CJD

This thread should serve as an example of how a self-proclaimed atheist becomes the object of his/her own derision. What I mean is this: oftentimes, the atheist will accuse the Xian of (metaphorically speaking) balling up in a corner, closing his/her eyes tightly, and sucking his/her thumb. In other words, irrationally believing in the face of contrary evidence. Now, any Xian who knows what faith is (belief and action), knows that there is an emotive element to it, that is, it is not all cognitive assensus. What follows is a simple and critical evaluation of a biblical text, and an irrational atheist clinging in faith to his presupposed disdain for religion.

At the outset, I must say, unless we are all mushy-minded deconstructionists, that a text does have meaning. True, the meaning of the text intersects with whatever baggage the reader brings to it. But that in no way supercedes the meaning. In other words, contra ignoramuses like Stanley Fish, a laundry list is not a poem. If you wish to challenge this exegesis, then please don't do it like the following atheist does, do it logically, coherently, and show me where I have wrought violence upon the text.

And now, for the supposed contradicton.
Is wisdom good or bad?
PR 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, JA 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
LK 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1CO 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.

My response:

1. Wisdom is grand. But what is meant by wisdom? Let's look at the texts in question (Prov. 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, Jas. 1:5)

Proverbs: happy is he who finds wisdom (3:13); Wisdom is pre-eminent (4:7); he who gets wisdom loves life (19:8); Ask God for wisdom (Jas. 1:5).

* None of these, unfortunately, describe what wisdom is. We have to at least understand what wisdom is according to the text before we can go any further. Are there any portions of the Wisdom Literature that would clue us in on such a thing? Sure. But understand that it's not as simple as "Wisdom is . . ."

Generally, speaking hokma means "masterful understanding," "skill," "expertise." As seen in the texts above, widsom is that thing which enables the person who has it to cope with life, and to achieve what would otherwise be impossible (e.g., Prov. 30:24–28). Furthermore, wisdom cannot be possessed without instruction (musar) to correct a moral fault (cf. 15:33; 22:15). Even further, the two (wisdom and instruction) do not come unless the hearer understands (lehabin) the sage's words (cf. 1:2, 6; 7:7; 14:15). Behind all of this is the major prerequisite: the fear of the LORD. It is the key to gaining wisdom in the book of Proverbs (cf. 1:7; 9:10). It also involves both objective and subjective elements. The former entails rational content that can be taught and memorized, while the latter entails a non-rational (i.e., emotive) response of fear, love and trust to the aforementioned objective revelation.

In sum, H_____, wisdom is the fear of the LORD. How does this relate to Luke 2:40, 52, where Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God? The "wisdom" in view here indeed entails the wisdom described in the Proverbs, as it includes the whole of life-development: intellectual, social, and spiritual increase.

Finally, the supposed contradiction of 1 Corinthinas 1:19-25 and 3:18-20:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise . . ." What kind of wisdom is this? "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Doesn't sound like the same wisdom, does it? "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Clearly, two kinds of wisdom are being pitted against each other here. The wisdom of God, and the wisdom of the world (with the former, by the way, being"folly" to the world). Need I go on? At one point, the "Greeks seek wisdom." And at another, "to those who are called, . . . Christ is the power and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." More, you say? "Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise" (3:18). Once again, we see that the first wisdom is the wisdom of the world, or "this age," which must be replaced, Saint Paul asserts, with the wisdom of God (as described in the Proverbs), which, as we have seen earlier, is folly to the world. So, then, become a fool (to the world) and gain the wisdom of God. After all, "the wisdom of this world is folly with God" (3:19).

Surely we have put this one to rest, H_____. Clearly, the two "wisdoms" are unalike in every way. Next?



The faithful atheist responds:

"CJD, Your answer proves my point about the ambiguity of the bible. Your whole argument resides on the fact that the old testament (and James) was *not * clear in defining what "kind" of wisdom it was talking about, therefore leaving open your interpretation that it is not the same definition as what Paul was speaking about. To me, the OT (and James) is indeed speaking about the wisdom "of man". (And that leads to another problem of your interpretation--James says to pray to God for wisdom--of God(?) according to you--which is supposed to be the fear of the Lord (or love of the Lord). That seems like a rather superfluous prayer, praying for something you already have).

If the OT was not speaking of the wisdom of man but the wisdom of god, then the writer could have, and should have said wisdom "of God". It wouldn't have been that difficult to add those 2 words or to use a context that made it clear which "wisdom" it was speaking of. Like I said, to me, it is clearly the wisdom of man they were speaking of. Therefore, the inconsistency is still there."

Contrary to the blind leap of faith this atheist has taken, the Proverbs do clearly demarcate what it means when it says "wisdom." The atheist sucking his thumb in the corner has retreated into deconstructionism at its worst. Again, the text clearly shows what it means by "wisdom," and the burden of proof lies on the one who challenges that clarity. A "To me" hermeneutic is utterly preposterous. Now, this is not to say that ambiguities do not exist in Scripture, nor is this to say (pointing out the obvious) that Xians always agree on certain things. But this is nothing more than an example of my wasted time in pointing out what should be obvious, and the total committment this atheist has in clinging to his faith. If you are going to presume to teach me the bible, H____, then you had better make certain you have more substantial reasons than the ones you proffered above.

All I am looking for is the atheist to admit many of his/her beliefs, though warranted, are nonetheless unjustified in the very same way that the Xian's are. What we have left, then, is plausibility. So, which is more plausible?

CX

Minor quibble, but atheism does not entail any belief, but rather an absence of belief. We should be mindful that this is not the same thing as disbelief. That atheist also believe certain propositions is independent of atheism itself. Now back to the B,C&A related topic at hand...

CJD

CX, I suppose I can clarify it thus:

"All I am looking for is the atheist to admit many of his/her absence of beliefs, though warranted (insofar as his/her reality is socially constructed), are nonetheless unjustified in the very same way that many of the Xian's beliefs are."

Better?

I must, however, take issue with the latter portion of your response: "That atheists also believe certain [other?] propositions is independent of atheism itself." The beliefs we cling to are interdependent. It can be no other way. What you are suggesting is that your everyday choices are not affected in any way by your absence of belief in an almighty God. Surely you are not saying this!?

Regards,

Ab_Normal

This idea caught my fancy, so I'll take a look at my choices so far today. I apologize in advance if I'm off topic. So far today I:

* hit the snooze button twice to get more snuggles with my husband (and the cat) instead of leaping straight out of bed. (My morning schedule is laid out so I can hit snooze two or three times without making me late.)

* choose jeans and a t-shirt to wear to work because it's a dress-down day. I'm still tidy and presentable out of respect for my co-workers, because I'd like them to show me the same respect.

* drove to work, observing all traffic laws and speed limits, because I believe it's safer to drive that way, and my insurance is a lot cheaper too.

* work work work. Browsed Infidels between tasks, which is well within the company internet usage policy (I checked).

I don't think I'm bragging when I say that I am a productive, law-abiding member of my community. I pay taxes and vote. I follow the traffic laws and just about every other law that I'm familiar with (okay, I jaywalk when there's no traffic and I'm sure some of my neighbors would argue that my yard is breaking some sort of law). All without god-belief of any sort.

The argument can be made that I'm a good person because I was raised with a god-belief, which I subsequently rejected. However, I don't think that's the case, unless I've internalized the promise of heaven and the threat of hell so deeply that it influences my decision making on a subconscious level. Believe me, when I don't speed, it's because I'm thinking of my insurance rates, not my eternal soul.

CJD

Thanks for sharing, abby. I'll spare you the details of my life, though (except I think I have gone beyond the internet surfing policy today ).

The point I was making, of course, had nothing to do with morals. Morals are largely socially constructed (though I also think they are a mirror image). It is interesting to note that thoughts of a god largely escape your everyday choices. That was my point. That's what separates us. Not a whole lot more. I prayed to God when I hit the snooze this morning and thanked him. I am not a practical atheist. It's Father, Son, Holy Ghost, this, and Father, Son, Holy Ghost, that. Let's not bring "morals" into it. Besides, even though some sort of "post-Christian" West has indeed emerged, the residual effects are still latent in American consciousness. I was merely stating what I thought to be the obvious fact that our first choice in the morning (for me, "God," for you, "no God") are part and parcel of every facet of our lives.

Wishing I could wear jeans and a t-shirt to work,

CJD

*By the way, if we just continue chatting like this, let each poster at least throw a one-liner in there about my (mis)understanding of the text in question.

CX

That's more concise, but I'd have to disagree. Nonbelief by definition needs no justification because there is nothing to justify. Whereas belief in a specific metaphysical proposition does require justification. It's comparing apples to oranges. No if you assert that disbelief in god requires justification just as much as belief, I'd have to agree.

Actually that's not what I had in mind. Rather I meant that one could embrace such things as materialism, metaphysical naturalism or not independent of being an atheist. Atheist applies to a such a narrow subset of knowledge that it doesn't really entail anything else. Many Buddhists, for example, are atheistic and yet not also materialists. As to the question about god I'd have to say no, my everyday choices are not affected by my nonbelief. I am roughly the same person and make roughly the same choices now as when I was a believer in god.

That being said we really should either split this conversation off into another forum or discontinue it. It's got little or nothing to do with B,C&A

CX

OKay, I'm moving this. If we get back to a B,C&A topic it can always be returned here...

CJD

CX, split away! I would still like to see if there are any takers on how I have (not) treated the text fairly regarding "wisdom." I would also ike to see if H____ is capable of coming up with something exegetically responsible.

Regards,

Toto

CJD:

You have a disagreement over Biblical interpretation with an atheist, and you are trying to stretch this into a claim that atheism is based on faith (and therefore your a-rational beliefs are entitled to the same respect, an argument we've heard here before, and which I find trivial and boring.)

I had never thought about that particular contradiction before, but it seems that your position is based on a contrast between the wisdom of the world and a higher "godly" wisdom. I do not think that the ancient Hebrews made that distinction. For them, the world was made by God, and if they followed his laws, they would receive material rewards on earth. I think that Paul, in contrast, was speaking from a Hellenistic, gnostic woldview, that saw the world as corrupt, and that if you try to force that viewpoint back onto the Old Testament, you are doing serious damage to its worldview and to the text.

mike_decock

I do agree that some atheists are guilty of dogmatic deconstructionism. The "Wisdom" example was a fairly poor example of a biblical contradiction and your explanation of the difference was simply a matter of putting the verses into the context of the chapters.

I think some atheists and Christians alike clutch at straws in their refutations and apologetics. Conceding error can be difficult when debating someone you fundamentally disagree with.

-Mike...