DBT

I used to be a theist(christian) till my mid twenties and a pantheist until a couple of years ago.

Edited to add;
I always feel a little ambiguous when I say that I used to be a christian...the biblical creation story was a heavy influence as I was growing up,and on one level I did believe it,although at the same time it never did seem to be quite 'real.'

The wish fulfillment "charge" was only a statement on the basic nature of faith and unsupported belief, so it can apply to anyone.

lpetrich

TrueMyth, it seems to me that despite your protests, your OP has nothing but proof texts -- and not very good proof texts at that.

Richard Carrier has a nice article on Jesus Christ as a Philosopher and Feminist, and a follow-up. He notes about Jesus Christ that
In effect, he lets one-liners substitute for reasoning. RC compares what various Greek and Roman philosophers had done; their arguments have greater depth -- and they are often concerned with the nature of reasoning.

RC also notes in The Problem of Luke's Methods as an Historian that despite bragging about how much research he did, the author of the Gospel of Luke had not analyzed his sources in the fashion that Greco-Roman historians had been known to do.

In fact, if you want a freethinker's textbook, the various Greek and Roman philosophers have MUCH better starting material than any of the Bible.

Aspirin99

Actions speak louder than words. Chirstians have repeatedly burned thousands of books and destroyed entire libraries because of competing views. They have actively tried to stamp out any view that does not align to their idea of "truth."

See: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bookburn.html

*372 C.E. Burning of books in Antioch
*391 C.E. 700,000 books on history, science, literature, philosophy - complete destruction of the library in Alexandria
*Christians destroyed whole libraries containing 100,000 + books under Pope Gregory c.540 - 604
* When Christians captured Tripoli 1109, about 100,000 books of Mulim learning were destroyed.
* The inquisition burned thousands of books.
* When the Mayas were conquered by Christian Spain, they destroyed every book of learning and history they had, which is why we know so little about them today. "Christian bishop of Yucatan, Diego de Landa, ordered the destruction of all extant Mayan codices in 1562".

I'm sure there are many more.

Next time a Christian tries to point out that there are more manuscripts of the NT than of the Iliad, I'm going to say "That because you burned them all!"

Sven

Well, in my (honest?) opinion, the OP proofs only one thing (again!):
That one can support virtually everything using the bible, even contradictory positions.

This comes as no suprise, because it was written by many people over about a millenium, who of course did not always agree on everything. Ignore some conflicting verses, freely interpret some others - voila! The bible says what I knew all along.

TrueMyth

Thanks for your reply!

Yep. The OP is full of proof texts. I was asked for them, so I gave them.

Jesus does use the style characteristic of mystics and sages in that time period, of speaking in ambiguous riddles and one-line responses in the form of pithy sayings. However, be careful that you do not deduce useless simplicity from their brevity. For one, this is a cultural phenomenon. You prefer long proofs because of your Hellenistic intellectual background. The wide array of the same type of reasoning and presentation in Hebraic philosophers and pseudo-philosophers of that time period and stretching back centuries before speak to the conclusion that if this is a problem with Jesus' reasoning, it is a problem with Semitic reasoning in general-- a statement which is at best snobbishly Eurocentric and at worst perhaps racist.

Also, there is a cross-cultural tradition which honors the worth of encapsulating a long argument into a concise and clearly understandable statement. Compare Hillel's summary of the Torah: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary." Confuscius, Ghandi, and even Marcus Aurelius used them too. To deny this form of discussion and debate is to deny the human race in general and non-Hellenistic cultures specifically some of their most treasured intellectual property.

Let me know what you think!

lpetrich

Which makes me wonder if proof-texting is the most that one can come up with from the Bible; Bertrand Russell had noted that the Gospels contain not one word in praise of intelligence.

However, one-liners are no substitute for rigorous reasoning.

I don't like the idea of proofs that are long for the sake of being long. In fact, it's easier to hide specious reasoning in a long proof than in a short one.

Irrelevant mudslinging. TrueMyth, don't you have any better arguments?

TrueMyth

Thanks for replying!

Yep, I knew that would happen. The moment I wrote that, I figured I would be misunderstood. Let me explain what I meant by that and why this is not irrelevant.

Racism is more than hate-mongering and the KKK. Racism is a systemic issue which oppresses minorities and prevents their voice and actions from being heard and seen on a level playing field with the majority. Thus, while no hate crimes are being committed, White privilege is racism. I am a White male. I have it easier in finding a job, making money, and general life. This a systemic imbalance which is by definition racism.

Thus, denying a particular cultural expression b/c it does not coalesce with one's Hellenistic upbringing MIGHT PERHAPS BE POTENTIALLY (very important) racist b/c one is not allowing for diversity. Hebraic pithy sayings and proverbs are one minority thread in the mostly Hellenistic intellectual culture of the world. By denying an equal logical validity to these, one is POTENTIALLY (and most likely unintentionally) stating that the Hebrew tradition is less logical and therefore of less worth than a systematic proof (I retract all mention of long, drawn-out proofs) that is characteristic of Hellenism. This is giving privilege to the majority at the expense of the minority, which is by definition racism.

By the way, don't worry-- I'm a little bit racist too. (Avenue Q, anyone? )

Now for why all these shenanigans are relevant...

1) I stated that there was ample support for intellecualism in the Bible
2) I provided as one proof of this Jesus' statement in John 8:32 in particular and his method in general
3) This method was criticized as being not as logical as is necessary, and thus is not clear proof
4) I pointed out that this is ignoring the diversity of intellectual traditions, and thus is not a valid criticism.

I find myself at a bit of a loss as to how to convey the Bible's support for intellectualism in a way that might at least be understood, if not agreed with. If I use proof texts, as I was requested to, the discussion centers around the validity of proof texts in general, not the specific ones I offer. If I say, "Paul, Jesus, and Proverbs all praise reason", I have a very strong suspicion that someone will say, "Who says? I don't think so." At which point, I can only think of proof texts as a means of proving my supposition, at which point we continue to go in circles. Any suggestions? I want to pursue this further very much, mainly because I believe I am encouraged to by the Bible. Can we all at least agree on parameters for discussion?

I thank you all for your thoughts!

Toto

Is it fair to call you a post-modernist? [not intended as an insult.] I have noticed that modern Christians bash post-modernism at the same time as they join with the most anti-scientific of the post-modernists to bash the Enlightenment and western rationality.

But the question here is whether the Bible promotes "freethinking." By freethought, I mean thinking that is rooted in the scientific method of inquiry and skepticism. It is a product of the Enlightenment, but it means to break free of its specific cultural roots, even if would-be freethinkers sometimes fail in that attempt.

The Enlightenment looked back to ancient Greece for its inspiratation, and ancient Hellenes had some freethinking tendencies, but it would be a mistake to think that the Greeks invented or practiced the scientific method.

I see some problems with how you have formulated the question:

1. You can't claim that the Bible endorses freethinking, and then claim that the Hebrews used an alternate method of reasoning that is just as valid. Does the Bible endorse freethinking or not?

If your claim is that the Bible contains an alternate method of expression or reasoning that is also logical, where is the proof of that?

I think that the evidence shows that the Bible does endorse logical inquiry at times, and rejects it at other times; but is still not a "freethought textbook." It doesn't explain how or why to reason logically.

2. In addition, it is not clear that the Bible does contain an alternate method of reasoning. You claim "Hebraic pithy sayings and proverbs are one minority thread in the mostly Hellenistic intellectual culture of the world." I think you will find that the Greeks, the Romans, and all other cultures have their share of pithy sayings and proverbs.

All societies (including our own) are not confined to logical problem solving. Our evolutionary background has wired our brains for a variety of methods of reacting to sensory input other than involved logical proofs (See the recent book Blink which has been much discussed in the news.)

3. Most importantly, the gospels and the NT reflect a signficant amount of Hellenistic influence. Trying to find a Hellenistic/Hebraic dichotomy is probably doomed to failure.

Charges of "racism" should not be casually thrown about, especially if all you mean is cultural insensitivity, and you don't even have a good case for cultural insensitivity. Racism has a long ugly history of causing actual harm to people.

Jack the Bodiless

Did you mean to say "the New Testament" rather than "the Bible"?

I hope I don't have to dredge up all the OT's "kill the unbelievers" stuff.

Even the NT isn't big on freedom of religion. "There is no other way to God but through me...".

TrueMyth

Thanks for the responses!

Thank you for noticing! It would be fair to call me post-modernist if by that one means acknowledging inescapable bias in reason, not favoring "objective" deductive reasoning at the expense of inductive, intuitive, subjective reasoning, and an attitude of skepticism regarding all claims to objectivity. I smile at your awareness that it might be an insult. Sadly, yes, numerous Christians are terrified of that word, which makes me somewhat of an enigma (An orthodox, traditional [but not fundamentalis] Christian who is also a postmodernist?!). And yes, these same ones engage in the hypocrisy you mentioned. *sigh* O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...

I wish there was a light bulb smily, b/c I need that right now. Our confusion suddenly comes into focus for me. Our definitions of "freethinking" are at odds. I agree with the part about inquiry, and I would even add "free" inquiry, which would include scoping out other (perhaps contradictory) belief systems. However, I stumble on the skepticism part. I agree that is useful (indisposable?) in scientific inquiry, basically b/c (I believe) we are fallen human beings whose reason is flawed and whose passions are at ugly war. However, I believe the Bible clearly states that there is a right answer to all this inquiry. Thus, while skepticism has its place, it is temporary. This is skepticism distinct from doubt. Skepticism says, "Maybe, but it could be X as well," and doubt says, "I not sure if Y is it anymore." Skepticism is prior to belief, and doubt is posterior. Doubt is OK for a Christian, whereas skepticism precludes the whole question of being a Christian, since a prerequisite for that is belief.

If freethinking means incessant skepticism (incessant inquiry is not necessarily bad), then I'm not so sure it is a desirable label.

The scientific method as applied to science, no. "Freethinking," as defined by you above, they pretty much did invent. They invented philosophy and systematic logic, which are necessary conditions for the scientific method, so in that sense they did.

Thank you for being clear! Let me address each one in turn:

1) I pointed out above that we mean different things by freethinking. You mean the scientific method, and I mean free-thinking: Free-- able to choose between several options; Thinking-- the process of rational thought. I see the scientific method as a subset of freethinking, w/ the more Semitic approach being another subset. Thus there is no contradiction.

Regarding the "Freethinker's Textbook": wait for it... wait for it... I STAND CORRECTED. Yep. There it is. It was rather unfortunate of me to pick that as the title. I suppose I was trying to aim for something sexy and catchy and snappy, and in the process posted something shallow and misleading. Surprise, surprise... You are right. The Bible is not a textbook for the scientific method. It is very questionable (but marginally defensible) that it is so regarding a broader sense of freethinking. It is not really intended to be a textbook for anything, except perhaps God's nature (although I'm not sure a textbook can be written on that) and how to live one's life. Even then, it is certainly not exhaustive. But I believe it to be sufficient. I think you got it right when you stated that the Bible endorses logical inquiry at times. I still deny the claim that it rejects it at other times, since that assumes that One Truth is inimical to logical inquiry. That seems like an a priori assumption which is itself inimical to logical inquiry. There is nothing illogical about saying, "I have looked and looked and looked. I have weighed options and tested theories. I have done all I can, and I find that X is correct. Anyone who wishes to disagree may do so." The Bible encourages the looking and the weighing and the testing, but is confident that in the end it has the correct answer. There is nothing illogical or even (broadly) un-scientific about this.

2) I agree that pithy sayings and proverbs are part of all cultures to a certain extent. In fact...
3) I am not trying to create a dichotomy. You admit that there are Hellenistic as well as Semitic influences in the Bible (regarding reasoning, I am assuming). Someone else attempts to deny the logical validity of the Semitic parts. I challenge this. Thus, I am not attempting to paint a dichotomy, but a complex tapestry with many different strands.

Regarding the whole racism fiasco, I state that everyone's a little bit racist. If this is trivializing it by finding it under every rock and behind every tree, I find that very amusing, since I am a staunch conservative in the midst of (I suspect) mostly liberals. This definition of racism is not mine, but that of scholars in the field of multicultural studies, and is by far the most widely accepted definition. I also point to my statement that racism is the worst case scenario in this situation-- snobbish Eurocentrism is much more likely. In any case, this all is very unhelpful and distracting from the main thread, so I propose dropping the issue.

BTW, Toto, I apologize for the length and would like to state how much I appreciate your responses. They are never polemic and are always well-reasoned and kindly presented. Thank you. That is not rare in this forum, but it is something of a minority.

Thanks again!