Bible moderates vs literalists - who's being intellectually honest?

Dave!

Hey folks,

Just wanted to start a bit of a discussion here !

I was listening to an interview with Sam Harris recently (yeah, yeah), and he was speaking at length about the issue of religious moderates/liberals vs literalists vis-à-vis interpreting the Bible (and the Koran I guess). I haven't read his books yet, but he apparently spends a bit of time on this.

His main point seems to be that when it comes to interpreting holy books, it's the literalists and the extremists that are on the mark, whereas the moderates water sections down, cherrypick, and engage in mental gymnastics to try and moderate the crazy parts of the books.

He says that if you look at the Bible and the Koran with an objective eye, and you believe it to be the word of god, then you will believe homosexuals/adultresses/thiefs/apostates/whatever you're having should be stoned to death. Slavery is completely okay and endorsed by god. And war should be waged to spread your religion throughout the world (certainly in Islam anyway).

It's only when you read the books with a 21st century mindset and 21st century morality that you begin to rationalise away the bad parts so that you can hang on to the good parts. But you're not being honest with yourself, because (he says) the Bible doesn't say "you can disregard all of these laws in the future; they were meant for Jesus's time but not for 2010" -- it just says "this is the law."

And if you do read the books objectively, and accept it as the word of god, then it's perfectly logical to carry out some of the actions that extremists do.

I haven't read any of the books, nor do I have any particular historical knowledge of what it was like in Palestine in the first few centuries AD, so I don't have any strong opinions on the subject.


But what do you lot think? Are moderates just being disingenuous and trying to have their cake and eat it? Are the extremists in the right, intellectually? Is it more accurate to think that the Bible and the Koran were intended to be flexible so as to ensure longevity -- that they shouldn't be read in a vacuum? Or does it make more sense that they are supposed to be complete and unchanging, and the world is supposed to be structured around them?

Dunno if this is the right forum for this !

G'luck

Dave

Turtwig

ProfMth, had a similiar point.
Just thought I'd add the video,

Pompey Magnus

To be honest I don't think there are any Christians who take the whole Bible literally. For example there aren't too many Christians who literally follow the uncomfortable teachings of Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew like whoever breaks one of the least commandments in the Jewish Law will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (I don't see many circumcised Christians...not that I check :pac:), and just how many Christians really believe that its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven? Add onto this the numerous passages that lead to definite contradictions when taken at face value and you will have a nice chunk of the Bible that even the most hardcore Christian literalist does not take literally.

Even they perform mental gymnastics to get around difficult passages when it suits them but the problem is that don't realise it or don't want to realise it, so in my mind the moderates are perhaps more intellectually honest because at least they admit that cherry pick and reinterpret to suit, the literalists won't.

Dont be at yourself

I'd agree with Harris's assertion, though I'm not sure if "intellectually" is the right word.

If people do consider themselves as Christian, and believe in God and the afterlife, surely they should be compelled to follow all of the dogma laid out by the bible. If I truly believed eternal salvation in paradise awaited me, I think I could give up pre-marital sex &c and embrace the teachings of the good book. 80 years of devout living is a small price to pay for eternity in paradise, after all.

In a way, I have more respect for the deluded fool shouting about Jesus in the street than I do for the hard-living "token" Christian, who'll accept homosexuals, have sex outside marriage, and yet throw a tenner into the collection plate at mass.

An extension of this argument arose on After Hours, of all places, the other day. Some posters were convinced they were Catholic, even though they rejected many of the key differences that separate it from less dogmatic Christian churches. To me, it doesn't make sense.

Here's the link (thread's locked now): http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055797713

Dades

I think it come down to a simple choice. Most people couldn't in all good conscience follow the undiluted word of God - so they either have to water it down or lose it completely.

Then again most people have no idea about Old Testament stuff or simply refuse to associate it's madness with Jesusism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bduffman

Isn't it impossible to follow the bible literally? There are so many contradictions that you would tie yourself up in knots trying.

bnt

I dunno ... I mean, "cherry-picking" seems a natural thing to do, I thought. We do it when reading a newspaper or watching the news on TV. I do it with the writings of Harris, Dawkins, Barker etc. when it comes to religion or atheism: I don't believe everything they say, but that's fine because they don't ask me to believe everything they say.

In other words, it still dogma of any sort that is the problem here. It doesn't even have to be religious dogma - it could be politics (Communism etc.) or anything. I have some sympathy for moderate Christians, trying to deal with their severely flawed cobbled-together scriptures. (Do they know that their Bible was cherry-picked by a committee from a whole bunch of "gospels"?)

Sam Vimes

bnt wrote: »

I dunno ... I mean, "cherry-picking" seems a natural thing to do, I thought. We do it when reading a newspaper or watching the news on TV. I do it with the writings of Harris, Dawkins, Barker etc. when it comes to religion or atheism: I don't believe everything they say, but that's fine because they don't ask me to believe everything they say.

In other words, it still dogma of any sort that is the problem here. It doesn't even have to be religious dogma - it could be politics (Communism etc.) or anything.

I'm not sure if I've missed your point but religious dogma does ask you to believe everything it says. This isn't like a book written by anyone else, it's supposed to be inspired by the omnipotent creator of the universe and it's not up to us to decide which bits we like. That's especially true when people do things like tell others who they can and can't marry based on the authority of this book when they're ignoring vast swathes of it themselves

Not to mention that if a book is actually inspired by an omnipotent being then cherry picking shouldn't even be necessary. The entire thing from cover to cover should be absolutely clear, unambiguous, consistent and self evidently true. That's why things like the incorrect value of pi matter; this is not a primitive document written by desert nomads, it's supposed to be the inspired word of god and from a perfect being I expect perfection. If believers want me to look at it as the former I'm more than happy to do that and then it makes perfect sense but as a divinely inspired book it gets an F.

stevejazzx

bnt wrote: »

I dunno ... I mean, "cherry-picking" seems a natural thing to do, I thought. We do it when reading a newspaper or watching the news on TV. I do it with the writings of Harris, Dawkins, Barker etc. when it comes to religion or atheism: I don't believe everything they say, but that's fine because they don't ask me to believe everything they say.

Exactly and this is the most important part right? In fact those authors you mentioned always recommend thinking for ones self which should be, IMO, regarded aobve everything else.

Ickle Magoo

This may be slightly OT but...

If the criterion for getting into heaven is written in the holy books and people do not adhere to that criterion, or only acknowledge 50% of it as applying to them, why do they still think they are going to heaven? What's the point of only following 50% of a religion whose main motivation is to get a place in a heaven if you are not getting in for only following 50%? If you can get in for only following some of the criterion then why bother having a criterion?

How can anyone claim there is a super-duper omnipotent being & that we all must live our lives in accordance to his rules - and then discount a heap of rules & adjust a few more to suit modern life better and still claim to wholly represent the omnipotent being?

Dave!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This may be slightly OT but...

If the criterion for getting into heaven is written in the holy books and people do not adhere to that criterion, or only acknowledge 50% of it as applying to them, why do they still think they are going to heaven? What's the point of only following 50% of a religion whose main motivation is to get a place in a heaven if you are not getting in for only following 50%? If you can get in for only following some of the criterion then why bother having a criterion?

How can anyone claim there is a super-duper omnipotent being & that we all must live our lives in accordance to his rules - and then discount a heap of rules & adjust a few more to suit modern life better and still claim to wholly represent the omnipotent being?

Kinda related to that -- I always find it a bit strange when someone says that they're Christian, believe Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins, and we're all going to heaven after we die, and yet they barely devote any time to religion in their lives. I mean if I really believed that to be the case then I would devote my whole life to it, constantly praying to god, going to mass, trying to be a good Christian, and so on. How could you not?! It's the biggest thing in the history of the universe, how can you just give the odd Sunday and special occassions to Jesus' church? I don't understand that meself, I think if you believe this stuff then you go all-in with it.

Certainly I would think that I would.

Probably going OT now.... I started a thread about this in Christianity before, can't remember what they made of my gibbering.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure if I've missed your point but religious dogma does ask you to believe everything it says. This isn't like a book written by anyone else, it's supposed to be inspired by the omnipotent creator of the universe and it's not up to us to decide which bits we like.

Don't you remember Jakkass saying that some parts of the Bible are inspired through God and some are just written by fallible humans? I can't find the post now.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Don't you remember Jakkass saying that some parts of the Bible are inspired through God and some are just written by fallible humans? I can't find the post now.

This is the one: www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63815715&postcount=19663

Kipperhell

It is just plain and simply a fudge by people to suggest the Bible is both true and fiction with a man important message. I was raised a thread about Cain and Able in the Christian forum which was just bizarre. Many people claim that you can derive the reason for God's refusal of Cain's gifts due to something written in the NT(Romans?). That is a very strange circular argument to me.

Naz_st

Dave! wrote: »

Kinda related to that -- I always find it a bit strange when someone says that they're Christian, believe Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins, and we're all going to heaven after we die, and yet they barely devote any time to religion in their lives. I mean if I really believed that to be the case then I would devote my whole life to it, constantly praying to god, going to mass, trying to be a good Christian, and so on. How could you not?! It's the biggest thing in the history of the universe, how can you just give the odd Sunday and special occassions to Jesus' church? I don't understand that meself, I think if you believe this stuff then you go all-in with it.

Personally, I think it boils down to the Deism/Theism mismatch, in that a lot of "religious moderates" are essentially deists (as in they just think there's "something" up there, something must have started it all). Unfortunately, the human brain likes more structure than the vagueness of deism - it craves understanding, meaning and rules, and deism doesn't cut it. But the only explanations and elaborations on Deism that exist are the mainstream theistic religions, which all follow the same template: "Yes, there is 'something' up there, it's God, and this is what he wants"

The second problem is that Deism isn't nearly as silly a position as theism: it's far harder to see the logical fallacy of it ("everything has a cause"/"there must be a meaning to life" --> "God"). It's flawed reasoning, but not as obviously so. And once the superficially easy step of accepting deism is taken, and since the conclusion of that step happens to also be the cornerstone belief in every major religion, it seems to augment theistic belief with credibility. The fact that there is no logical step between position A (there is a "God") and position B (this is what he thinks/wants) is simply overlooked.

The result of this is that you end up with a lot of people that are really Deists but who, because of the above (and social convention), define themselves as "Catholics" or whatever.

And it is at this point that the problem of biblical inerrancy pops up. I think this problem is linked to people's views on what fundamentally God "is". Predominantly, almost innately, people take as axiomatic "God is good" and/or "God is love". Given the known semantics of "good" and "love", these axioms require someone to ignore or re-interpret large parts of the bible since because God is good/love, each horrible example of God's morals in the bible cannot be taken literally or must be re-interpreted.

Somnus

I agree with Naz. I think that most of the moderate believers are just people who believe/or want to believe in something higher up than them and that they just call themselves Christian's because that's the society in which they've been brought up. As a result they believe in God but not particularly that they have to do everything as said in the Bible.

In fact they probably don't even know so much about the bible. They just believe in God and hope that they'll go to a higher place when they die.

In relation to the extremists, I suppose that they are the most "True" of believers in that they probably know the most of their faith and it's rulebook. Although I don't really have an opinion as much in relation to that.

liamw

I think it goes even further than taking certain parts metaphorically or whatever. I was talking to my Dad over Christmas and the conversation went something like this.

Me:"So why are you going to Mass? Would you consider yourself a Christian?"
Dad:"Yes"
Me:"But you told me before that you don't believe in life after death. You explicitly said that when you die, that's it"
Dad:"Ye, so what?"
Me:"So you don't believe in a core part of Christianity, Heaven and Hell."
Dad:"I do believe in Heaven or Hell."
Me:"HUH?!"
Dad:"Heaven is about being in a happy place in life and Hell is being in a bad place in this life"
Me:"Eh no it's not. You don't actually believe in Heaven or Hell, you're just using those words and defining them as you wish. Why go to Mass if you don't actually believe any of this fairytale stuff?"
Dad:"Why not go to Mass, sure what else would I be doing on a Sunday morning?"
Me:"I dunno... do something productive or something you enjoy. Go play a round of golf or something"
Dad:"But I enjoy going to Mass."
Me:" OK I guess that concludes this discussion."

herbiemcc

Religious belief is a really strange phenomenon when viewed coldly. People around me are completely of the comfy, 'don't question it' religious habits.

It never really bothered me too much although it was always vaguely irking that what (if you believed it) should be a great thing was kind of an unofficial taboo topic because it's awkward to discuss and thus expose shaky, incoherent beliefs. Only recently I have started really talking to some family/girlfriend etc to clarify that I actually am an atheist.

Their beliefs are so flimsy (which doesn't prove or disprove them) but like someone else mentioned previously - if you believe in the greatest story of all wouldn't you talk about it even if not street preach it.

In a sense I respect literalists more in that they take their 'medicine'. Although this respect is tempered somewhat by the fact that it just seems even more stupid (I rarely use that word) than the cherry picking route.

I wouldn't say religious people are being intellectually dishonest - and while I'm not a psychiatrist - I just think they have such a compelling desire to have the father figure, christmassy, wholesome family-ness that to even allow themselves to THINK that he might not be there feels really uncomfortable.

I watched the Four Horsemen debate a while back and something Dan Dennett mentioned kind of stuck with me. While the others were going on about disproving this and rebutting that, he mentioned that to him it is important to consider if his statements might cause anyone distress.

If it turned out that humanity would be better off if he just kept quiet then that's something worth thinking about. It was a nice touch of thoughtfulness and humility when sometimes it's easy to get carried away with dispelling religion.

It just struck me that as I'm starting to talk more about how I feel about the matter it is important to be sensitive to other people because a life long belief isn't always rational and to completely 100% dismiss it can have a real effect on people.

Sorry, bit of a ramble but that's where I'm at.

Herbie

bnt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure if I've missed your point but religious dogma does ask you to believe everything it says.

Yeah - I think you've missed something there. What you wrote is the very definition of dogma, which I agree with, and it's dogma that I reject, whether it's religious or not. I didn't lay out the definition because I think it's well-understood in this forum.

What I was getting at was that I don't feel the need to criticise Christians for cherry-picking, since it's what people do if faced with choices and contradictions. So, given the scriptural mess that they (and Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.) are expected to deal with, I think cherry-picking is the intellectually honest thing to do. That was the question, after all. If the question was about "faith", an anti-intellectual concept, then I would have said something different.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

liamw wrote: »

Don't you remember Jakkass saying that some parts of the Bible are inspired through God and some are just written by fallible humans? I can't find the post now.

This is the one: www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63815715&postcount=19663

In all fairness, that's not quite what Jakkass said.

He did imply that his deity had suppressed the free will of a sufficient number of scribes that they could accurately write down the instructions that one had to follow in order to stay alive forever. He didn't imply that some bits were written down by humans, and others by the specific instance of the deity he thinks exists.

I'll get me coat.

Dr Kamikazi

http://www.mopo.ca/2006/11/holy-bible-disclaimer-exposure-warning.html

pH

It's all very well dismissing much of the OT as barbaric, but what I find more interesting is how so called liberals and moderates can dismiss much of the NT as well - for being too liberal and moderate!

Take this passage:

Matthew Ch 11 wrote:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Obviously the vast majority of Christians do not take the above as "literal", the vast majority gather to pray together in public, make a show about it with their "Sunday Best" and use repetitive prayers - Catholics especially.

Now obviously you can find other passages that you can interpret as contradicting this, but that's not the point, if you believe Jesus was God, and the gospels are a faithful record of what was said, then any reasonable reading of it seems to say that Catholic (for example) worship is a waste of time. Jesus clearly says that the "reward" (yes he does appear to be being sarcastic) is the fake piety you display to your fellow "worshippers".

There are plenty of other examples, I can't dig them up now, but Jesus said some pretty clear things about poverty, wealth and giving your stuff away, also things about revenge and forgiveness.

antiskeptic

Dave! wrote: »

His main point seems to be that when it comes to interpreting holy books, it's the literalists and the extremists that are on the mark, whereas the moderates water sections down, cherrypick, and engage in mental gymnastics to try and moderate the crazy parts of the books.

He says that if you look at the Bible and the Koran with an objective eye, and you believe it to be the word of god, then you will believe homosexuals/adultresses/thiefs/apostates/whatever you're having should be stoned to death. Slavery is completely okay and endorsed by god. And war should be waged to spread your religion throughout the world (certainly in Islam anyway).

The likes of Dawkins, Hitchens & Co are (understandibly) not the people to be going to for your information. They tend to take extreme positions to suit their book. A book they desire to sell to the frequently converted as it happens.

A biblical literalist is in a (potential) position to discern not only between what to take literally and not, they may also discern what is applicable to the Church today and what is not. Without being liberal. I mean, no literalist thinks Jesus was a literal gate afterall.

And so, the biblical literalist (Christian) can state that homosexual acts are sinful (an illiberal thing to say) without requiring that the active homosexual be stoned to death. I mean, an eye-for-an-eye is but one of the options by which man can be judged by God (or his agents), saved by grace is the other - in which case Christ pays for the sin of the homosexual. The biblical literalist Christian (of which I am one) should realise which position they themselves occupy - in which case they have no basis for throwing stones.

That Hitchens & Co don't get this rather simple distinction (or prefer to ignore it) should be taken as illustrative

Xluna

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I'd agree with Harris's assertion, though I'm not sure if "intellectually" is the right word.

If people do consider themselves as Christian, and believe in God and the afterlife, surely they should be compelled to follow all of the dogma laid out by the bible. If I truly believed eternal salvation in paradise awaited me, I think I could give up pre-marital sex &c and embrace the teachings of the good book. 80 years of devout living is a small price to pay for eternity in paradise, after all.

In a way, I have more respect for the deluded fool shouting about Jesus in the street than I do for the hard-living "token" Christian, who'll accept homosexuals, have sex outside marriage, and yet throw a tenner into the collection plate at mass.

An extension of this argument arose on After Hours, of all places, the other day. Some posters were convinced they were Catholic, even though they rejected many of the key differences that separate it from less dogmatic Christian churches. To me, it doesn't make sense.

Here's the link (thread's locked now): http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055797713

Yeah don't ask my why that thread was locked. I think it may have made people a little uncomfortable and the last post, where a personal insult was made, gave the mod an excuse to lock it.

Dr Kamikazi

That's where the whole religion thing gets problematic.
Do I take the intelligent approach, think long and hard about t, make up my own mind and decide for myself if this is really the kind of thing I want to be associated with?
Or:
Do I unthinkingly accept what others beat into me, follow their orders, read the doctrines and blindly carry them out?
I know which approach leads to crusades, Jihad, burning women at the stake, torture, death, war, etc...
It's the human desire to be lead that is being exploited by ruthless people whose only motivation is to rule others.
This gives the impression that you must either be a sheep or a butcher.
But the alternative is to be a self determined human being.
I know it's hard and your brain may hurt a bit from thinking initially, but it can be done.

Pompey Magnus

I just read an interesting piece by Steven Weinberg from Dreams of a Final Theory which I thought was appropriate to the topic:

"Wolfgang Pauli was once asked whether he thought a particularly ill-concieved physics paper was wrong. He replied that such a description would be too kind-the paper was not even wrong. I happen to think that the religious conservatives are wrong in what they believe, but at least they have not forgotten what it means really to believe something. The religious liberals seems to me to be not even wrong"