Monday, September 24, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version

Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

by Megan Hawkins, Des Moines Register

Thanks to Martin Gill for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333

The community college instructor says the school sided with students offended by his explanation of Adam and Eve.

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.

Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.

"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."

Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.

Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."

"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."

Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."

Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.

"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.

"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.

"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."

Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.

Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.

"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"

Reporter Megan Hawkins can be reached at (515) 284-8169 or mehawkins@dmreg.com

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, September 24, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 214 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #73196 by Mango on September 24, 2007 at 12:10 pm

This is scandalous that a teacher in higher education has to kowtow to Creationists. This college will hopefully be shamed into re-hiring him.

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #73198 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Ever notice that each religion will (mostly) withhold action when called a "fairy tale" by all other religions, but when someone from the rational world does so, there is hell to pay?

Other Comments by Quine

3. Comment #73199 by LoneStarTravis on September 24, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."

Indeed, they are.

As someone who is about to be a teacher, things like this greatly worry me.

Other Comments by LoneStarTravis

4. Comment #73200 by eXcommunicate on September 24, 2007 at 12:35 pm

This is scandalous that a teacher in higher education has to kowtow to Creationists. This college will hopefully be shamed into re-hiring him.

Why would he want to work back there? He should work elsewhere even if they offer to allow him to return.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

5. Comment #73202 by sidfaiwu on September 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Why would he want to work back there? He should work elsewhere even if they offer to allow him to return.

Even though it may be a bit of a hostile environment for him, he might want to stay on principle. He may desire that the students are not taught dogma by his creationist replacement.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

6. Comment #73203 by Acleron on September 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

All we have so far is that he was fired. The reasons for it are disputed. Let's not get too excited until there is some corroboration.

Other Comments by Acleron

7. Comment #73204 by Mango on September 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

As a way to signify to his community, and the country, that rationalists will not be driven away if they can help it. If I were he, I would certainly stay as an act of defiance against Creationists.

Other Comments by Mango

8. Comment #73213 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Reminds me of a line in my favourite (post-Shakespearean) play, Arcadia:

Brice As her tutor you have a duty to keep her in ignorance.

Sounds like this lot didn't catch the riposte, though:

Lady Croom Do not dabble in paradox, Edward, it puts you in danger of fortuitous wit.

Other Comments by _J_

9. Comment #73214 by drive1 on September 24, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Sceptical hats on, please people. Only Acleron has rumbled the teacher. What's the betting this is settled out of court? http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=24974

Other Comments by drive1

10. Comment #73231 by rthille on September 24, 2007 at 2:19 pm

That's it! I'm going after all my high school teachers that insisted that Zeus and the other gods I worship were just mythology! How dare they denigrate my religious views!

Other Comments by rthille

11. Comment #73242 by kelphis on September 24, 2007 at 2:39 pm

well if this community college is run by the city or some other government agency then he should not even bring it up. I know alot of us in this forum (including myself) want to throw our fists up in anger for someone being punished for speaking the truth. but had he been a bible thumping retard and screaming to the class that if they dont believe in god they are going to hell we would be outraged as well. However, if this college is not run by a government agency then he should sue the fucking pants off them.

Other Comments by kelphis

12. Comment #73243 by konquererz on September 24, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Once again, insanity is spreading over this country. Is it possible for this country to start exercising their own freedom of speech and stop this "freedom of speech for those we agree with" shit! First the soldier, now this. If my parents dare bring up Christian persecution again I'm going to go off on them, again!

Other Comments by konquererz

13. Comment #73244 by Ludacrispat26 on September 24, 2007 at 2:42 pm

This is absolutely rediculous. I am going to have more on this on my site later:

http://firejesus.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

14. Comment #73247 by Cartomancer on September 24, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Actually even eighth century scholars recognised that there were four accepted ways to analyse scripture - the literal, analogical, anagogical and metaphorical senses. You'd be laughed out of a medieval schoolroom if you suggested that everything in the scriptures must be literally true...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

15. Comment #73250 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm

For what it's worth, I blogged about this yesterday (http://higgaion.heardworld.com), and several other "Bible bloggers" have mentioned the outrageous way Bitterman was treated (if he has accurately surmised the reason for his firing).

konquererz (#73243)

If my parents dare bring up Christian persecution again I'm going to go off on them, again!

Of course, the phrase "Christian persecution" could mean persecution of Christians, but it could also mean persectuion by Christians. ;-) I know your parents probably mean it in the former sense ("objective genitive"), but with this, and with the treatment of Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University, we're seeing our fair share of the latter ("subjective genitive"). As a Christian myself, I'm embarrassed by the way some Christians attempt "power plays" to get their way.

Other Comments by CHeard

16. Comment #73254 by Jolly Wally on September 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Oh no! Don't say my farcical beliefs might be wrong! BOO HOO! I'm going to start wetting the bed again!

Other Comments by Jolly Wally

17. Comment #73282 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 4:25 pm

If Bitterman's account of his treatment, as reported in the Register, is correct, then the school's administration has acted reprehensibly. But so is the treatment of Phil Mitchell at the University of Colorado at Boulder, if the AAUP Report on his case (http://collegefreedom.blogspot.com/2007/09/university-of-colorado-aaup-condemns.html) is accurate. It seems that other faculty members and some in the administration made it a personal quest to get Mitchell fired because of his conservative religious and political views. Attacks on academic freedom can cut multiple ways, it seems.

Other Comments by CHeard

18. Comment #73288 by notsobad on September 24, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Pathetic and a little sad since those kids are being brainwashed just like their parents were.

Other Comments by notsobad

19. Comment #73306 by sidfaiwu on September 24, 2007 at 4:55 pm

@#73214: Good point, drive1. I was quick to judge and slow to think. I do not want to be like my advisories. Thanks for the reminder.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

20. Comment #73317 by AmericanHumanist on September 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm

I've been an educator for 18 years, and I avoid converstions of religious delusion like the plague. I'd be fired instantly if I expressed my personal views.

BUT, teachers that openly pray before school and during the state-mandated "moment of silence" are the pillars of morality....

It's dark in this closet...

Other Comments by AmericanHumanist

21. Comment #73343 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I sent them the following:

Dear Ms. Smith,

After reading Megan Hawkins' article in the Des Moines Register of 9/22, I am writing to you to express my extreme dismay that an instructor could have been dismissed for holding the opinion that the story of "Adam and Eve" was not literally true. Not only do most theologians take this position, but nearly all anthropologists, archaeologists, and of course, biologists and geologists. I am sure you would not wish to continue the sinking into ignorance that has plagued the United States in the last few years, and hope that it turns out that the publicized firing was not for this reason (that is to say, lack of).

Yours truly,

Other Comments by Quine

22. Comment #73356 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm

While I was reading some of the comments at the Des Moines Register for this article, I came upon this one that is just too good to miss:

If your still silly enough to think the Bible was meant to be taken in a literal manor, then rebut these passages,

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

Edit: They are really going at it on the Register Forum. Check out this page:
http://forums.dmregister.com/viewtopic.php?t=49845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

Other Comments by Quine

23. Comment #73385 by The Wee Flea on September 24, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Forgive me asking - but I thought that American state schools were meant to be non-religious and that you guys were all for this. Why then would you want to support a man who teaches his own religion? Is it really the case that the Hebrew God ison the same plane as any other god? That is certainly not what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. It is the religious view of the teacher. Why should he be entitled to impose that upon the students? Is this not brainwashing? Or is it really the case that when you say you want schools to be 'neutral' over religion, you really mean that you want your philosophy, ideology and viewpoint to be taught - and all others to be suppressed? You follow such a tolerant faith!

By the way -
Quine,

The old ones are the best ones! A version of this has been going the round for several years and is doubtless considered the height of with and wisdom by those of the atheist faith. It is of course never written with the intention of getting an answer. Who needs answers when you already know that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

24. Comment #73386 by BAEOZ on September 24, 2007 at 11:21 pm

WeeFlea, haven't seen you posting for a little while. I see you've not learned that lack of faith isn't a faith. But that's ok. Logic can be hard to grasp. Especially for one who would seem to gain a living by ignoring such things.

WeeFlea's mantra: "If I accuse others of being dogmatic like myself, it must be true!"

Just keep projecting.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

25. Comment #73389 by Goldy on September 24, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Ah, good old WeeF. Yes, that teacher should burn for the sin of putting the Jewish god on the same level as the gods of WeeF's ancestors!

Other Comments by Goldy

26. Comment #73393 by epeeist on September 25, 2007 at 12:09 am

Comment #73386 by BAEOZ

WeeFlea, haven't seen you posting for a little while. I see you've not learned that lack of faith isn't a faith. But that's ok. Logic can be hard to grasp. Especially for one who would seem to gain a living by ignoring such things.

Yes, he still owes me an answer as to why my little hypothesis and its falsifiability isn't all there is to atheism. He claims there are other tenets, but he hasn't divulged these as yet.

Not holding my breath waiting for an answer.

Other Comments by epeeist

27. Comment #73404 by scottishgeologist on September 25, 2007 at 1:09 am

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted

Many christians dont believe that the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally either. In my faith head days, I remember going along to a friends church, where the pastor referred to the "mythical story of Adam and Eve" As I was a fundie faith head in those days I was deeply offended. "Hell bound liberal" I thought.

The business of biblical literalism / allegory is a major issue for todays churches. Where exactly do they decide what is literal and what isnt? Of course they tear themselves apart over this sort of stuff.

David (Wee Flea) Tell us, What do YOU believe? Was there a time when there was only ONE man on the planet called Adam and that the first woman was created from his rib? Do you really believe that? If not why not?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

28. Comment #73434 by A on September 25, 2007 at 2:11 am

Excellent !

Give these imbeciles enough rope.

Other Comments by A

29. Comment #73490 by lbq on September 25, 2007 at 5:13 am

Protestantism is of course a fundamentalist movement (just as Islam was, a thousand years before). Nobody in his right mind at any Medieval university would have insisted on a literal reading of the Scripture. Not even the most obnoxious of the Fathers of the Church did, and the Roman Church does not, today. But America was basically settled by screaming, illiterate witch-burning Protestant fanatics from the boondocks of Europe. And this is why the American situation is what it is. Here in Europe, we educated our peasantry, and encouraged them to educate themselves. I understand that in the U.S.A., this would have been regarded as impolitic.

Other Comments by lbq

30. Comment #73511 by Major Bloodnok on September 25, 2007 at 6:36 am

The Wee Flea (#73385):

By the way -
Quine,

The old ones are the best ones! A version of this has been going the round for several years and is doubtless considered the height of with and wisdom by those of the atheist faith. It is of course never written with the intention of getting an answer. Who needs answers when you already know that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Well, I don't know about the others, but I'd love to see some answers to the questions raised in that letter. Do you fancy giving it a go?

Other Comments by Major Bloodnok

31. Comment #73524 by BathTub on September 25, 2007 at 7:33 am

This is the kind of story where I feel the need to wait a bit and try and find the other half of the story before coming to a conclusion, something is missing.

Other Comments by BathTub

32. Comment #73546 by fonex_86 on September 25, 2007 at 8:29 am

C'mon people, let's not further satisfy the attention-whoring cravings of a certain troll-like poster here by rewarding it with a response.

I think you all need one of these.

Other Comments by fonex_86

33. Comment #73567 by posiedon on September 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

Major Bloodnok

Well, I don't know about the others, but I'd love to see some answers to the questions raised in that letter. Do you fancy giving it a go?

I asked the flea several months ago, in another thread.
No answers were forthcoming then, and I don't suppose we'll get any now.

Other Comments by posiedon

34. Comment #73580 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 11:06 am

23. Comment #73356 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm
While I was reading some of the comments at the Des Moines Register for this article, I came upon this one that is just too good to miss:

If your (sic) still silly enough to think the Bible was meant to be taken in a literal manor, then rebut these passages...

Which room do we take the bible in?
(John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions...)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

35. Comment #73583 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 11:09 am

I find the debate going on at the Des Moines Register Forum over this article very interesting. Some posters jumped in early on the side of the students, and then some came in and started posting rationalist positions. Next some fleas jumped in and it shifted to a full religion debate with all the usual refs to Hitler, Stalin, etc.

However, it is gratifying to see the rationalist positions, which question the assumptions of the public, put up on the Register's web in a community that would not comfortably see the Register publish them. This indicates that the writings of Dawkins, Harris, et al. are soaking into the US heartland.

Other Comments by Quine

36. Comment #73586 by Jeff Weskamp on September 25, 2007 at 11:16 am

"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said."

Academic Freedom is a very endangered in this country... And the Fundangelicals are working out to eradicate the last few traces remaining.

Other Comments by Jeff Weskamp

37. Comment #73589 by oxytocin on September 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

Quine, one possible hypothesis is that the writings of Dawkins et al. are finding their way into public discourse. Another possibility might be that the same non-theists on this and other sites are becoming more assertive. We know that the book-reading population is embarrassingly wee. Which brings me to...

Wee Flea, Ugh. First, please tell us exactly how "atheism" is a faith. I'm very much looking forward to learning something revelatory from you. Second, it doesn't appear as though this instructor was preaching at all, but rather discussing the contents of the bible from an objective perspective. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't think academic learning about ALL religions should be taken out of school. It's simply that no one religion can be given preferential treatment with the goal of converting your students.

Other Comments by oxytocin

38. Comment #73619 by stephenray on September 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm

The biggest scandal is that pupils/students in the US are happy to threaten a teacher with consulting an attorney if the teacher says something the pupil or student disagrees with.
The very fact that that is a possible scenario means free speech has already gone.
If free speech can be once be curtailed in this way, then teachers have to start weighing up what they say for fear of losing their job. That means they've lost their right to free speech, already.
As for the students - hell, get a grip. Your faith is so puny, so weak, so threatened, that you need to rush off to a lawyer because your religion is being denigrated? Perhaps atheism is stronger than we think.

Other Comments by stephenray

39. Comment #73660 by Russell Blackford on September 25, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Clearly he was within his rights to say that the Genesis myth is not to be interpreted literally. If he was sacked just for saying that, it's outrageous.

I suggest, though, that we be a bit cautious about this. Often, with these sorts of cases, it turns out that there's more dirt that we don't know about. E.g., what if it turned out that he had a track record not just of expressing his views on various things but also of being abusive to students with different views from his, or whatever, and this complaint was the last straw?

Employers are usually unwilling to drag out the dirt in public and have to worry about possible issues of libel or contempt, so what's in the media reports is not the same as what will come out in court proceedings if the issue ever goes that far. Of course, most cases settle out of court so often the truth is never revealed to the public. Indeed, settlement documents often constrain the parties not to say anything about it.

I'm emphatically not saying that this guy did in fact do anything wrong (I have no idea); I'm just reminding us all of the unfortunate, messy facts of life with unfair dismissal cases. When they are conducted through the media, we often get a very misleading impression of the facts. (I've practised in this area of law, and have represented both employers and employees, so I'm not just making this stuff up.)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #73699 by The Wee Flea on September 25, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Quine - no problem. Let me mention just some of the verses you cite - out of context and ignorantly. More than happy to enlighten - although I suspect that enlightenment is not what you are looking for.

Lev 1:9 - no longer applies because we no longer have animal sacrifice because Christ was sacrificed for us.

Exodus 21:7 deals with an economic system that no longer applies. Although having said that people still sell themselves as wage slaves and the capitalist system still encourages a form of slavery. Exodus 21:7 dealt with a system that was already there - not with the ideal.

Lev.15:19- 24. teaches about ceremonial uncleaness - as does the pasage abut men with an emission of semen. The ceremonial laws no longer apply, the temple having been done away with, and the ceremonial law replaced by Christ.

Lev. 25:44 - does not apply to you as you are not part of the anceint theocratic state of Israel and you do not live in those times. The verse says nothing about owning slaves today.

Exodus 35:2 - ditto above.

Lev. 11:10 - ditto above.

Lev. 21:20 - there is no altar so thats not your problem.

Lev. 19:27. How should they die? By plucking out their remaining hairs one by one!

Lev. 11:6-8 - ditto above

Lev. 19:19 - ditto above.

Your attempt to be a smart alex and to ignore context, genre and culture is a spectactualr failure for anyone who knows how to read.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

41. Comment #73700 by The Wee Flea on September 25, 2007 at 11:11 pm

How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable. In the fundamentalist version of your faith you refuse to listen to any other point of view.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

42. Comment #73704 by BAEOZ on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 pm

The WeeFlea:

Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable. In the fundamentalist version of your faith you refuse to listen to any other point of view.

Feel free to enlighten me about my presuppositions which are unproveable and amount to a faith.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

43. Comment #73731 by Mads on September 26, 2007 at 2:16 am

To WeeFlea (73660):

Thanks for clarifying that. They no longer apply because of changed context.
So the quotation concerning homosexuals can be dismissed in the same way? Along with a host of other verses?
That should clear up loads of free space in both the old and the new testament.

Mads

Other Comments by Mads

44. Comment #73751 by pewkatchoo on September 26, 2007 at 4:28 am

Nurse, Flea is out of bed again!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

45. Comment #73764 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 5:32 am

Wee Flea:

How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable. In the fundamentalist version of your faith you refuse to listen to any other point of view.

The presuppositions that you refer to presumably being that there is nothing beyond the material world? That certainly IS unproveable, of course.

Does that make adherence to that view a matter of faith, though? To borrow an example that I seem to recall Julian Baggini using in his Very Short Introduction to Atheism, I can't PROVE that there isn't an elephant in my fridge who becomes invisible every time I open the fridge door.

Nevertheless, believing that there ISN'T such an elephant is a very different order of belief from believing that there IS, AND arranging my life in such a way as to incorporate that view into every aspect of it, worshipping that elephant, loving that elephant, avoiding causing that elephant more grief than I can help, praying to that elephant and generally viewing it as central to my life.

You might argue that, by not believing in that elephant and therefore living my life as if it doesn't exist, I'm equally basing my stance on something unproven. But sheer economy demands that we don't indulge in expensive rituals celebrating all the things that can't be proved -such evidence as we have points to there being no such elephant. NOT believing in it therefore does not require us to go beyond what it is reasonable to believe; whereas BELIEVING in it DOES require us to believe something for which there is no real evidence. In my book, that makes the BELIEF position, not the non-belief position, a matter of faith.

As for being fundamentalist, I'm not sure that being unmoved by the arguments to date is the same as not being willing to listen to them. Don't forget that many of us have been Christians and are therefore already very familiar with the arguments that tend to be offered by theists here - if we occasionally seem unwilling to listen to them again now, it's because we've already given them house-room and have found them ultimately lacking. (If you were recruiting someone and had already rejected a particular candidate after the first interview, you wouldn't go back and interview them again and again and again just in case they were better this time, would you? In our case, the analogy is a stage further than that: if you had sacked someone for incompetence and dishonesty, would you seriously consider employing them again?)

It is true that there are many of us on this forum - and I am one of them - who will remain forever unswayed by reference to biblical authority or personal experience. The reasons for that have been spelled out often enough for them to need no further repetition from me, but hey, I probably can't resist so here goes: biblical reference only works if you've already bought into the concept NOT ONLY that there is a God, but that he chooses the Bible (as opposed to the Koran, say, or the Guinness Book of Records) to communicate with us; and personal experience isn't reliable evidence because it can be explained by reference to so many natural, psychological, emotional, pathological etc etc causes that to see it as proof of the supernatural is just too extravagant.

Does that mean we're not open to any kind of argument for the existence of God? I don't think it does, but it does mean that the arguments are going to have to be grounded in something less subjective than the ones that are usually offered. I grant you, I find it difficult to imagine what might really make me change my mind about the non-existence of God: well, short of the obvious things like the Rapture happening before my very eyes.

Part of the problem is that you're not just trying to persuade us of one unprovable proposition, but two: first, that there is a god at ALL, secondly, that it's the one you believe in. When you argue from biblical authority, or from personal experience, you're arguing from the second of those propositions, whilst we're still right there on the first one: as we've said elsewhere: FIRST show there's a god at all, THEN we can discuss whether it's Christianity or Islam or Jainism or Pastafarianism that offers the best approach to worshipping it.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

46. Comment #73765 by BAEOZ on September 26, 2007 at 5:38 am

Well said Northern Bright. Though I'm confident WeeFlea's logic filter will exclude your points from consideration.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

47. Comment #73806 by epeeist on September 26, 2007 at 8:28 am

Comment #73765 by BAEOZ

Well said Northern Bright. Though I'm confident WeeFlea's logic filter will exclude your points from consideration.

Already has - see various of my posts presenting atheism as a testable hypothesis. Completely ignored and still claims that there must be other "tenets" (which I believe was a fairly carefully chosen word).

Nothing provided for these tenets though.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #73808 by scottishgeologist on September 26, 2007 at 8:36 am

Northern Bright

Spot on, absolutely spot on. best posting I have read for a while.

Keep them coming!

SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

49. Comment #73811 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

Northern Bright, BAEOZ and epeeist

Already has

Sure has. I've lost count of the thousands of words I've spent making exactly these points on David's own site. Probably my longwindedness was counterproductive, but I took the two months the last comments spent being moderated as a sign that they had been read.

I don't think that David will be showing any sign of accepting - or countering - these arguments about evidence and faith in the forseeable future. [EDIT - But perhaps he'll prove me wrong.]

Good post, though, Northern Bright.

Other Comments by _J_

50. Comment #73818 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 9:08 am

Flea bag

Presupposition? No. We dont believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence for it. Give us some and we will change our minds. You are the sad one with the presuppositions not based on a shred of evidence.

By the way, those nasty laws you dismiss, lets not forget that they were given by your god in the first place - regardless of context! Dont try and excuse god by saying slavery already existed. He gave so many laws about things that he didn't like, but seems to have no problem with Slavery. Ask yourself, word of "loving" god or word of a man with a vested interest in slavery?
Where does the bible condemn slavery? It doesn't! A god who gives a command to treat others like yourself has nothing to say against slavery - come on!

Oh and that bit about sabbath breaking and new covenants, Jesus broke the sabbath before the new covenant - No gold star for you, poor flea, must try harder!

Have you invited Ken Ham for your group of intellectually challenged fundies to read homophobic poems to then? He seems to like telling them, and the wee frees enjoyed listening to them.
I know you dont take the bible too seriously as a guide as to how to live your life, but you may want to read this "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5).
Useful advice. Notice how people respond positively to CHeard, but dont think too much of you. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps your fundamentalism

Other Comments by BillySands

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last