Defending the Bible

[cvanwey]

Sheesh, that’s a tough question. I really feel most honest saying I don’t know. Obviously my conditioning has played a part in my beliefs. So my biases over the years have been evident. But where is the truth? As you said we live in a world of probabilities. Which means basically a world of uncertainty. But everyone seems so certain of there believe, the Muslims, the Christians, the Buddhist, it’s just so weird. So I know I didn’t answer your question but thanks for your reply. I honestly just don’t have an answer for you lol

Thank you for your honesty. If I may ask, what compels you to ascribe to the Bible as authority, over all other claims to authority, or no authority at all? Indoctrination, a felt presence from an external force, evidence to support the claims, other?

 

[Tree of Life]

So you admit you're not only biased, but irrationally so in clinging to it against any other evidence? How is that rational at all?

How is belief in God rational? I would agree with Alvin Plantinga in saying that belief in God is properly basic and that faith is justified by God himself giving me the cognitive faculty of faith combined with God's revelation in nature and Scripture.

 

[cvanwey]

I would agree with Alvin Plantinga in saying that belief in God is properly basic

Okay, here you/he are attempting to justify generic deism, and nothing more... Let's see where this goes, moving forward...

and that faith is justified by God himself giving me the cognitive faculty of faith combined with God's revelation in nature and Scripture.

Okay, for sake of argument, let's assume person (A) is a deist, thus far. This eliminates quite a few topics of discussion. Person (A) has faith in a higher power, and a higher power is also somehow verified correct. Moving forward....

Person (A) now reads three differing and conflicting claimed holy books (i.e.) the Bible, and then two others. At some point, during all three readings, they feel what they interpret as 'God's revelation' in reading Scripture. Surely, they cannot all be correct? Using the 6 methods below, how might person (A) distinguish which of the three 'revelations' is authentic, and which ones are counterfeit? Or even still, maybe they are all actually counterfeit?

Please continue to keep in mind the 6 methods I mentioned prior, in post #41, for which you continue to hand-wave aside. And like I asked prior, maybe there exists even more methods to discern revelation?:

1) A felt thought, or intrusion, that seems not to have been your own; but from an 'external force'
2) Having an innate awareness, or a seemingly 'sixth sense'
3) Feeling(s) of intense euphoria, feeling overcome by an 'external force'
4) Actually hearing audible voices 'from God'
5) A burning in the bosom
6) Ability to all of a sudden speak in tongues, the angel's language, as the spirit takes you over

 

[muichimotsu]

How is belief in God rational? I would agree with Alvin Plantinga in saying that belief in God is properly basic and that faith is justified by God himself giving me the cognitive faculty of faith combined with God's revelation in nature and Scripture.

Which is presupposing stuff Plantinga hasn't demonstrated like the sensus divinatis, he's going on the kind of predestination fatalistic nonsense that isn't philosophical, or certainly isn't conducive to discussion, because why have any discussion if we have no real agency or freedom?

And all of that is circular reasoning that assumes God is already a reality, finding ways to rationalize it.

Others would argue belief in God is rational under other bases and not take Plantinga's argument seriously because they at least recognize how circular it is to assume not only about a book or nature being evidence of a particular God, but that this same God has put a sense in us allowing detection of said entity, yet it clearly is dysfunctional to an exceptional degree, given how many different monotheistic perspectives there are in just Christianity alone.

 

[FireDragon76]

People in the western world are almost never Christians because they fairly considered the evidence or reasons to believe, but because the culture privileges Christian belief and advances it as the dominant narrative.

So, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says or doesn't say. That's not why people believe. In fact, the more people are familiar with the Bible, the more likely they are to be unbelievers, as evidenced by the fact that the typical American atheist is more familiar with the Bible than the average Evangelical Christian.

 

[FireDragon76]

The bible is most certainly morally problematic. In fact, I think that is the main problem people have with the book. Sure, you can find problems with contradictions, miracles, and other highly improbable events recorded in the bible, but they pale to insignificance when you consider what it tells us about the biblical god. It is the only source that tells us about the Judeo Christian god. All our knowledge of this god is contained in the bible.
Professor Dawkins, probably one of the theists most disliked atheists, described the biblical god in his book, The God Delusion, in a very uncomplimentary way, and when you read about the biblical god's actions, it is difficult to disagree with Dawkin's description.
Christians don't do the bible any favours when they defend the violent actions of their god by saying that he is sovereign and can do whatever he wishes. That everything he does is good, therefore he can do no wrong. Then they say that their god is an all-loving god, so if biblical contradictions are your thing, then that is probably the biggest contradiction of them all.
I think we all know the biblical accounts I am talking about. The OP has already mentioned them.
It's a case of trying to defend the indefensible.

Dawkins and a Christian fundamentalist are just cut from the same bad cloth, they are just two different sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately, in our western culture, spirituality has been in decline since the middle ages, and has too often ceased to serve humanistic ends. However, I don't think all religious beliefs are equally guilty in this area. Not all religions involve the kind of extremism or immodesty of Evangelical Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even if I grant this for the moment, the problem is that there are several divine self-authenticating texts to choose from. The Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Urantia...

Exactly. Christianity's exclusivism doesn't have a good answer to that . The old "Satanic forgery" doesn't cut it. What sauces the goose, sauces the gander.

I would say that the best way to defend the Bible is not to use it in such a way that it's obviously wrong.

Yes, if the Bible has to be used, why use it in such a manner except out of some perverse, narcissistic impulse?

 

[Ophiolite]

I would say that the best way to defend the Bible is not to use it in such a way that it's obviously wrong.

I have a suspicion that, if you play golf, you very rarely fail to hit the fairway.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dawkins and a Christian fundamentalist are just cut from the same bad cloth, they are just two different sides of the same coin.

When Dawkins is presenting the concepts of evolution in a straightforward, educational manner then he is excellent. The Ancestor's Tale is an fine example of his work in that regard. Unfortunately when he launches into attacks on the views of fundamentalists he descends, as you suggest, to the same level.

 

[Carbon]

When Dawkins is presenting the concepts of evolution in a straightforward, educational manner then he is excellent. The Ancestor's Tale is an fine example of his work in that regard. Unfortunately when he launches into attacks on the views of fundamentalists he descends, as you suggest, to the same level.

Out of curiosity, what in Dawkins' critique of religion strikes you as fundamentalist? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this idea strikes me as a meme that has taken on a life of its own. And I cannot think of any examples to sustain it.

I agree his science writing has generally been excellent.

 

[FireDragon76]

Out of curiosity, what in Dawkins' critique of religion strikes you as fundamentalist? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this idea strikes me as a meme that has taken on a life of its own. And I cannot think of any examples to sustain it.

I agree his science writing has generally been excellent.

His views on religion lack nuance.

 

[Carbon]

I'm in the stage of my class where we're talking about criticisms of the Bible and trying to defend against them. Two major ones that come to my mind are these:

1. The Bible is morally problematic. Objections here would deal with slavery, warfare, ethnic cleansing, gender roles, and homosexuality issues.

2. The Bible contradicts itself. This would deal with specific alleged contradictions.

Are there other objections or categories of objections that come to your mind?

Criticizing "the Bible" is only possible after we establish:

1. which Bible are we talking about?
2. what are you claiming about it?

Christians have had lots of Bibles, and have believed lots of different things about those Bibles.

You are a 21st century Reformed Christian so I assume you reject Luther's canon and accept the 66 books of the French Confession of 1559. And I assume you accept the doctrine of infallibility which didn't come along until after the Reformation.

These assumptions are nontrivial because it makes no sense to criticize your Bible's immorality and self-contradictions, unless you are claiming your particular Bible's books are perfect.

On the other hand if you claim these books were written and edited by fallible men for their own times and places, then many of the moral and logical complaints become silly. Every book from antiquity is morally repugnant to a reasonably educated modern person because we have made incredible moral progress these last 2 thousands years. Even books from 2 decades ago show signs of less evolved morality. On top of the moral issues every book has misconceptions, contradictions, and untruths. So what? The books still have cultural value even today, just like the Iliad. If Christians claimed the same things about the Iliad then the Iliad would get a lot more criticism from everyday people.

So it's not that everyone is criticizing the Bible as much as criticizing Christian claims about their Bibles. But I will play along. Now the criticisms you mentioned in the OP mostly have to do with your Bible's content. So in addition to Content, some other claims deserving criticism have to do with various Bible's:

1. Content - historical or moral truth (mentioned in the OP).
2. Composition - denial of forgeries and lies
3. Ontology - divine inspiration, that there is any better reason to think your books are perfect than any other books.
4. Selection of texts - that the selection process was early, correct, or possibly divinely inspired
6. Textual Editing
7. Purpose - that the authors had a modern audience in mind
8. Translations - being faithful to our earliest sources
9. Philosophical predicates - the idea that infallibility is possible or desirable in the first place. In my view it is neither.

Hopefully that helps to flesh out your list a bit more.

 

[Carbon]

His views on religion lack nuance.

In fairness your response isn't exactly overflowing with nuance. I'm just teasing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Out of curiosity, what in Dawkins' critique of religion strikes you as fundamentalist? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this idea strikes me as a meme that has taken on a life of its own. And I cannot think of any examples to sustain it.

I agree his science writing has generally been excellent.

In two words: absolutism and aggression.

I think the first book of his I read, many years ago, was The Selfish Gene. I found the concept interesting, but I was suspicious of his tendency to make absolute statements where an objective, scientific approach would have benefited from a more nuanced claim. I found similar instances in one or two of his later books, Climbing Mount Improbable being the one that comes to mind. And there are exceptions: The Ancestor's Tale is of such quality that I almost forgive him for anything I have previously found negative. And the "outbreaks" of absolutism are only occassional. Absolutism is a characteristic of the statements from Christian Fundamentalists and here it is in the writing (and, I subsequently learned, in the speech) of a scientist.

A couple of decades ago I chanced on a TV documentary part way through. Since it seemed to be about science I continued to watch it. It featured a rather self opinionated gentleman who was rudely and emotionally criticising Creationist beliefs. I found the aggression unnecessary and counterproductive. My thought was "who is this obnoxious prat?" As you have likely surmised it was Dawkins. Now I readily concede that much of this may have been down to how the documentary was edited, but the approach seems to be common in all the subsequent interviews of his I've seen.

He has pursued a Crusade against Creationism, an objective I support, but he has done it with qualitatively the same aggression and absolutism I associate with many Creationists. I'm reasonably sure any one who cares to delve into my posts on CF will detect similar examples from my pen. The difference is that any that are there I feel guilty about, whereas I think they are an integral and deliberate part of Dawkins approach.

 

[Carbon]

In two words: absolutism and aggression.

I think the first book of his I read, many years ago, was The Selfish Gene. I found the concept interesting, but I was suspicious of his tendency to make absolute statements where an objective, scientific approach would have benefited from a more nuanced claim. I found similar instances in one or two of his later books, Climbing Mount Improbable being the one that comes to mind. And there are exceptions: The Ancestor's Tale is of such quality that I almost forgive him for anything I have previously found negative. And the "outbreaks" of absolutism are only occassional. Absolutism is a characteristic of the statements from Christian Fundamentalists and here it is in the writing (and, I subsequently learned, in the speech) of a scientist.

A couple of decades ago I chanced on a TV documentary part way through. Since it seemed to be about science I continued to watch it. It featured a rather self opinionated gentleman who was rudely and emotionally criticising Creationist beliefs. I found the aggression unnecessary and counterproductive. My thought was "who is this obnoxious prat?" As you have likely surmised it was Dawkins. Now I readily concede that much of this may have been down to how the documentary was edited, but the approach seems to be common in all the subsequent interviews of his I've seen.

He has pursued a Crusade against Creationism, an objective I support, but he has done it with qualitatively the same aggression and absolutism I associate with many Creationists. I'm reasonably sure any one who cares to delve into my posts on CF will detect similar examples from my pen. The difference is that any that are there I feel guilty about, whereas I think they are an integral and deliberate part of Dawkins approach.

Fair enough. In my field of technology I deal with a lot of opinionated INTJ types like Dawkins and, god help me, lots of ISTJs too. I must have a slightly higher tolerance for these insufferable know-it-alls because, try as I might, I have never managed to be put off by Dawkins' straight shooter style. Accusations of Dawkins being strident for example are usually just examples of the accuser missing the joke, or bristling at the shock of someone calling a spade a spade.

He may be absolutist at times, it's hard to comment there as I am not really sure what you mean by the term. If you mean he stubbornly holds to a view despite ample reason and evidence to the contrary, then he deserves the criticism. No disagreement there. But as with the "strident" criticism, it's hard for me to think of any good examples.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have never managed to be put off by Dawkins' straight shooter style.

I agree. The most offensive I've seen him is when he stands there agog at the sheer idiocy that just came out of his interlocutor's mouth.

There's a video of him being interviewed by a Muslim (talk show host?). He says something that he clearly takes to be unobjectionable ... that no modern Muslim actually believes that the prophet went to heaven on a winged horse. The interviewer immediately responded "I do". RD sat there for a second with his mouth hanging open. I forget what his response was, but it was something along the lines of "No, seriously?"

I don't feel inclined to take seriously the idea of a talking snake or donkey or world wide floods. It's risible.