred to you that the things you see in my writing which you’re most critical of may be things you dislike in your own? I ask simply because there is a theory in clinical psych that we are all inclined to reveal ourselves in that way, until we become aware of the tendency.
It may not apply in your case but I notice you do seem to be somewhat worked up, here and in some of your previous posts, over what is really a fairly benign exchange of views.
Or perhaps I’m reading more animosity into your posts than is intended, it’s easy to be misunderstood in email. If I’ve misinterpreted your message I apologise.
No, the thing I dislike in your writing are the things which you claim are so without even bothering to try to justify, and then when confronted with this, you claim not to be interested.
I try not to do this.
Well, if you can actually demonstrate that I’m doing this, then I’d be interested. As it stands, your claims have been shown to be based upon ignorance and misunderstandings, and as such, your entire basis for your worldview are suspect.
That you don’t remotely seem to care about this is rather troubling, especially as I think you claimed above to be interested in the truth.
I’m not worked up at all – merely pointing out the faults and unjustified assertions in your claims. Perhaps you’re projecting your own feelings on to me?
Antonio, I don’t care whether you think I’m worked up or not. I don’t care if you attribute animosity to me when there is none. I care that you’ve made a number of claims which have been shown to be false or based upon misunderstandings. I care that this has been pointed out to you and you don’t seem troubled by it one bit. I care that you, and people like you, propagate poor thinking skills, ignorance, and unreason when we ought to be aiming for the opposite.
So, do whatever you want. Answer or don’t answer. But don’t think that just because you feel certain, that this indicates that your beliefs are real. You have shown no justification for your beliefs, and no care to even attempt any justification. Your beliefs appear to be nothing more than your own subjective opinion on the matter – and incorrect ones at that.
@riandouglas
I apologise Rian I guess I was wrong – must be a cultural thing (assuming you’re not Australian).
As I said before, we do differ on how we see the evidence in our lives. Maybe your view is correct and mine’s wrong, I don’t think so but what would I know?
You’re right to say that I don’t try to justify my beliefs to you, I don’t know what I could say about anything that you would accept, unless it was to agree with you – except of course to describe subjectively what my experience has been since I made a commitment to search for God 7 years ago. I’m happy to tell you more about that if you want, I don’t expect you would disagree with me on what I say has been my own subjective experience. (Then again…) Let me know if you are genuinely wanting to find out more about that. If you’re just looking to hone your already formidable debating skills I’ll have to decline the offer. Life, even eternal life, is too short for that.
Antonio, I am Australian.
Well, so far you’ve presented as “evidence” falsehoods and misunderstandings, along with subjective opinion.
To me that’s not a solid foundation. You seem to be satisfied with it, however.
Well, since you don’t think so, perhaps you could, you know, actually address some concerns I have with your claims. You could start with the gross misunderstandings of the process and findings of science. Or you could start with your initial unjustified claim that there is something “more” to reality (ie. your initial belief that the “Matrix” movies were something like documentaries).
Well, since you haven’t actually tried to say anything, this seems to be a case of prematurely coming to a conclusion.
Perhaps you could give it a try instead of avoiding giving answers?
Antonio, I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. I care that you can justify the claims you are making publicly.
Please attempt to do so, or retract them
The problem is, subjective experience is all you have.
There is no reason to think that your “subjective experience” indicates your God exists (you certainly haven’t given any).
So why do you think it does?
We might agree that you had such and such experience, but I suspect we would disagree on how that experience might be explained (I would appeal to intersubjective empirical evidence, while I suspect, given your track record, you would appeal to your own unfounded subjective appraisals).
Antonio, I’m wanting to find out if there is any real substance behind your claims. So far there’s been nothing, and nothing you’ve said gives any indication that there is anything more to it.
But I suspect you would have no qualms in continuing to promote your misunderstandings publisly – since you are unwilling or (as I suspect) unable to justify those claims, shouldn’t you present them as mere opinion, rather than objective fact?
Thats another nonsensical sentence Antonio – you seem to be full of nonsense!
Perhaps you’d care to present your evidence for thinking that life is actually eternal and doesn’t end with the death of the body (which is what the evidence seems to indicate)?
Ho gegrapha gegrapha. What I have written I have written.
Ah, now, Antonio, if you want to discuss, especially at such length, you must be prepared to respond.
Antonio, you’ve made a number of statements and claims, many of which have been questioned, exposed as based upon ignorance or misunderstandings, false, or just plain nonsense.
Instead of trying to clarify your position, defend your claims, and justify your beliefs, you’ve tried to evade providing any further information.
You don’t seem to be interested in discussion, since within a discussion is a back and forth, and a questioning of your claims. You appear only interested in proselytizing – in having your claims accepted without question, and in having your statements made without being subject to any sort of requirement for justification. An honest 2 way dialogue doesn’t seem to fit with what you want – the ability to talk at people, not talk with people.
I’ll wait for you to retract the many claims you’ve made due to a lack of justification, as you ought in all honesty do here
Perhaps you’re right Eric but I have to confess I have nothing left in the tank. I’ve said all I can say to Rian on the subject, I don’t have any answers to his claims so I’m happy to leave it at that. I did respond fairly lengthily previously but the fact is, because we basically have opposite world views there is no limit to the arguments each of us can make if we have the time and will. I admire his evangelistic zeal but he won’t change my view. Maybe he realises that and is just amusing himself. I wish him well, and you too.
You’re happy leaving your claims based upon ignorance, falsehood, misunderstandings and misrepresentations?
This appears to be evidence that you have no intention of engaging in honest dialogue. As I observed above, you don’t want a discussion, you want to make a statement and have it accepted.
Sorry, things don’t work that way.
You could change my view if you were able to justify your claims, and demonstrate them more probable than not. I have a bigger stake in the truth than I have in the “Truth” of atheism/materialism/what have you. You seem to be far more attached to the “Truth” of Christianity/Theism, than to what is real. That seems more than a little irrational to me.
Antonio, I’ve asked you again and again to defend and clarify your claims. To address your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.
Instead of doing so, you act like I’m being unreasonable.Instead of providing much needed clarification and justification, you provide lame reasoning as to why doing so would not be worth while.