Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 07-07-2003, 11:21 AM

Bede is effectively defending cafeteria theology, the infamous practice of taking what one likes and leaving what one does not like. Thus, the Bible can be made 100% consistent with atheism by interpreting all references to the Biblical God as references to a fictional being. And likewise for other belief systems.

I think that if one wishes to practice cafeteria theology, one at least ought to be honest about it.

And I also think demanding that self-styled literalists, even when it hurts them, actually be real literalists is simply a demand for practicing what one preaches.

There is, in fact, an an abundance of evidence that the writers of the Bible had believed that the Earth is flat and stationary and that the sky is a solid bowl overhead. Most of it comes in the form of offhand comments like the one that demoninho had mentioned; the Bible's writers had little interest in anything remotely resembling present-day science. The noncanonical book 1 Enoch, however, is different; it goes into great detail about cosmology. Though it recognizes the Sun's different rising and setting azimuths and the circumpolar stars, it also states that the sky's base has doors in it for the celestial bodies to pass through, that the stars ride chariots, and that there is a jail for stars that dawdle.

lpetrich · 07-07-2003, 02:03 PM

Sorry for a malapropism in my earlier message. It ought to have been:

And I also think demanding that self-styled literalists actually be real literalists, even when it hurts them, is simply a demand for practicing what one preaches.

07-07-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

And I also think demanding that self-styled literalists actually be real literalists, even when it hurts them, is simply a demand for practicing what one preaches.

No, that's simply a demand that your strawmen be taken seriously. Why even fundies should be expected to be as simplistic as you demand escapes me. They do not believe the earth is flat - they believe when the bible says so, it is best to interprete this figuratively. Given we continue to use phrases like to the ends of the earth, the sun rose, the four corners of the earth, the seven seas, kicked into next week etc etc etc they have a very strong case that the bible can also be treated as such. You claiming they shouldn't shows you are more literal minded than they are, which, frankly, isn't something I would want to be.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich · 07-07-2003, 10:41 PM

Bede:
No, that's simply a demand that your strawmen be taken seriously.

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo (sarcasm).

Why even fundies should be expected to be as simplistic as you demand escapes me.

How is that being simplistic? Absolute truth means absolute truth, without expedient exceptions.

They do not believe the earth is flat - they believe when the bible says so, it is best to interprete this figuratively.

Out of pure expediency, I'm sure. Flat-earthism is so strongly falsified that they look for an excuse to reject the parts of the Bible that imply it.

Given we continue to use phrases like to the ends of the earth, the sun rose, the four corners of the earth, the seven seas, kicked into next week etc etc etc they have a very strong case that the bible can also be treated as such.

Including Bede's favorite parts of the Bible, I'm sure.

You claiming they shouldn't shows you are more literal minded than they are, which, frankly, isn't something I would want to be.

Me? Literal-minded?

To me, strict literalism has the nice feature of being rigorous, and not something that is a convenient cover for expediency.

Doctor X · 07-07-2003, 11:12 PM

Bede:

Ipetrich rather responds for me it seems.

Quote:

No JD. The fundies have stated that they believe the bible should be interpreted figuratively when it is making a claim they know to be wrong.

Which is an apology, a cop-out--they claim literal interpretation until they find something they do not like, then claim that, well, of course it should be taken as allegory . . . and what criteria do they use?

Whatever makes them question their convictions, apparently.

Quote:

That shows they are using common sense. . . .

Rather it shows that they cannot approach the texts objectively.

Quote:

To tell them they should take it all literally even when it is palpably false is, as I said, a bloody stupid thing to do.

On the contrary, it is most appropriate to ask them to apply their standards objectively.

--J.D.

l-bow · 07-07-2003, 11:13 PM

Bede,

When I was a fundi, one didn't take a passage figuratively just because the literal interpretation of it is ridiculous. One had to have a better reason for the passage, such a it was a vision. Or poetry. Not "the literal reading of of this passage it ridilculous". Otherwise, someone can turn around and say "well,if you interpret the passages that support the idea of a flat earth figuratively because it's ridiculous, then why not take the passages that support the idea of creation andd take them figuratively also because the notion of a universe created 6000 years ago is rejected by the scientific community in general."

Celsus · 07-07-2003, 11:56 PM

To both sides,

Please refrain from baiting each other. It would be much more interesting to have a debate on realistic hermeneutic considerations than whether or not the simplistic reading is the One True Exegesis (tm). This tendency should be limited to fundies: Fundy Christians or Fundy Atheists. Separating Hebrew Cosmogony from Christian Cosmogony would be quite an interesting one though...

Joel
BC&H Moderator

lpetrich · 07-08-2003, 01:02 AM

Bede suggests using "common sense". However, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "common sense". Simply consider this application of "common sense" to the question of the shape of the Earth:

Quote:

How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains?

(Lactantius, Divine Institutes 3:24)

In effect, Lactantius was arguing that the approximate sphericity of the Earth is contrary to "common sense", because everything at the opposite side would be upside down and fall upwards.

Also, allegorical interpretation has a tendency to become "it's literal when I like it, allegorical when I don't." Rigorous literalism is free from that difficulty, solving that problem by claiming that none of the Bible is allegorical.

However, there may be rigorous interpretation rules that include the option of allegorical interpretation. One possibility is Galileo's view that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go; a closely-related one is Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). In fact, Galileo's views may be interpreted as an early form of NOMA.

07-08-2003, 04:19 AM

Excepting Celsus, as we only have fundie atheists on this thread, I'll drop out and let them moan to each other about fundie Christians.

Doctor X · 07-08-2003, 03:14 PM

When someone descends to argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the Well, he rather loses the argument.

At least, that is how it looks to me.

--J.D.

07-07-2003, 11:21 AM	#11
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The Bible: 100% Consistent with Atheism? Bede is effectively defending cafeteria theology, the infamous practice of taking what one likes and leaving what one does not like. Thus, the Bible can be made 100% consistent with atheism by interpreting all references to the Biblical God as references to a fictional being. And likewise for other belief systems. I think that if one wishes to practice cafeteria theology, one at least ought to be honest about it. And I also think demanding that self-styled literalists, even when it hurts them, actually be real literalists is simply a demand for practicing what one preaches. There is, in fact, an an abundance of evidence that the writers of the Bible had believed that the Earth is flat and stationary and that the sky is a solid bowl overhead. Most of it comes in the form of offhand comments like the one that demoninho had mentioned; the Bible's writers had little interest in anything remotely resembling present-day science. The noncanonical book 1 Enoch, however, is different; it goes into great detail about cosmology. Though it recognizes the Sun's different rising and setting azimuths and the circumpolar stars, it also states that the sky's base has doors in it for the celestial bodies to pass through, that the stars ride chariots, and that there is a jail for stars that dawdle.

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

07-07-2003, 02:03 PM	#12
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Sorry for a malapropism in my earlier message. It ought to have been: And I also think demanding that self-styled literalists actually be real literalists, even when it hurts them, is simply a demand for practicing what one preaches.

07-07-2003, 10:41 PM	#14
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Bede: No, that's simply a demand that your strawmen be taken seriously. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo (sarcasm). Why even fundies should be expected to be as simplistic as you demand escapes me. How is that being simplistic? Absolute truth means absolute truth, without expedient exceptions. They do not believe the earth is flat - they believe when the bible says so, it is best to interprete this figuratively. Out of pure expediency, I'm sure. Flat-earthism is so strongly falsified that they look for an excuse to reject the parts of the Bible that imply it. Given we continue to use phrases like to the ends of the earth, the sun rose, the four corners of the earth, the seven seas, kicked into next week etc etc etc they have a very strong case that the bible can also be treated as such. Including Bede's favorite parts of the Bible, I'm sure. You claiming they shouldn't shows you are more literal minded than they are, which, frankly, isn't something I would want to be. Me? Literal-minded? To me, strict literalism has the nice feature of being rigorous, and not something that is a convenient cover for expediency.

07-07-2003, 11:13 PM	#16
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	Bede, When I was a fundi, one didn't take a passage figuratively just because the literal interpretation of it is ridiculous. One had to have a better reason for the passage, such a it was a vision. Or poetry. Not "the literal reading of of this passage it ridilculous". Otherwise, someone can turn around and say "well,if you interpret the passages that support the idea of a flat earth figuratively because it's ridiculous, then why not take the passages that support the idea of creation andd take them figuratively also because the notion of a universe created 6000 years ago is rejected by the scientific community in general."

07-07-2003, 11:56 PM	#17
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	To both sides, Please refrain from baiting each other. It would be much more interesting to have a debate on realistic hermeneutic considerations than whether or not the simplistic reading is the One True Exegesis (tm). This tendency should be limited to fundies: Fundy Christians or Fundy Atheists. Separating Hebrew Cosmogony from Christian Cosmogony would be quite an interesting one though... Joel BC&H Moderator

07-08-2003, 04:19 AM	#19
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Excepting Celsus, as we only have fundie atheists on this thread, I'll drop out and let them moan to each other about fundie Christians.

07-08-2003, 03:14 PM	#20
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	When someone descends to argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the Well, he rather loses the argument. At least, that is how it looks to me. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.