1. Comment #148999 by Markii on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 pm

dope.

Other Comments by Markii

2. Comment #149007 by robotaholic on March 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Wow, Susan Blackmore is amazing. I never heard her speak before. I really like her perspective.

Other Comments by robotaholic

3. Comment #149009 by Quine on March 24, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Sue is great; McGrath is a hot air vendor, (although, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition).

Other Comments by Quine

4. Comment #149010 by emmet on March 24, 2008 at 11:38 pm

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!



Sorry, couldn't resist the reference.

Other Comments by emmet

5. Comment #149011 by Quine on March 24, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Them memes, they be a-riding.




-------------------------
When I was young I was told, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride." I now understand that beggars are horses that wishes do ride.

Other Comments by Quine

6. Comment #149014 by sarah95 on March 25, 2008 at 12:05 am

I've only gotten about half way through this, and I can say I really enjoy Sue. I've not read anything of hers, but I may do so later now that I've heard her speak.

However I am disappointed that she didn't tear to bits that horrible "stalin card" that Alister so ineptly played in his first bit. Also I wish she'd pointed out how deceptively dishonest it was of McGrath to actually say that Dawkins thinks science positively "disproves god". That I think was a point worth pursuing and clarifying, but she left it instead to talk about memes, which was interesting as well.

Other Comments by sarah95

7. Comment #149016 by tacitus on March 25, 2008 at 12:38 am

Sue Blackmore has long done sterling work as a skeptic investigating paranormal claims. It's news to me that she's given up the investigating, but it's clear from the bitterness in her voice on a couple of answers that she finally came to the end of her tether when dealing with those charlatans. I don't blame her one bit!

It's a shame she didn't lay into the wholly woolly McGrath, but obviously she was politely following the ground rules of the debate. All the same, McGrath got away with saying some incredibly silly things whenever his waffle actually amounted to more than nothing, which wasn't very often.

It is interesting in one way to listen to McGrath. He is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists (perhaps as much as atheists are despised) in that they are very selective about what they take from the Bible -- using only the feel-good Jesusy (sic) stuff and relegating the rest to being merely historical background and myth.

I used to think that was a perfectly tenable position as a Christian to take (before I became an atheist) but listening to McGrath confirms what I since came to believe, that this wishy-washy type of Christianity is no more tenable or believable than straight up, hardline fundamentalism.

Other Comments by tacitus

8. Comment #149019 by Andrew Brown on March 25, 2008 at 1:17 am

Interesting to hear McGrath slagging off the talking heads in "The Root of all Evil" as being deserving of being sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

I may well be wrong here but wasn't McGrath interviewed extensively for the programme? Why wasn't he used again?

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

9. Comment #149020 by alabasterocean on March 25, 2008 at 1:17 am

Sue is great. If you like her you can read the book The Meme Machine, a follow up on Dawkins Meme chapter (11 or 12) in The Selfish Gene. Quite theoretic but interesting when speculating and trying to describe how bad ideas follow history and spread like decease.

And give McGrath a brake, he is amusing compared to some of his deluded peers.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

10. Comment #149021 by Philip1978 on March 25, 2008 at 1:18 am

Thing is Tacitus, first we have to investigate your meaning and use of the word "Waffle" - because since McGrath was an atheist and has read The Selfish Gene - he would have to really think about just what you meant by waffle.

Further more, he would say, as a Christian, that is not the Waffle he knows of and that not the Waffle that any other Christian would recognise!

He would also advise you to go and study Waffle to truly understand it's correct meaning!

:)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

11. Comment #149023 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2008 at 1:35 am

Tacitus:

"He is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists"

Its a good point, and interestingly, David Robertson alludes to this on his own site in a recent exchange:

"No. We are cannon fodder for the likes of Dawkins if we so water down the message of the Bible that in reality it just becomes baptised paganism. Dawkins loves Bishop Spong - who long ago abandoned any pretence to be a Christian. It is the robust biblical Christianity which stands up to Dawkins. Anything else just gets blown away"


Fascinating!

:-))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

12. Comment #149030 by mmurray on March 25, 2008 at 2:09 am

Sue Blackmore has a good website at

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

Nice report on why she gave up research in parapsychology here

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html


Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

13. Comment #149037 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:53 am

tacitus wrote in post #7:

[McGrath] is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists (perhaps as much as atheists are despised) in that they are very selective about what they take from the Bible -- using only the feel-good Jesusy (sic) stuff and relegating the rest to being merely historical background and myth.

I actually agree with the fundamentalists on this point (never thought I'd say that!). I have more 'respect' intellectually speaking for the fundamentalists in this regard. The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible. That they think this 'evidence' trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary is of course delusion bordering on the insane, but the McGrath method of cherry-picking the bits he wants to believe and hand-waving away the obviously ridiculous parts as myth and allegory is, in my opinion, intellectually bankrupt in the extreme. The fundies have the excuse of indoctriniation and ignorance. McGrath and his kind on the other hand knowingly twist and corrupt the standards of intelluctual pursuit.

Other Comments by SteveN

14. Comment #149055 by Biblebeltheretic on March 25, 2008 at 4:00 am

I'm not convinced McGrath was ever an atheist. It sounds to me like rebellion against the violence he grew up with.

Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic

15. Comment #149058 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 4:04 am

And give McGrath a brake, he is amusing compared to some of his deluded peers.

Well, I would support that, although I suspect you mean "break" :)

I don't find him amusing. I find him immensely frustrating to listen to. There are words, strung together in sentences, but one waits and waits for anything with actual meaning to be said.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #149062 by Matt H. on March 25, 2008 at 4:22 am

I wouldn't support that. Like Steve Zara, I don't find McGrath amusing, I find him irritating. And quite dishonest, he keeps bringing up the Stalin card when he knows Stalinism was anything BUT atheistic; plus he loves to misrepresent Dawkins as much as he can.

Other Comments by Matt H.

17. Comment #149066 by Ned Flanders on March 25, 2008 at 4:31 am

McGrath is the Hillary Clinton of religion.

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

18. Comment #149067 by Saerain on March 25, 2008 at 4:32 am

I rather appreciated this gentleman's address to the professor.

Other Comments by Saerain

19. Comment #149071 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 4:35 am

I actually agree with the fundamentalists on this point (never thought I'd say that!). I have more 'respect' intellectually speaking for the fundamentalists in this regard. The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible

Yeah, "fundamentalists" reading a translated Bible as if Jesus spoke English, what a joke. At least Muslims read the Quran in Arabic.

You may have more sympathy for the fundamentalists because you share their shallow, "born again" mindsets, only different "religion".

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally if you take the naive, literalist approach and it needs to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.There is no scriptural basis to say that "God" is an literalist even for the believers.


Even if you disagree with something you don't set up a strawman and then shoot it down to declare victory.

If you want to criticize religion at least try to understand it first.

End of rant,

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #149072 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #149067 by Saerain

Yes, indeed! It was amusing the way that McGrath completely avoided answering the question.

I have to say that Blackmore was very effective in this discussion, and presented the scientific attitude well.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #149073 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 4:44 am

Comment #149071 by Bonzai

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally and it needed to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.

Some fundamentalists don't accept your premise that the book is not consistent. They are clearly deluded about this, and actually interpreting. But to claim that the source book is all true is a more consistent attitude than to knowingly fudge things and try and claim divine authority for that fudgeing.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #149074 by Neal on March 25, 2008 at 4:48 am

I may not agree with McGrath's beliefs, but he seemed very opposed to violence and intolerance in the world in any guise.

Therefore, as it is the fundies/extremists that seriously threaten our future, not moderate Anglicans, I think that we should enlist the help of people like McGrath (religeous apologists) in order to actively expose and expel extremism from religeon.

It is argued that the moderates legitimise the fundies/extremists views, that is why I think that exposing these beliefs from within may achive more positive results.

Other Comments by Neal

23. Comment #149075 by Ned Flanders on March 25, 2008 at 4:48 am

"The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible."

And the Pastafarians (Church of the flying spaghetti monster) have this: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/B000M9PITC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=miscellaneous&qid=1206445673&sr=8-3

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

24. Comment #149078 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2008 at 4:57 am

I do wish people who speak in public would learn to avoid "ums" and "ers" every fifteen seconds!! I find it very irritating.
McGrath is the superior public speaker/preacher. Much more pleasant to listen to.
Pity about what he actually says.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

25. Comment #149080 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:08 am

Steve,

But to claim that the source book is all true is a more consistent attitude than to knowingly fudge things and try and claim divine authority for that fudgeing.

Being "true" and being "literally true" are two separate matters, If I say someone was caught lying and his pants are on fire, that would be "true" if he was indeed caught and was embarrassed for the lie, even though his pants are not literally "on fire".

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly. It is not like in contemporary English where you can tell relatively easily which is which. Aside from the fact that English is a relatively straight forward language, the ease in parsing is partly due to an unspoken shared cultural references. To decipher what Biblical passages meant to the contemporary audience would involve a lot of linguistic and anthropological forensic work, which is the subject of Biblical scholarship.

I am not saying all moderate believers study Biblical scholarship but to say that the only consistent way to believe is to take the whole book word for word in translation is simply naive.

During the cultural revolution, the French intellectual André Malraux visited Mao, he asked Mao to describe the situation in China. Mao said, "it was like a Buddhist Monk carrying an umbrella." Malraux thought that was very romantic, he returned to France and wrote articles on the romantic image. When the Chinese read his articles, they laughed their pants off. You see, in Chinese "hair" ryhmes with "law" and "heaven" is a traditional reference for higher power, somewhat like "God" minus the personality. A Buddhist monk is shaved, he has no hair, hence no law, the umbrella blocks off the sky, so no heaven either. Mao's words means "total lawlessness and chaos".

Now there were many Chinese speakers in France who could have told Malraux that if he cared to ask and his translator was obviously not very competent. But at least he did know it was a parable, only he screwed it up.

Now you are telling me that one can be justifiable confident that he can figure out the intended meanings of the Bible by reading an English translation thousands of years later, in a naive literalist approach. Sorry, I think that is insanity talking even for a true believer,

By insisting one can only read the bible like a fundamentalist the atheist critique comes off as naive and shallow for the sophisticated believers. It is not "fudging" to acknowledge that language is complex.

P.S. In case the readers are wondering, the pants didn't really fall off for the Chinese readers of Malraux, it was just figuratively speaking.

Other Comments by Bonzai

26. Comment #149099 by ToTopl on March 25, 2008 at 5:52 am

McGrath is real expert of covering very simple point in very long time.

I also didn't know that politeness could make me annoyed before I heard McGrath.

Other Comments by ToTopl

27. Comment #149111 by rod-the-farmer on March 25, 2008 at 6:07 am

I laughed & shook my head when Sue, towards the end, described the bible as a horrible book - meaning parts of the new testament, I suspect. Then McGrath complaining about Dawkins comments about this same sort of nastiness, said "That's not how christians read the old testament".

Gee, the same old stuff - "Not my religion". Perhaps these apologists could pick out one of the offending passages, and show us how THEY read it.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

28. Comment #149117 by Sally Luxmoore on March 25, 2008 at 6:23 am

McGrath is the superior public speaker/preacher. Much more pleasant to listen to.

Aagh! I simply could not disagree more!
McGrath has a ghastly patronising and monotonous tone, with - worst of all - a 'dying fall' at the end of his sentences. He sounds like the worst kind of sanctimonious and soporific preacher. I have to fight against irritation at his tone and a tendency for my mind to wander when I am trying genuinely to give him a fair hearing.
His mannerisms remind me of the dreadfully boring sermons that I was forced to listen to at my C of E boarding school.
I also particularly hate the insincere 'thanks' he gives to his questioner or opponent at the beginning of almost every new subject.
He actually gives me the creeps. Shudder!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

29. Comment #149123 by toddaa on March 25, 2008 at 6:35 am

To further Bonzai's point, fundamentalism is a strain of Christianity that developed from the writings of John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield, who both had a rather bizarre way of reading the Bible. To say fundamentalism is a more "authentic" version of Christianity ignores the history.

Other Comments by toddaa

30. Comment #149124 by Dr Benway on March 25, 2008 at 6:39 am

By insisting one can only read the bible like a fundamentalist the atheist critique comes off as naive and shallow for the sophisticated believers. It is not "fudging" to acknowledge that language is complex.

Understanding the Bible using modern methods of scholarship removes the magical authority some say that document holds. All fine and good.

But the scholar who then quotes the Bible as evidence of God's will is slipping back into the magic.

I don't think atheists have a problem with scholarship. They have a problem with thinking about the book as anything more than literature. They criticize the scholars for trying to have things both ways.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

31. Comment #149126 by nalfeshnee on March 25, 2008 at 6:42 am

Anyone who cheapens the grim reality of Protestant and Catholic violence in Ireland/Northern Ireland should be run out of town on a rail.

For the reality, see Hitchens, God Is Not Great, on Belfast.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

32. Comment #149127 by epeeist on March 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #149080 by Bonzai

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly.

Middle English, Norse and Icelandic literature are the same, kennings would be one example.

We have had a similar attempt at discussion with Artful Dodger. What is literal, what is metaphorical, how do you tell the difference between the two and how is the authority to declare which is which granted? He has done his usual post-and-run at this point. You have added another - what does the metaphor mean?

The difficulty I have is the moving of the line as the needs of other arguments require. Thinking theists are happy to declare Genesis symbolic until one asks what therefore did Jesus die for, at which point Adam and Eve seem to acquire some level of literalness again.They want to eat their cake and have it.

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #149129 by nalfeshnee on March 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

McGrath was indeed interviewed for Root of Evil. The link is here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

If you watch the video to the end you will see why he did not want it included. Dawkins gets him into a corner and then slides the rapier home.

Or, as Damian puts it:

"Fantastic. For 45 minutes it's a gentle game of ping pong and then when it comes to the issue god and suffering McGrath's arms get tired and Dawkins switches to a tennis racket. At 50 minutes McGrath is undone."

The laugh is certainly on McGrath.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

34. Comment #149130 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 6:45 am

Bonzai-

By insisting one can only read the bible like a fundamentalist the atheist critique comes off as naive and shallow for the sophisticated believers. It is not "fudging" to acknowledge that language is complex.

It is. The sophisticated believers have more to explain. They have "New Bible with added 'Interpretation' - helps wash away the nasty bits".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #149133 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2008 at 6:49 am

Sally Luxmore

He sounds like the worst kind of sanctimonious and soporific preacher.

Exactly!
And for an insomniac like myself, such a voice is a real god-send.
You complain about the "dying fall": why are you comparing his voice to :

... it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound
That breathes upon a bank of violets,
Stealing and giving odour.

But I know what you mean.
All the same, our scientist friends with their "uuuums' and "errrrrs" still irritate me. And I like hearing what they have to say!!!
EDIT : Sally, have you checked out my composition/montage "The Quote miners lament"? It could have been composed for you! Chose a moment when you're feeling calm.



http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes





(First item in the independent standalone player - scroll down, right hand column)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

36. Comment #149136 by al-rawandi on March 25, 2008 at 6:54 am

Bonzai,





I agree that ancient Middle Eastern languages have a different method for using metaphor. However many of these languages where fairly rigorous in their rules of use of metaphor.

The "part describing the whole" being one example. These are easily identified, and are generally understandable to someone with even a modest understanding of semitic languages.

So to say that these are cryptic in a way to make them indecipherable to translators or scholars, is a bit of a stretch.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

37. Comment #149145 by Riley on March 25, 2008 at 7:21 am

McGrath, criticizing "The Root of All Evil?" documentary, tried to make a distinction between "normal" religion and the religion practiced by "extremists" or "fringe" religion, and I wish Blackmore had called him on that point.

Pastor Ted Haggard, someone McGrath would no doubt like to characterize as "fringe", was at the time of "The Root of All Evil?" interview chairman of the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals and he claimed to participate in a weekly conference call with U.S. President George W. Bush.

I think the point to be made is that mainstream Religion works to actively encourage extremism. The Christian and Muslim religions actively encourage fanaticism.

Other Comments by Riley

38. Comment #149148 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:28 am

Bonzai, by his own admission, ranted:

You may have more sympathy for the fundamentalists because you share their shallow, "born again" mindsets, only different "religion".

I don't have sympathy for the fundies - quite the opposite. I was pointing out that if they believe the bible to be the highest order of evidence (which is clearly insane) then the conclusions they draw are, as far as they are concerned, perfectly consistent and logical. They are at least (in their minds) not selecting the bits of the bible that fit their views. Nice combination of 'ad hominem' and 'atheism is just a religion' by the way.

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally if you take the naive, literalist approach and it needs to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.There is no scriptural basis to say that "God" is an literalist even for the believers.

Well, this idiotic atheist is unaware of the clear guidelines in the bible that indicate which parts are allegorical and which parts are literally true. If this is obvious to your vastly superior intellect, perhaps you would be so kind as to let us know.

Even if you disagree with something you don't set up a strawman and then shoot it down to declare victory.

What strawman? I merely stated that, in my opinion, people who pick and choose what to believe to be true based on nothing more than their own world-view are being intellectually dishonest. If a student or post-doc in my lab selected data that fitted their hypothesis but ignored data that contradicted it, I would similarly accuse him or her of intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to criticize religion at least try to understand it first.

So, as I know next to nothing about astrology, I am not allowed to criticise it. I suppose the same applies to ghosts, UFOs, crystal healing, scientology, and any number of world views and religions based on delusions.

In the end, if you pick and choose without evidence the bits that you personally accept as fact and those that you consider to be just a story, you're left with nothing more than 'shit you made up.'

Other Comments by SteveN

39. Comment #149152 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:35 am

Dr. Benway

I don't think atheists have a problem with scholarship. They have a problem with thinking about the book as anything more than literature. They criticize the scholars for trying to have things both ways.

Then criticize the magic when it comes up. I have no problem with atheists calling believers out on what they actually believe, but I do have a problem with atheists telling believers what they should believe based on a very shallow way of reading ancient literature, which is essentially like a know nothing fundamentalist Bible thumpers (or "bashers" in the U.K) in the deep South.

epeeist

We have had a similar attempt at discussion with Artful Dodger. What is literal, what is metaphorical, how do you tell the difference between the two and how is the authority to declare which is which granted? He has done his usual post-and-run at this point. You have added another - what does the metaphor mean?

Those are all fair questions that an honest believer would have to answer. But that is quite different from saying that since there are ambiguities the only "authentic" Christianity is to take all words as literal truth, It is dumb and ridiculous. Supposedly rational and informed critics of religion should know better,

Thinking theists are happy to declare Genesis symbolic until one asks what therefore did Jesus die for, at which point Adam and Eve seem to acquire some level of literalness again.They want to eat their cake and have it.

Do you know for sure that the whole of Genesis was meant to be literal? In Hebrew "Adam" simply means "man" and I was told by some Jews that the ancient Jews didn't take the story of the Garden of Eden literally. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Judaism can shed some lights on it.

Your point seems to be that people used to take everything literally until science showed that literalism is untenable and they shift to more symbolic interpretations to avoid being nailed down. I am sure that happened but I don't think you can claim that is a general rule,--not as a bald assertion without better evidence from religious history anyway. It is not a self evident claim.

steve

It is. The sophisticated believers have more to explain. They have "New Bible with added 'Interpretation' - helps wash away the nasty bits".

Yes, they have things to explain and sometimes they do and sometimes they fudge. I am oppose to the categorical statement that only a literal interpretation is authentic and everything else is "fudging".This is naive and shallow,

Al

The "part describing the whole" being one example. These are easily identified, and are generally understandable to someone with even a modest understanding of semitic languages.

That would exclude most Bible thumpers.

So to say that these are cryptic in a way to make them indecipherable to translators or scholars, is a bit of a stretch.

Even translation from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese is not trivial, a lot is lost in translation, let alone translating into a different language. Maybe there is more continuation ancient in ME language so that their ancient forms are sufficiently similar to their modern descendants, I don't know but it is not intuitively obvious.

But even if you know to tease out all the metaphores from the literal,--based on our reconstruction of linguistic history, there is still an unspoken context, is it supposed to be an eternal command, or is it situational thing, etc?

I see no reason why an "authentic believer" must assume that all verses in the bible are universal and literal like reading instruction manuals,

Other Comments by Bonzai

40. Comment #149154 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #149152 by Bonzai

Yes, they have things to explain and sometimes they do and sometimes they fudge. I am oppose to the categorical statement that only a literal interpretation is authentic and everything else is "fudging".This is naive and shallow,

I am not claiming it is authentic. Just more honest.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #149158 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

I am not claiming it is authentic. Just more honest.

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #149159 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

Bonzai,

I have just read your post that came up seven minutes after mine. It seems to me that you believe that I was suggesting that the only true and consistent belief is a fundamentalist, literal one. This was not my intention. My only point is that the fundamentalist belief is, as far as the fundie is concerned, intellectually honest. The sophisticated believer has to jump through hoops to fit the bible into a modern world-view and this, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. One should decide which parts of the bible are historically or literally true (if any) based on evidence, not personal feelings.

Those who claim that the bible is a handbook for morality and ethics are being equally dishonest. Sure, there are good and noble sections giving good advice, but there are also horrendous, viscious sections that would be used only by a psychopath as a moral guide. Picking the good bits and ignoring the bad bits is simply dishonest.

Other Comments by SteveN

43. Comment #149160 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

25. Comment #149080 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:08 am & ensuing discussion

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly. It is not like in contemporary English where you can tell relatively easily which is which. Aside from the fact that English is a relatively straight forward language, the ease in parsing is partly due to an unspoken shared cultural references. To decipher what Biblical passages meant to the contemporary audience would involve a lot of linguistic and anthropological forensic work, which is the subject of Biblical scholarship.

I am not saying all moderate believers study Biblical scholarship but to say that the only consistent way to believe is to take the whole book word for word in translation is simply naive.

Wrt most of Christianity, I would say that this is rather beside the point.

Most Christians I know have only the vaguest notion of what it is they are supposed to believe in. Generally they don't get to the end of the Apostles' Creed before their faith disappears into a general mish-mash of angels, ghosts, karma and pagan hangovers. It's considered an extraordinary achievement to have actually read the bible. Indeed, before Vatican II in 1967, Catholics were told they weren't allowed to see it in their own language. I'm sure many of us here realised we were atheists when we started asking straightforward questions about our faith, and not getting any straightforward answers.

Given that these selfsame people align themselves unashamedly to churches which hold recognisably fundamentalist positions, I think we are entitled to call them for hypocrisy, if nothing else.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

44. Comment #149166 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 8:09 am

Bonzai asked:

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

To give you a (perhaps not totally) hypothetical example, if a creationist has been told since birth that the bible is the true, literal word of God, that the universe is 6000 years old and that scientific evidence (fossils, radiodating etc) to the contrary is flawed or falsified, he or she is being honest (as far as he or she is concerned) when arguing this point. A sophisticated believer who dismisses the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Exodus etc as mere stories because they are clearly contradicted by evidence but believes in a creator who guided evolution, answers prayers, creates souls etc is being intellectually dishonest because he or she has cherry-picked the data to fit his or her personal (probably unique) world-view.

Other Comments by SteveN

45. Comment #149170 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

SteveN

. My only point is that the fundamentalist belief is, as far as the fundie is concerned, intellectually honest.

Yes, but only as far as the fundies are concerned, being ignorant is not the same as being intellectually honest.

Take a way the super natural element and just consider reading the Bible a comprehension exercise. Would you say it is "intellectually more honest" to read Shakespeare simply on face value while ignoring all allusions, metaphors and historical context?

The sophisticated believer has to jump through hoops to fit the bible into a modern world-view and this, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. One should decide which parts of the bible are historically or literally true (if any) based on evidence, not personal feelings.

Non literalism isn't necessarily the same as being sophisticated. There are those who read the bible based on personal feelings, but not all non-literalists are like that. Some have sophisticated systems to do the picking and choosing, it is called exegesis. It is not arbitrary.

hungarianelephant

Wrt most of Christianity, I would say that this is rather beside the point.

So what if most Christians are ignorant? It doesn't mean they are somehow more "honest" or "authentic" then the few that we happen to engage.

Didn't Jesus say that most people will seek but wouldn't find and that the truth path is narrow? :)

If someone comes up and claims to be a Christian, I think a basic courtesy of discourse would be to let him tell you what he actually believes and take it from there, rather assuming what he must believe, or worse, to tell him what he should believe when his views don't fit our expectations and reflexively making accusation of dishonesty.

Given that these selfsame people align themselves unashamedly to churches which holds recognisably fundamentalist positions

You are describing the wooly believers.

Now if they feel free enough to believe in a mismash of things like picking from an all you can eat buffet I would think that they wouldn't align themselves automatically with Churches. If they support a Church position on issue X, there are probably other reasons than the pastors telling them to. Maybe you should ask them why,

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #149171 by Riley on March 25, 2008 at 8:16 am

McGrath, does make one good point that too many on this board miss: he makes a distinction between "atheism" and "anti-religion".

The claim that the 9/11 attacks or 7/7 bombings were motivated by religion is no better than the claim that the Soviet Russian atrocities were motivated by anti-religion.


Notice the distinction: atheism did not motivate the Soviet League of Militant Atheists to commit atrocities - anti-religion did.

Claims that "Religion Poisons Everything" and documentaries that pose the question, is religion "The Root of All Evil?" represent something more than atheism: they represent anti-religion. Like the Soviet League of Militant Atheists movement in Soviet Russia, the "new atheist" movement is an anti-religion movement.

I'm all for criticizing religion, but at the same time I can't deny that both anti-religion movements and religious movements are susceptible to being hijacked by extremists.

-

Other Comments by Riley

47. Comment #149174 by Riley on March 25, 2008 at 8:19 am

worth repeating I think:

bonzai wrote:I have no problem with atheists calling believers out on what they actually believe, but I do have a problem with atheists telling believers what they should believe[...]

Other Comments by Riley

48. Comment #149179 by MaxD on March 25, 2008 at 8:26 am

Bonzai

Do you know for sure that the whole of Genesis was meant to be literal? In Hebrew "Adam" simply means "man" and I was told by some Jews that the ancient Jews didn't take the story of the Garden of Eden literally. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Judaism can shed some lights on it.

I think that assumes that various sects can offer any thing to one another. Clearly you and I could modify our positions on the texts by saying, Ah...well in the original meaning this meant that, and that meant this. Well that changes everything. I'm not sure that is always the case with the believer and certainly it can be hard to get different faith traditions to do much more than tolerate each other, leaving alone the cross faith critique.

You say of the conversation with Artful Dodger on biblical metaphor the following.

Those are all fair questions that an honest believer would have to answer. But that is quite different from saying that since there are ambiguities the only "authentic" Christianity is to take all words as literal truth, It is dumb and ridiculous. Supposedly rational and informed critics of religion should know better,

I personally think the brilliance of the point isn't that the only authentic Christianity is a literalist approach but that doing one or the other highlights the problems of using these religious texts as anything more than literature causes. I personally don't feel a liberal Christian, whose bible is a metaphorical spiritual guide (who really has no other authority than a debatable interpretation and intuition about God's character) is on any firmer ground than the literalist (the bible isn't nearly exact enough for this, and resembles a contradictory nightmare of moral certitude when read in such a way). The former is forever out of the rational discussion. They can always find away out, and a justification for adhereing to some denominational label and for believing in ancient myths however watered down. The latter has at least the consolation-were they actually open to the evidence-that their beliefs could be confirmed or rendered null by collision with the evidence. Both ways seem kind of like wastes of time to me. I guess I kind of agree with Steve Zara that the literalist way is a more honest textual way to interpret, whereas the the liberal method becomes kind of morass of smoke and mirrors. I don't care either way. I think they are both silly ways to look at the Bible

Again, you tend to bemoan the sweeping generalizations of others but make more than a few yourself. You say that literalist approach is variously, "ridiculous and stupid," and such readings are, "shallow and naive." I think that of the two styles I've discussed, the liberal theological model, and the literalist model neither is very worthwhile.

I personally prefer to talk to the literal minded fellow. They at least have something concrete to say. The liberal theologian prefers to dance around absolute statements and play in a world of unknowable mystery while occasionally saying something provocative like God is love, or God is that mystery we have no name for, or God is the ground of all being. Fine, but also so what?

Other Comments by MaxD

49. Comment #149182 by Steve Zara on March 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

Bonzai-

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

What a strange question.

I am ignorant of the geometry of the Earth. I am honest if I say that I believe it to be flat.

See?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #149185 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:33 am

I should add that Christian fundamentalists do accept that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in reading and interpreting the bible. They state this more explicitly as a doctrine than non fundamentalist sects which rely on scholarship and exegesis,

Once the fundies open the door to individual guidance by the Holy Spirit they have no leg in accusing the non-fundamentalists of "going by their feelings" because they are doing exactly the same thing, it would be just as legitimate to say that God's revelations are private and personal while the Bible is just a prop, If you need the Holy Spirit to guide you, you basically admit that the Bible is not self contained.

Other Comments by Bonzai