Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 07-08-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Finally, Celsus. Greetings. Yes, I do think the topic would make an interesting discussion, since any discussion of why must include at least acknowledging the metaphysical gulf between us. Before or after this, we could go on to discuss societal factors that have shaped us (and us them). I am not quite sure, though, how once we do acknowledge said gulf, what would be left for us to say. It seems that in order for such a discussion to continue one of us would have to adopt the other's starting point. It would be my intent, then, to get you to do that as much as possible. On the other hand, I think that bracketing the metaphysical still gives us plenty to talk about. As I noted previously, arguing for the authority of the Scriptures ultimately falls into the metaphysical category.

Well, I have had exactly this sort of debate before at Theology Web, and after it was over, I didn't feel I (or the other person) had much more to say. Anyway, I will write more on this in a new thread some time (I know, promises, promises

)

Joel

lugotorix · 07-08-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremiah
I agree that many religious zealots are willing to die for their cause and that only proves that they believe in something strongly enough to give their life for it. My point about the NT testament is that most of the authors were eyewitnesses and either died to propagate lies or they cherished the truth more than life.

Actually, most of the NT books were not written by eyewitnesses. AFAIK, the only books whose authorship can be reliably traced are some of the epistles of Paul, who was not an eyewitness to a historical Jesus.

But more importantly, you're presenting a false dichotomy. The choices are not only that they were speaking the truth or lying. They could have fervently believed what they were preaching but were mistaken. They could have been part of a millenarian cult that didn't turn out as they expected and were desparately trying to salvage the remnants of their former beliefs; check out When Prophecy Fails for a modern example of this. The fact that they were willing to die for their beliefs doesn't affect the truth or falsity of those beliefs.

lugotorix

Clutch · 07-08-2003, 02:48 PM

CJD, I agree that it would be good if atheists could address the best possible interpretations of Scripture, taking the initiative in improving upon the facile and provincial literalism that seems so very common, and then replying to the improved version.

But here's the thing: what's a poor old atheist to do by way of charitably reconstructing a literalist argument? It isn't my holy book, after all, and the core doctrines are no more defensible than the marginal ones at the end of the day.

That is, a serious biblical hermeneuticist may demur from such ideas as talking snakes and talking donkeys. Don't assume that all Christians read every word literally! and so forth. But what about a man who dies, then comes back to life, then flies away up in the sky? (Where was he going?!) The exercise of charity, on an atheist's part, would read all such obviously mythic elements non-literally. But that doesn't seem like a way of taking Christianity seriously; it seems like a way of rejecting it altogether.

Of course you anticipate all this with your allusion to "naturalistic assumptions". (These are known to atheists, and to Christians when interpreting any other religion or document, as "common sense".) But I suppose this just suggests a tension between your acknowledgement of the dilemma on one hand, and your plea for more charity towards the text on the other.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2003, 02:48 PM	#33
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	CJD, I agree that it would be good if atheists could address the best possible interpretations of Scripture, taking the initiative in improving upon the facile and provincial literalism that seems so very common, and then replying to the improved version. But here's the thing: what's a poor old atheist to do by way of charitably reconstructing a literalist argument? It isn't my holy book, after all, and the core doctrines are no more defensible than the marginal ones at the end of the day. That is, a serious biblical hermeneuticist may demur from such ideas as talking snakes and talking donkeys. Don't assume that all Christians read every word literally! and so forth. But what about a man who dies, then comes back to life, then flies away up in the sky? (Where was he going?!) The exercise of charity, on an atheist's part, would read all such obviously mythic elements non-literally. But that doesn't seem like a way of taking Christianity seriously; it seems like a way of rejecting it altogether. Of course you anticipate all this with your allusion to "naturalistic assumptions". (These are known to atheists, and to Christians when interpreting any other religion or document, as "common sense".) But I suppose this just suggests a tension between your acknowledgement of the dilemma on one hand, and your plea for more charity towards the text on the other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.