Stephen T-B

I think what happens is this:

The Bible can work at a very simple level at which it poses no problems for a simple-minded, uncritical readership such as is found in Fundamentalist congregations and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The need, however, to believe in a supernatural super being and in the immortality of the soul overrides rational judgment, and consequently some very bright people find themselves saddled with a holy scripture in which stories of a mythical cosmology, a flat Earth, talking serpents and donkeys and a world-wide inundation are lumped together with hundreds of extremely specific regulations about keeping clean and not offending God, accounts of bloody, divinely-inspired conflicts, very numerous magical occurrences and a cruel, vengeful, unbalanced tribal divinity which is suddenly transformed into a loving father.
In order to avoid the admission: “I am an intelligent person but I adhere to a holy scripture which is, quite frankly, incoherent nonsense,” they are obliged to burden the text with carefully thought-out explanations which reveal how the pursuit of a delusion by an intelligent person can promote impressive mental gymnastics.

CJD

I am glad to get to this at the start, since it will probably take off (not to mention get moved to another forum). Well, Stephen, I am sure whatever group of Christians you are referring to will appreciate your back-handed compliment.

I must say, however, that the following is fraught with problems:

"The need, however, to believe in a supernatural super being and in the immortality of the soul . . . ."

From my perspective, this is extremely naive. Here is why:

1. Man produces (projects himself into) culture.

2. With each passing generation, the culture takes on a more "objective" standard (i.e., "That's just the way things are done . . . .").

3. Culture produces (projects itself into) Man.

The dialectic should be obvious (# 2 is really an intermediary process). No one can escape this, as P. Berger calls it, "the social construction of reality." Thus, you are equally needy in your absence of beliefs. If you are willing to walk through this "fiery brook of relativism" with me, then you will see that it is a matter of plausibility—not certitude. What you call "burdening the text" is really an attempt to show that one reading is more plausible than another, and should lead one to adapt their criticism, or embrace the alternative. In other words, Stephen, epistemically we are on equal ground. Or put negatively, we are all equally deluded (at the outset).

Regards,

CJD

Stephen T-B

Yes, I am certain that humans create the cultures in which they live, and are simultaneously the product of those same cultures; I think this to be a fascinating process of interconnected, multi-directional flows of information which generate constant alterations and modifications in our cultures and the people whom they embed.
Cultures also shape the religions which develop within them, and are themselves shaped by those religions.
I suppose you can agree with that?

I won’t though (I think) persuade you that the person who states a belief in god is actually stating a certainty which is driven by particular needs; nor will I persuade you that unbelief is simply an absence of those needs - and not their substitution by a different set.

I “believed” in god, (I was told by my elders that there was such a thing, and why should I doubt them?) but I lacked certainty; most Christians who come to these forums, on the other hand, have made the transition from belief to certainty.
Why did I lack certainty? Because it was a matter of indifference to me whether or not a god existed .

I would be astonished if you were to state that the existence of god is a matter of indifference to you.

I ought now attempt to address the main point of your post, ie
“What you call ‘burdening the text’ is really an attempt to show that one reading is more plausible than another, and should lead one to adapt their criticism, or embrace the alternative.”
But why should I accept your reading to be more plausible than mine; why should I let it lead me to adapt my criticism or embrace your alternative?
Well, one reason would be if I had an investment in the Bible’s worth; if it were important to me that sense could be made of it.
But that investment isn’t there.
The Bible, self-evidently, is immensely important, and as such demands a great deal more study and analysis than I have the patience to give it. But the scholarship I look for is impartial, and I am not sure that yours is.

CJD

Stephen, thanks for your response.

Yes, I am certain that humans create the cultures in which they live, and are simultaneously the product of those same cultures; I think this to be a fascinating process of interconnected, multi-directional flows of information which generate constant alterations and modifications in our cultures and the people whom they embed.
Cultures also shape the religions which develop within them, and are themselves shaped by those religions.
I suppose you can agree with that?

Yes.

I would be astonished if you were to state that the existence of god is a matter of indifference to you.

As you should be. I am Trinitarian theist in practice—not just postulates.

I won’t though (I think) persuade you that the person who states a belief in god is actually stating a certainty which is driven by particular needs;

Ironically, this is, to borrow another phrase, one of those "signals of transcendence." While you may think that the fact that said needs are socially constructed undermines the belief, I think the fact that said needs are socially constructed points to the plausibility that God exists—a "signal" of transcendence. Freud called it infantile helplessness and a longing for one's father, but even he, when pressed, quipped, "From my own experience I could not convince myself of the primary nature of such a [religious] feeling. But this gives me no right to deny that it does in fact occur in other people" (Civilization and Its Discontents, 12).

. . . nor will I persuade you that unbelief is simply an absence of those needs - and not their substitution by a different set. . . . But the scholarship I look for is impartial, and I am not sure that yours is.

Both of these statements interest me because I do not think they are compatible with your expressed agreement regarding social construction. I understand the contention that the "needs" are absent, but I do not understand how that absence escapes the dialectic mentioned above. Nor do I see how the dialectic allows for impartiality. That is my main point. You are not going to get it—no matter where you look.

I can only add to your answers—with humility—to the following question: "why should I accept your reading to be more plausible than mine; why should I let it lead me to adapt my criticism or embrace your alternative?

You have answered already in part. 1) It is not important to you that the text makes sense; 2) "The Bible, self-evidently, is immensely important, and as such demands a great deal more study and analysis than I have the patience to give it." Obviously, then, you would agree that others have spent a "great deal more study and analysis than [you] have the patience to give it." It is then up to you to know who it is you are reading, and with what partiality they are writing. Honest scholarship stands out among the rest, regardless of who is behind it; but "honest" scholarship is never "impartial," just more plausible.

In addition to this answer, I must add one more reason for adapting your criticism or embracing the alternative: because it would be intellectually dishonest to fault something, when you know that fault is hollow, and that there is a more plausible explanation (and possible fault) for that which you are criticizing.

In the end, I guess it comes down to who or what authority you desire to subject yourself to, consciously, keeping the dialectic in mind, so that you never find yourself saying anything in "bad faith" (as Sartre put it), that is, saying, "I have no choice," when you know you do.

Regards,

CJD

Paul Baxter

Stephen,

out of curiosity, could I ask you to expand on what you mean by "impartial", especially as regarding biblical studies.

Stephen T-B

Paul, what I had in mind was a specialist in Jewish history of the relevant period whose scholarship would allow him/her to put the stories into their historical context and suggest their origins and authorship. Knowing Greek and Hebrew would be a prerequisite. The personal beliefs of such a specialist wouldn’t matter, as long as they did not colour the interpretation of the evidence. (What I actually mean, if I’m honest, is “as long as they did not skew the interpretation in such a way as would make me suspect the hand of a Fundamentalist.”)
CJD talked about “plausible,” scholarship; but its plausibility will, of course, vary from reader to reader. Thus, what I consider to be plausible might be regarded as a shocking distortion by someone looking to substantiate a belief in the Bible’s inerrantry.

(I’m working haphazardly through this, picking up points as I spot them, which is how I come to CJD’s remark about our needs being socially constructed...)
If I gave the impression that I think they are, I apologise. I don’t.
They are influenced by the cultures we live in only to the extent that they spring from our reactions and responses to the multitude of experiences which we accrue day by day - these “reactions and responses” being peculiar to the individual personality which each of us evolves as we mature (and which began at our conception with a unique potential.)
If “the need to believe” is somehow instilled in us by god via the cultures he inspires us to create (I think this was CJD’s point, but might be wrong), I would expect it to be universal.
Is it? Do I have this need, but am denying it?
I think not. I think we bow to our needs, want to or not.
And if I don’t have this particular need, then it isn’t universal.

And now I’m back where I started - talking about “impartiality.”
Prompted by CJD’s comments, I do, in fact, doubt that anyone can read the Bible and remain impartial as to the truth it does or does not express.
But perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for the truth in it; at least not a truth that’s any different from that which we might look for in Shakespeare’s sonnets?

CJD

Hello, Stephen. Just a few thoughts in response . . .

If by "specialist" you mean a wisened teacher of the things you mentioned, then I am obviously not that. But I have (and continue) to sit under them. Much of what I argue re: textual criticism in this forum comes from my study under them. If you smell "fundamentalism" in my comments, what can I say? I do not defend the inerrancy of the Scriptures as modern fundamentalists understand it. Nor will I waste my time arguing about such a thing with anyone outside of the faith community. I think you see why.

If what you consider to be plausible, I consider a shocking distortion, I think we can get past that, if we are both willing to be honest and impartial. It would seem, however, that I am committed to the idea that the text has a logic to it, while you would be equally committed to the notion that it does not. So much for impartiality (which you so duly noted).

If I gave the impression that I think [needs are socially constructed], I apologise. I don’t. They are influenced by the cultures we live in only to the extent that they spring from our reactions and responses to the multitude of experiences which we accrue day by day - these “reactions and responses” being peculiar to the individual personality which each of us evolves as we mature (and which began at our conception with a unique potential).

I think I agree that "needs" per se are not socially constructed, and I also agree that they are influenced and shaped by the cultures we live in. But if they are only to the extent that they "spring from our reactions and responses to the multitude of experiences which we accrue day by day," we are guilty of underemphasizing #1 in our dialectic above (Man projects him/herself into culture). Just as our needs respond to our accrued experiences, so, too, do our experiences in culture reflect the needs we have projected into culture. This has the (unsettling) affect of reminding us that the needs we have—or lack thereof—are reinforced by our own projections into the community (and subsequently projected back upon us). In other words, we actively look for said reinforcements to legitimize our need (or absence of need), so as to attain that momentary balance we all desire.

If “the need to believe” is somehow instilled in us by god via the cultures he inspires us to create (I think this was CJD’s point, but might be wrong), I would expect it to be universal.

Since we are talking about cultures, and not individuals (since there are always exceptions), I think I stand on solid ground when I say that the majority of known cultures in the history of the world were religious to one extent or another. It is true we are post-Christian in the West, but we are anything but post-religious. Do you agree?

Do I have this need, but am denying it?

I cannot answer this.

I think we bow to our needs, want to or not.

Yes, I agree, so long as we keep the dialectic in mind, which I might add, eschews determinism and encapsulates free action. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Thoughts to the contrary are "bad faith" (see Sartre above). I guess I actually disagree with your statement as long as you disjoin "need" from "want" ("wanting" something you don't "need" notwhithstanding).

But perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for the truth in it; at least not a truth that’s any different from that which we might look for in Shakespeare’s sonnets?

I'm content to bracket the metaphysical, and any discussion about the infallibility of the text; but I have to ask: Can we not discern which reading (of any given Shakespearean sonnet) is more plausible than another?

As I have said elsewhere, I am not looking to recruit anyone; nor do I expect what I have argued in other threads re: biblical criticism to have a bearing on people's lives. To be specific, my concern is to show so-and-so that they have no right to fault Xianity based on some ludicrious handling of the text. In other words, my intent is to help so-and-so become a sharper atheist.

Regards,

CJD

Paul Baxter

I appreciate your candor, Stephen.

Stephen T-B

Your intent is very generous.

When I look at a cloud, I see a mass of water vapour forming or dispersing or being moved by air currents.
When you look at a cloud (I’m being presumptuous here, and if I’m wrong forgive me) you see the hand of God at work in his creation, for he made all things and all things have divine intent.
We both, however, see a physical phenomenon; we may both be struck by its beauty, complexity, menace, or the fact that is looks awfully like a profile of George W.Bush.
But each of us brings to our observation a piece of ourselves: the dominant piece I bring is prosaic; the dominant piece you bring is spiritual.

We have, within us, some of both. As you would expect, I don’t believe I have a soul, but I know I have a capacity to be moved in a way which is unrelated (as far as I know) to my appetites and needs as a living entity or my responses which derive from my species’ longish history of socialisation and attainment of high intelligence. It’s what makes me respond emotionally to poetry and music; to Sung Evensong in York Minster, to stories of kindnesses, forgiveness, generosity, and to a setting sun which sets the sky on fire.
I think we can both call it a “spiritual” quality, even if we account for it differently.

You, I expect, have a prosaic side which makes you a realist in many of your responses, conclusions, judgments and actions. But for reasons I cannot explain, the Prosaic and the Spiritual occupy different levels in your being than they do in mine, and one consequence of this is that when your read the Bible, you see in it the hand of God; when I read it, I see man-made anecdote, myth and propaganda, and a small amount of history.

I’m not sure we can get much further than this, but I should like to thank you for the time you’ve taken in responding to the OP of this uneducated hack.

CJD

Stephen, you're welcome, and thank you for that last bit. You've said more in the previous post than books and books of "educated" jargon.

Very truly yours,

CJD