Biblical Literalism and IQ

I’m not really surprised by his results. The sad thing is, it’s more often than not true of these groups. The better educated and seemingly more intellegent are in the U.U. and the Episcopal Churches. While, because they do believe an education is corrupting, my mother and aunt are prime example of this, and won’t advance very far in education or if they do, they stick with a college that teaches their beliefs.

In my opinion, “intelligence” as a concept is overrated. It’s too broad to be useful. There are innumerable types of cognitive abilities which a person can possess, and one’s skill level in one ability may or may not have any correlation to their skill in another ability.

For example, I’m a pretty good at speling a word that I hear out lowd. I won the school spelling bee in 7th grade (I’m single, ladies…). But, I’m pretty damn slow at the reverse – i.e., when someone spells a word out loud, I swear it can take me up to 10 seconds to visualize the individual letters, observe the word they form, and then retrieve the word’s sound and meaning.

So, does that make me good or bad at spelling? Speaking? Writing? Phonetics? Reading? Am I well-read? I’m also pretty good at algebra. What does that tell you about my spatial reasoning abilities? Geometry? Calculus? Multi-variable calculus? Matrix algebra? Not to mention athletics, or emotions, or charisma, or…

All of these are separate domains of knowledge with very separate applications in real life. Why, for fuck’s sake, would we even attempt to conjure up one single number to represent each person’s vast array of thinking abilities? It cheapens society’s value of the human mind. It marginalizes. It makes high-IQ folks feel good at the expense of others. It reinforces socioeconomic barriers.

Thinking that IQ matters is just as counterproductive and narrowing as thinking that race matters.

GAaah!

These variables should NOT be having straight lines fitted to their relationships, unless someone really thinks percentages can go outside 0-100!

Look at the fitted “percentage with postgrad education” for the “Church of God In Christ”. It’s NEGATIVE! That makes no sense at all.

At the very least, a functional relationship that at least obeys the a priori facts about the situation (those fractions being bounded to [0,1], for example) should be used. In the first graph, the IQs also have a lower bound of 0, but we’re so many s.d.s from zero it doesn’t matter quite so much for that variable (there’s still the issue that there’s no a priori reason to expect linearity, though).

It really does matter for the percentages, because they approach their limits in this data. Notice the actual relationship from the points is curved in the second graph? That’s because the boundaries force it to be curved. Why is a straight line being fitted to a relationship that is plainly not (and worse, pretty obviously won’t be before we even see data)?

The linear equation, the R-squared and so on are all nonsense – worse than useless! (Indeed, since neither variable is necessarily thought to be causative, why use a technique – regression, whether linear or not – that treats one variable as the predictor and the other as the response?)

I’d suggest either just graphing the data, or if some “fit” is required, graphing a smoothed curve that respects the nature of the variables.

Pseudonym: 90 vs 110 mightn’t be a huge difference in individual IQs. However, when dealing with differences in averages (as we have here), it may be a much bigger deal (assuming IQ means anything at all, of course). Two populations with average difference in IQ of 20 points?! That would potentially be a big deal indeed.

(Oh, and this individual sure as heck wouldn’t knock back an extra 20 points of IQ. Just sayin’)

I’m not so sure about that. I seem to encounter a lot of atheists who do seem to think that literalism actually is the best way to read the Bible, and tend to get very annoyed with me when I disagree. After all, you can be a biblical literalist without actually believing that the Bible is true.

Amen to that, Mike!

Actually, I think Biblical literalism is necessary to the atheists to give the enemy a face. Otherwise, where’s the conflict or disagreement?

As far as the subject of this post, the more legalistic the church is, the greater number of non-thinkers they will have in their church. That may be where the intelligence factor comes in.

Just once it would be nice for people to stop confusing cultural knowledge with intelligence, even when it suits their political opinions.

There isn’t an “IQ test,” there are several major published “IQ tests,” and they all have extremely high linguistic, cultural, and psychological barriers to entry. Essentially they will tell you how well you will fit in as an academic in the time period the test was written in: multiple-choice exams, lots of sitting still, large command of vocabulary, etc. To the extent that other spheres of life intersect with the academic environment, an IQ test is a predictor of success in those areas. But nothing so crass as “intelligence,” or even the more modest “reasoning ability.” I don’t think anyone has even thought of trying to measure the ability to context-swap intellectual work on such a test, for example.

BTW, how does “you are all fucking retarded” work on the whole faith/non-faith dialogue thing? 😉

All this data is represented by single points — averages I suppose. I would also suppose there would be very large error bars if those were plotted. Taking the statistical error bars into account, how much of a statistical confidence do we have that the data are different (to not accept the null hypothesis?)
jtradke: Your phenomenon with spelling is very common in Morse code. Most people who know Morse code can send it (translate letters, number, punctuation into the code equivalent) very much faster than they can receive Morse code (translating the dits and dahs into letter, number, or punctuation.) For me, I can send code at 25 words per minute, but receive only at around 5.

On the IQ question:
Isn’t it always telling that the individuals who rant against IQ testing (and SAT scores and college rankings and other quantitative measures) are usually those not at the top end of the spectrum? For example, it’s always the people with 1100’s that wax philosophical about the cultural biases or some other garbage relating to the SATs.

On Biblical literalism:
The appraisal of biblical literalism exists in an odd dichotomy. From my perspective, literalism is the most sensical means by which to read the bible. The argument is blatantly simple: If the omni God wrote the Bible, then there shouldn’t be any mistakes or need for widely divergent interpretations like the story of Genesis is allegory. Yet, I consider any religious person who accepts the Bible literally to be an ignorant moron. I much prefer, and relatively respect, the moderate who engages in a cautionary reading.

There’s not much difference at all between someone of an IQ of 90 and one with an IQ of 110.

yes there is. that’s more than 1 standard deviation (15 points). 90 is the 25th percentile, 110 is the 75th. you think 50 percentiles is “not much difference”? (yeah, you didn’t know they were 50 percentiles did you??? 😉

It does not take into account denomination size. (It’s no surprise that the three largest denominations on the list are the three that have the average IQ closest to 100.)

that makes no sense. sample variance isn’t an issue when the “small” denominations have hundreds of thousands of members (actually, i think all the listed are on the order of millions).

Not everyone agrees that the GSS’s question on biblical literalism is accurate.

you didn’t read the original post. the IQ is from the GSS, the biblical literalism is from another source.

i’m not going to take a guess as to your IQ….

efrique, you’re not stupid. all good points, but i wasn’t doing social science there. i whipped that up in 10 minutes and it yielded 15,000 hits in a 24 hour period. not bad i’d say ;0)

If someone wants to take the Bible literally, I have no problem with that. It’s when they want to force their beliefs on others, that’s when I have a problem.

I can think of three people I know who are evangelical Christians who take the Bible literally and are positively brilliant; I’d bet at least two of them could get into Mensa if they applied.

I also know some complete morons who are biblical literalists, then again being an atheists or agnostic is no guarantee of genius.

I seem to encounter a lot of atheists who do seem to think that literalism actually is the best way to read the Bible, and tend to get very annoyed with me when I disagree

Would it be fair to say, Mike, that some middle course needs to be steered between thinking that “every word in the Bible is literally true” and thinking that “every word in the Bible is literally false”?

Clearly, there are parts of the Bible that are intended metaphorically. But too often I see defenders of Scripture flee into the fortress of allegory to escape arrows of the obvious.

mikespeir,

I agree.

I think IQ testing is pretty inaccurate, for me the chart correlating higher education with religious affiliation is more meaningful. My wife’s family is Episcopalian – we were married in the church and even though I am not a believer I had good feelings about the members and found many of them to be well educated and thoughtful people. I had a sense that the general level of curiosity about the world was pretty high. When we moved my wife became very involved in a large Methodist church. I have always felt very uncomfortable and very out of place in the group – I don’t think there are more than a couple of science degrees in the entire congregation. I get no sense of curiosity about the world around them – going to church and living day to day is good enough. It is a sample of only 2 churches (maybe 300 members in each) so not statistically relevant, but it does confirm my own observation that as you move from the Episcopalians down towards the fundamentalists you start losing the members who are naturally curious and well educated in the sciences.

Yes and no Gary. Yes, those aren’t the only two options, but the problem is your question isn’t framed very well in the first place. “True/False” is a different discussion from “literal/non-literal”. As I said in my last comment, there are a far more options for interpreting literature than merely whether it is “literal” or not. So yes, I agree, we need a totally new way of thinking about the issue that avoids these simplistic false dichotomies.

Well, there are surely more options than two, though there may also be some dichotomies that are not false.

For any statement in the Bible, “X,” what are the possibilities? It seems to me that we have, at minimum, the following:

Statement X is (literally) true.
Statement X is metaphorical (and/but neither literally true nor literally false).
Statement X is (literally) false.

To this list we could probably add others (e.g., “Statement X is poetic”), but let’s start with what we have above. Do you think that the Bible contains all three kinds of “X” statements?

I don’t know about a new way of thinking about this subject, but I was not exactly raised in the evangelical church, even though we attended when we visited my mother relatives. My mother has an average IQ and since her last being “saved” episode has continued to attend an Evangelical church. For about four years after this last one, she took me to a Lutheran Church, until I moved out of her home.

My sons, who I took to the Episcopal Church until they decided they did not want to attend church, are not Christians. The older on is a professed Buddhist and the other professes to make his own thoughts on the matter of religion. The older one tests in the gifted range of the IQ test (145), I test at 125 (above average), and my younger son, even with his mild PDD (high functioning autism), scores in the average range.

Mind you, these are JUST scores on a test, nothing more, but it does bring in the question, “What affects does religion have on one’s IQ score?”

I appreciate what Razib said about IQ scores and s/he is indeed correct on what s/he says. However, there are cultural and other aspects to the test. It is also shown that the majority of Black children score lower than the majority of White children. Foreigners, test lower on the test too, but if they took it in their country, in their language, with questions geared to their culture, they score higher.

There is a vast difference between the “culture”, for want of a better word, between the Episcopalians/Unitarians and Evangelicals. Episcopalians and Unitarians strive to learn and seek knowledge even within secular society. Most have more knowledge of the origins of religion than Evangelicals do. Most Evangelicals shun secular education and stick to religious based education, such as Bible Colleges. They reject modern science in favour of the Bible and literalism/inerrancy of the Bible. Episcopalians and Unitarians do not view the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God. They seek answers about the world outside of the Bible.

There is a discripancy here, one in which may hinder the Evangelicals on an IQ test. They have the ability to learn and acheive knowledge outside their “subculture”, but they chose not to do so. So their actual score may not be what it seems to be on these tests, just as other subcultures and immigrants don’t score their true level of intelligence. None of these groups are truly more or less intelligent than the more educated groups of people, but rather, these tests are not geared to that population of society. They aren’t stupid or less intelligent, but rather a bit hindered.

My grandfather was an exceptionally brilliant man, who educated himself to the point he could have gotten an honourary college degree and believed there were other planets with lifeforms much like us, “Why would God only have one planet in the universe with people on it?” Yet, he was an Evangelical Fundamentalist who believed in the “inerrant and literal word of God”, but at the same time knew a bat was not a bird, but rather a mammal. He attributed such statements as being the current knowledge of the people. He had many contradictions in what he said, but he was highly intelligent. I do not know what score he might have made on an IQ test, but suspect, even with his vast knowledge mixed with his religious beliefs, he would not have scored as high as he would without such radical religious beliefs.

A literalist mindset is one that questions less, no? One that’s less skeptical, less capable of handling adversity and being able to adapt. Once again, although one may in fact be highly intelligent, this mindset is a severe handicap.

Actually, it is a form of stunted mental growth. Such a mindset is a stage in a child’s developmental growth. The problem seems to be that Evangelicals get stuck in that developmental stage, thus their growth has been a bit stunted. It is said, that children of a certain age and even those who have substance abuse issues are delayed in their developmental growth and stop developing from the age the abuse happens or substance abuse began. ie, if a child is sexually abuse at 14, that’s where they end up getting stuck developmentally or at best progress little beyond that stage. The same with those who have substance abuse.

In otherwords, those who are within religious extremist groups end up being developmentally stunted and/or delayed, and yes, they could chose to move beyond that and acquire knowledge, but there is also an emotional component that hinders that too. To get beyond this developmental stage, they also have to get beyond the emotional issues preventing them from making such choice and then there is the social environment that hinders them too. Some might also have to get out of that environment in order to make the choice. So many times, the social environment keeps them from venturing out due to the mental “abuse” the members impose on each other. It is rather cultish in behaviours and therefore makes it difficult for the individual to break free and make that choice.

I’ve always found the fact that there are two creation stories in the OT interesting. They don’t jive exceptionally well with each other so why include both? If the authors meant them literally then perhaps the editors (who are as important as the authors in the discussion) didn’t interpret them as such and felt their value lied in something other then a factual, literal account.

Dawn,

Remember that the Genesis creation accounts were almost certainly written by two different authors. (Documentary Hypothesis) A common opinion is that it was Ezra in the sixth century BC who compiled them the way we see them now.

I see it as likely that Ezra, supposing it was him, really didn’t notice the contradictions. Much as Fundamentalists do today, he would naturally have sought out ways to reconcile the one with the other. He would have convinced himself he had succeeded.

I have a post up at my blog about some of the issues with graphing percentages and fitting lines, with a plot of my own that I think makes the relationship in the Postgrad Education vs Biblical Literalism case much clearer.

http://ecstathy.blogspot.com/2008/05/relationships-between-percentages-are.html

I don’t think we do that at all. We implicitly examine the external evidence first, even if we only skim it. If there’s no external evidence, we read it to try to work out what literary form it has.

Pseudonym:

What is this external evidence? I’m asking for specifics that would pertain to our interpretation of Genesis. Do we have documents by sixth-century BC Jewish priests with footnotes saying, “By the way, this isn’t to be taken literally. Furthermore, if any other recent document by any other Jewish priest is not to be taken literally, either”? Really, it would take something just about that explicit; and even then we would have to somehow judge how much credence to give this footnote.

Simply pointing to similar texts of the same era that have the same fabulous feel to them won’t do. Their authors’ grip on reality is also to be questioned.

Pointing to commentaries of centuries later won’t do. Sure, Josephus, when he gave us his embellished version of the Jewish creation myth called it “philosophical.” But Josephus lived many centuries after the fact. Unlike when Genesis was compiled, his was a time and place thoroughly pervaded by Greek thought. Then, his apparent object was to make his people look not quite so barbaric to the Romans.

I ask again: What is it about Genesis that makes its fabulous accounts deserve the presumption of truth while similar tales of other religions don’t?

Mikespeir said,

I ask again: What is it about Genesis that makes its fabulous accounts deserve the presumption of truth while similar tales of other religions don’t?

There are bits of truths in every religion, IMO. Genesis makes more sense to me, because, among other things, it explains humanity. Adam was in search of more than he had, even though he had everything. Eve wanted validation, even if by the wrong source (serpent), and manipulated Adam. Adam played the blame game. Fear, shame, and guilt forced humanity to begin covering ourselves up. Cain worked his ass off but did not get recognition. Abel was just being Abel but got killed because of Cain’s jealous rage. And on and on throughout the OT, there are stories to tell us about us. Envy, jealousy, manipulation, control, hunger for power, greed, feelings of entitlement, judgments, racism… hatred, war, death… It’s all in there.

That’s the truth I see. Words are just words. Words are not the truth in themselves. The right words can, however, point to the truth. Then you have to see the truth for yourself. It’s silly to worship the pointer when all it is doing is pointing in the general direction. How can truth be contained in a book? Or even many books? If you search for truth in a box, all you can see is a square. With all due respect, literalists are fools.

The solution is to give the Bible less authority, not to ignore parts or give it new meaning.

Or all three. We can gain a lot of insight by reading Greek myths, for example, but we don’t think they are literally true. They have no authority in society, however, which probably is key. I think we ignore many parts (that is, don’t obey them or copy the actions of the characters), and we give them new meaning all the time.

Darryl, if I may, allow me to think out loud here…

Why don’t Jews, Muslims, and Christians interpret this metaphorically–there is no literal God?

I agree. There is no literal God the way he is portrayed by the religious.

Why do people think a god created everything including people?

Because life begets life. Life cannot be born from nothing, can it? Even Richard Dawkins contemplates a “middle world” concept. There could be a bigger world in which our middle world brains cannot fathom. I don’t know. I don’t think we can understand God the creator until we can let go of the (image of) God that we have created.

What does this mean?

Why does it have to mean the same thing to everyone? I get new meaning out of the passages that I’ve read many times before. What does it mean to you? That’s the issue.

Why aren’t Mary, Gabriel, and Jesus metaphors?

What if they are? Does it really matter?

What does this mean? Was this meant to be taken as literally true? If not, why not? Is this story more plausible than anything else so far?

Again, whether it is taken as literally true or not is not the issue. No physical miracle can transform someone’s mind. If that were the case, we would all train to become illusionists. In everything that Jesus did, there’s a much deeper purpose than what meets the eye. It wasn’t just about the fish.

This narrative resists a non-literal interpretation just because of the insistence by one of the disciples that he have physical evidence of an asserted miracle. If this is a miracle, then how can any other miraculous account in the Bible be explained away–they’re all implausible and all given as historical accounts?

I don’t understand your logic here. I’m a little slow. Can you elaborate?

Isn’t all of this utter nonsense? Come on, all I expect is honesty, simple candor. Isn’t this such silliness–I mean, really?

Yes it is. Looking at it from your perspective, it certainly is. I agree 100%.

attempts to defend the indefensible

That’s it. That’s the problem with most Christians. Truth holds and stands on its own. No need to defend. The only thing we attempt to defend is our own version of the truth, which can be slightly ‘off the mark’.

Darryl, if I may, allow me to think out loud here…

My head hurts.

Wow. That’s a dismissal if I ever heard one. This is exactly what I mean by you’d rather argue with the fundamental literlists and get nowhere than try to find a common ground.

Linda, I wouldn’t (and don’t) argue with the fundamentalist literalists–that’s a complete waste of time to me. I’m all for common ground. But you act like you expect me to check my brain at the door. If junk-food religion (empty calories, no nutritional value, tastes real good) is your preference, that’s fine with me, but don’t use it to answer a serious set of questions. Your content-free approach is “a dismissal if I ever heard one.”

You’re a nice person, from what I gather, and I know I am, so maybe you’re right about me. I may enjoy a good spar, but I like and respect all the regulars to this blog, no matter what their views.

Darryl,

Thank you, at least, for not ignoring me (even if you think I talk nonsense). And by the way, I’m not very nice. It’s a common misconception. 😉

If junk-food religion (empty calories, no nutritional value, tastes real good) is your preference, that’s fine with me, but don’t use it to answer a serious set of questions.

Then what exactly is a healthy, nutritionally sound religion? You want A+B=C kind of answers? If that were possible, why are people still going around in circles saying the same things over and over?

I was just trying to open up the box and get the imagination rolling. We are talking about God, aren’t we? You want that in a nice gift-wrapped package filled with logical equations? That’s just laziness, in my opinion.

I’m not asking you to check your brain at the door; I’m asking you to engage your brain to think outside the box. What I ask you to check at the door is the age-old image of the “vending-machine God” as Mark once illustrated on some other thread.

(empty calories, no nutritional value, tastes real good)

Sounds a lot like the air we breathe…
And I was being serious when I commented. Just because I have an upside-down approach to religion doesn’t mean that I’m not serious. It’s just another perspective. But it’s real (to me). Don’t be an intellectual snob. I get enough of that from Mike.

And one last question. What the hell is the difference between a fundamental literlist and an atheist literalist, as far as the biblical text is concerned? Both are looking at it with the same tunnel-vision mindset, no?

Linda, you have misunderstood my posts, and I think responding would not do much.

What, was I being too “literal” in interpreting your words, perhaps? Was I picking on the words themselves instead of what you meant?

Sounds vauguely familiar…. hmmm… where did I hear that before? 😉

Honestly, Darryl, stop being so serious. What is it with you guys? Geesh! Okay, okay. I’ll leave you alone. (for now.) 🙂

Why does it have to mean the same thing to everyone? I get new meaning out of the passages that I’ve read many times before. What does it mean to you?

It doesn’t have to mean the same things. But it complicates things (and dare I say contradicts)?. I keep hearing this type of comment, but it’s so open-ended, is it not? If someone chooses to call themselves a “Christian”, shouldn’t that term have some meaning? If you’re going to label yourself (as I will with atheism), then shouldn’t there be come standard the label comes with? For example:

Why aren’t Mary, Gabriel, and Jesus metaphors?

What if they are? Does it really matter?

Yes. It does matter. Let’s say John says that he believes the Jesus was “God in the flesh”, really existed, died, and came back to life and by accepting that, humans “reconnect” with god and are “saved”. Then, Paul says “No, Jesus is just a metaphor for……” and George says “both” and Ringo says “well, I have an opinion, but it doesn’t matter, it can mean many things to many people”. It seems to me these four people share some drastically different views on faith (even while saring similar musical tastes :)). I would never use the same label for all of them. One thinks I’m lost and damned to hell, one thinks I’m just not improving my life by understanding the correct meaning, another thinks both (possibly), and the last thinks “it’s all good”.

More on topic, I think Darryl’s earlier post with biblical details and accounts (if we may call them that) made some great points and has not truly been addressed, except a little bit by Linda. Still, I personally think Darryl, that if you truly want to be understood, continuing to post would be best…not posting would cause you to remain misunderstood.

Mike Clawson said (May 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm):

Really? I guess I misread him. I basically just saw him asking a bunch of rhetorical questions that he already had his own answers to, and then pretty much insulting anyone who didn’t see it like him. What’s the point of conversation if you’re not actually interested in the other person’s responses?

I assume that you are asking a merely rhetorical question here and that you’re not actually interested in any response I might have. I will give you one neverthless: Regardless of how Darryl himself might respond to your answer, it seems to me that his basic question was perfectly legitimate, and that others, like myself, were genuinely interested in what you had to say.

One word, genre. Listen, learning how to identify the different types of literature in the Bible and reading each according to its own rules is really not as difficult as you guys are making it out to be. There really are ways to tell when you’re dealing with what is intended to be a historical account and what is intended to be symbolic, poetic, theological, etc. Read each passage as the type of literature it is, interpret what you think it means, and then figure out for yourself whether you think it is “true” or not depending on whatever the word “true” means for that particular genre.

Is it actually as easy to figure out the genre as you let on? For example, how does one determine whether the account(s) of the Creation in Genesis is or is not within some genre that might, perhaps, be called “history,” and thus to be read literally? How does one tell whether Adam is to be understood as an actual historical figure, or as a metaphorical character representing no particular individual?

I’m very familiar with the work of the Jesus Seminar, and in my opinion many of their core methodological assumptions are deeply flawed (the principle of dissimilarity for instance, or the assumption of primarily textual forms of transmission and the consequent disregard for the initial oral phase of the gospel record). For a good work on the short-comings of the Seminar and what is IMHO a better approach see James Dunn’s A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your statement about “the assumption of primarily textual forms of transmission and the consequent disregard for the initial oral phase of the gospel record.” It seems to me that the Jesus Seminar folks and others of their ilk are quite aware of the fact that the Jesus story was initially and for many years transmitted orally and not in writing. This is one of the facts at the core of the “quest for the historical Jesus.” I have not read Dunn’s book, but I can get some idea what it’s about based on the reviews in Amazon. It appears to me that a major disagreement between Dunn and someone like John Dominic Crossan is over the matter of whether oral transmission is reliable. Dunn, I gather, says it is. Crossan says it isn’t.

As for my own opinion, I’ve so far seen little reason to doubt that Jesus actually said or did something like most of what is recorded in the gospels, though I’m open to the possibility that some of it may not be based on fact. But again, there’s more to the question “is it true” than the historical/textual question of “did he actually say it”.

The two questions are inextricably linked, I’m afraid. Any attempted answer to the question, “What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Y'”? is inherently the less reliable if Jesus did not actually say “Y,” but (at best) “something like Y.” Our understanding of what Jesus meant is clearly at the mercy of a perhaps not particularly trustworthy oral tradition of what he said, as well as at the mercy of the authors who then converted some version or versions of the oral tradition to written form, using who knows what canons of “truth” and literal accuracy. To that one must add possible accidental or deliberate distortions that crept into the written record later as a result of the scribal process (leading, for example, to some Christians following the practices of “speaking in tongues,” snake-handling, and attempts at healing by the “laying on of hands” on the basis of the dubious authority of Mark 16:17-18).

Did Jesus actually say, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well”? Or are you open to the possiblity that the claim that he did is not based on fact?

Spurs Fan,

I know I have been pretty much written off by all on this thread, but thank you for at least trying to be fair. I appreciate that. Open-mindedness is a terrible thing to waste. 🙂

If someone chooses to call themselves a “Christian”, shouldn’t that term have some meaning?

The only meaning that it should have is to the Christian himself/herself. How others view them has no bearing on their Christianity, no matter how much people want to believe that.

If you’re going to label yourself (as I will with atheism), then shouldn’t there be some standard the label comes with?

Why must I? Why must we label ourselves as anything? I used to have an idea of atheism before I started conversing with atheists. That idea went right out the window as soon as I realized they are humans just like me, and no two are alike.

And besides, Christianity is about transformation. Being transformed into who we are. Who each of us are. Understanding that there’s nothing wrong with us. And we change. Everything changes.

I would never use the same label for all of them. One thinks I’m lost and damned to hell, one thinks I’m just not improving my life by understanding the correct meaning, another thinks both (possibly), and the last thinks “it’s all good”.

Exactly. You cannot take the word of someone else, no matter how intelligent or qualified they sound. Religion tries to herd us into a group, but faith is something that is personal. The junk-food religion? If what you taste is good and you are growing and thriving, how can someone else tell you that it’s junk? If I’m alive and flying and they are trapped in a hole, who is the fool?

Bible was not written for us to beat each other over the head with. Jesus is not someone to be probed, dissected, and trampled on. But we have been doing it anyway for the last two thousand years. Jesus freed us from our own twisted idea of God and religion. He freed us from that suffocating box, and yet very few can see that. Instead, you want to drag him inside the box with you. Of course he doesn’t fit.

People sitting around with their air of arrogance and nitpicking the validity of the scripture and the existence of Jesus is quite laughable to me. It does not accomplish anything other than comparing credentials and how elevated their tone can be.

But you know what they say… anything higher than 6 inches is a waste. 😉

And Darryl, I see that you’ve been miraculously cured of your headache that you had earlier? Was it Jesus? Relax. I’m just trying to make you smile! 😉

Christianity is about transformation. Being transformed into who we are. Who each of us are. Understanding that there’s nothing wrong with us. And we change. Everything changes.

Hell, isn’t everything about “transformation?” You could say that about anything. Change without specifying the content of change; just being “transformed into who we are.” How pleasant. Reminds me of the ’60s: Pop Psychology meets Khalil Gibran.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for peace, love and understanding; just leave Jesus out of it, since as we can see from your sentiments, one can be a Christian without worrying over the Bible and its many interpretations. I get along quite well with the innocuous, aery-faery types, so long as they don’t expect me to adopt their fantasies. I mean, really, why should anyone entertain your flimsy platitudes? Your comments only reinforce the perception that religion is self-serving, narcissistic, arbitrary, and irrelevant.

Religion tries to herd us into a group, but faith is something that is personal. The junk-food religion? If what you taste is good and you are growing and thriving, how can someone else tell you that it’s junk?

If you have no dog in this fight–if faith is personal, and no one can criticize it, then why are you arguing with others here? Is it because you think you are defending some proper understanding of what Christianity is and is not? If you are, then on what do you base your understanding? In other words, what is your AUTHORITY. Atheists want to know what the authority is for your claims. Is it you yourself? Should we just take your word for it? Can you blame us for needing more than your personal take on Jesus? Please excuse us if “transformation,” or “understanding that there’s nothing wrong with us” doesn’t quite get the job done.

The old song that institutional religion is the problem and Jesus is the solution only magnifies your problem with authority. When I read your comments I hear this: “Religion, you know, that institutional thing, man, it’s like totally suffocating, you dig? You know, like Jesus is where it’s at, you know? He’s not all into the corporate thing, man, he’s like–‘peace, bro,’ and ‘live and let live,’ and ‘just get high on life,’ can you dig it, man?”

Darryl,

Wow. I do appreciate your honesty. It’s truly refreshing. Now I know exactly how you feel about my comments. No guessing games. And I’m not offended one bit. I can see why you say what you say.

Your comments only reinforce the perception that religion is self-serving, narcissistic, arbitrary, and irrelevant.

Haha. Touche! You may have a point there. But my faith obviously is irrelevant to someone else. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. I’m not trying to convince you. I just wanted to show you how things look from where I stand. That’s all.

then why are you arguing with others here?

Firstly, because it’s fun. I like you. You are all thinkers and very honest and up front most of the time. You make me think. I grow as a result.

Secondly, I want to show you that not all Christians have the same perspective on their religion/faith. We are all individuals. You seem to get angry because you have no clear direction in which to aim your firey arrows. You oppose the view that says the Bible is literal and God’s law. You also oppose the view that says the Bible is metaphorical and God’s love in unconditional. I honestly think that some of the atheists hate religion just for the sake of hating it without knowing why. I am also guilty of this.

We’re gonna have to accept the fact that Christianity, as well as any other religion, is not going away. It is practically a part of our DNA. And the way people live their faith is as different and unique as our personalities. None of us will stand still grouped in one place for you to destroy in one fell swoop. I’m not here to argue with you or prove you wrong. I’m here to try to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Those of us who are here trying to have a dialogue with you are here (I hope) for a better understanding of the differing perspectives.

We are not the enemy, Darryl. Your own anger is.

Linda,

I agree with you that you must accept reason and evidence, if there is any to be had. But you also need to open yourself up for new information, a different direction, more possibilities. Nothing can advance into the next phase without that.

I seriously don’t need to open myself up to non-evidence and non-reason. It just means believing in absolutely anything, it has nothing to do with the truth. “The next phase” sounds ominous, but damned if I know what you mean.

This is a fine example of what we’re talking about. You are very keen to tell us what you’re not talking about, but other than that it’s meaningless to me.

Mike Clawson said (May 31, 2008 at 12:20 pm)

GARY: For example, how does one determine whether the account(s) of the Creation in Genesis is or is not within some genre that might, perhaps, be called “history,” and thus to be read literally? How does one tell whether Adam is to be understood as an actual historical figure, or as a metaphorical character representing no particular individual?

MIKE: What’s so hard about that? Read, analyze, study, compare and see what other scholars have said about it as well. We have over two thousand years of study and commentary on these texts. Make use of it if you’re really so interested in understanding what the passage means and not just interested in using it as an arguing point.

For most of those two thousand years, the vast majority of Christian commentators appear to have read the Creation story as the opening of a literal historical narrative, relating the true history of the Jewish people. In other words, it was understood to fall within the genre “history.” In the context of this reading, Adam and Eve were understood to be actual, historical persons, not mythological characters. Moreover, they were thought to be individuals created directly by God a few thousand years ago, at the time when the world itself was created. This is how the text certainly reads. I agree with the traditional Judeo-Christian reading of Genesis as being of the genre “history.” Do you concur?

The Seminar folks give a nod to oral transmission, but then pretty much ignore it in the formulation of their theories. Dunn’s point is that we shouldn’t make such a decisive break between the “historical Jesus” and the “Jesus of faith” (i.e. what the early church said about him) since the church’s beliefs didn’t just come out of nowhere. A “historical” Jesus is not a stripped down one that has no similarity to anything any Jewish person said before him or anything any Christian person said after him (which is essentially the principle the Seminar operates on). Rather, a historical Jesus, IMHO, is one who is situated in the historical context of his time, with connections reaching both backwards and forwards.

I am aware that the Seminar has been criticized by others on precisely those grounds. However, my sense is that the scholars who participate in the Seminar are particularly intent on situating Jesus within the context of his time, precisely as you say they should. I can’t help but wonder whether the root of this criticism is that the “historical Jesus” that the Seminar folks have been groping toward is not the theological Jesus of later Christianity, resulting in a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of their work by Christians who find their conclusions disturbing.

I’m in no position to say whether the Jesus Seminar people have actually “found” the historical Jesus. I will only go so far as to say that it seems entirely reasonable to reject the idea that the Gospels give us a view of the man that is completely true and completely accurate. As a sceptic, I reject the supernatural bits on methodological grounds (the methodology being that any claims regarding miracles require an extaordinary degree of evidence in order to be accepted, and that evidence is obviously lacking here). But I also think that it would be wise to be somewhat sceptical of any claim that the “teachings of Jesus” encompassed in the Gospels must be considered completely true and accurate renderings of Jesus’ actual teachings.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I think that there is probably a good deal in the Gospels that is true. The difficulty is that, even after one tosses out all the miracles and supernatural flimflam, at lot of work remains to sort out that which is true from that which is not.

GARY: Did Jesus actually say, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well”? Or are you open to the possiblity that the claim that he did is not based on fact?

MIKE: Of course I’m open to that possibility if there’s reason to think that he didn’t. (Didn’t I just say as much above?) Though even if we’re not sure whether he did, I’m just as interested in why the early writers and editors thought it was important to include it anyway. What does that tell us about the faith and practice of the early church? I see myself as part of an ongoing tradition and unfolding history of my faith, not just trying to adhere to some irrecoverable “original manuscripts” or static, unchanging version of Christianity.

Biblical scholars have advanced a number of reasons for believing that Mark 16:9-20 were later additions to the Gospel. Those verses are not present in the earliest know manuscripts (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:9-16:20&version=31) They are are stylistically very different from the rest of the Gospel. And I must say, on my own somewhat uneducated reading, that the statements in verses 17-18 sound like something out of Revelations and not at all like the Jesus of the rest of the Gospels.

To repeat your question: What does this tell us about the faith and practice of the early church? I don’t know for sure, but I might tell us that was entirely acceptable to put words into Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke, or at least possible to do so and get away with it. That speaks directly to my point about how much we can be sure that all of the Gospel “teachings of Jesus” are actually the teaching of Jesus. Some of them may not be. And of course one must acknowledge the possibility that some authentic teachings of Jesus failed to survive, and that, if we knew of them, our view of “what Jesus taught” might be somewhat different than it is.

Faith is having an open mind and letting the truth speak for itself as it is slowly revealed to each of us.

If that is what “faith” is, then many an atheist has much more faith than many a believer. However, your use of the term seems to bear little resemblance to “English as she is spoke.” “Having an open mind” is no part of any definition of the word “faith” that I am aware.

Huh? “Puzzle,” “picture,” “process”–what were we talking about? Baffling.

Why the hell are you here? Did I misunderstand the whole purpose of this blog? Are you not here to find a common ground, to get beyond the differences and look for answers? If not answers, a better understanding of people of differing views? Stop judging and pointing fingers? Help others out there understand what atheism is about? That you can be “reasonable” and “friendly”? You don’t accomplish that by being a jerk, by the way.

No doubt there is someone here who can correct me if I am wrong, but ISTR from ed psych and verbal comprehension studies that our understanding of tales, stories, or verbal accounts of any sort *must* begin at a “literal” level and proceed from there. Even intentionally metaphorical or allegorical accounts need to make *sense* on a literal level first, otherwise any attempt to intuit additional layers of meaning is stymied at the outset.

You are correct in my understanding.

And besides, Christianity is about transformation. Being transformed into who we are. Who each of us are. Understanding that there’s nothing wrong with us. And we change. Everything changes.

Linda, I hate to say this, but Christianity doesn’t have a corner on “transformation”, many other beliefs have the same thing, not only that, it would be naive for people to think they do not grow and change as they get older. We all change, “transform” irregardless of religion.

Darryl,

I wish you would stop talking to me in that condescending tone.

If I remember correctly, this whole sparring started because you blatently dismissed me by saying your head hurts. I was addressing the topic the best way I know how at that point. Then it gradually went downhill. I don’t have to expect you to close your mind. It is already closed. When I read your words, what it says to me is: “Me cave man. Me strong. Me always right and I have the big d…, I mean, ego to prove it!!!” “Grunt, Grunt!”

Right back at ya!

People who work in the more formal sciency-type, such as mathematics, engineering or physics, want the definition of a word to be precise. If possible, precise enough that there’s no way to misinterpret it. If you’re dealing in a formal area, this is a good thing.

If I may cut in here, there are some who deal with studying human behaviour who are so precise. You can’t be when dealing with humans. However, one cannot make general statements about people, which I called Linda on earlier and she agreed with me. Of course, Sociology and Psychology are not precise as physics and mathematics, but we can make general statements about people- such as growth. We can study the effects of religion on people though and some of it is good and some of it is bad.

John Shelby Spong isn’t even a theist, and yet most of us have no problem calling him a “Christian”. Why? Because he’s very close to most modern Anglican/Episcopalian prototypes. That is, he’s closer to modern liberal/mainline Christianity than many other things that we correctly identify as “Christian” (e.g. the “early church”).

I won’t argue this and it maybe the reason we don’t have a problem with him is because he strives for what is good without leaning on the supernatural. I would like to point out that true Buddhism, not this modern Western version of Buddhism, has had a changing affect on some people, just as Christianity has.

Mriana:

If I may cut in here, there are some who deal with studying human behaviour who are so precise.

Yes, I agree with you. Sorry for being so imprecise. 🙂

In academia, precise definitions are useful. But when describing how people see themselves, it’s sometimes not so easy.

I would like to point out that true Buddhism, not this modern Western version of Buddhism, has had a changing affect on some people, just as Christianity has.

Absolutely. Though I disagree that there is a “true” form of Buddhism any more than there is a “true” form of any other religion, nonetheless, Buddhism is a perfect example of how religion need not be superstitious, or even theistic.

And, of course, all the best religions transform you into a better person. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Gary:

Your point cannot be pushed too far, however. I majored in philosophy in college, back in the day. We probably studied Wittgenstein more than any other philosopher.

Cool. Yeah, I didn’t study philosophy, but I did do some linguistics, which is where I came across him.

The fuzziness is, by nature, in the boundaries. There are some things that everyone agrees is “Christianity”. There are some things that everyone agrees isn’t. It’s the stuff in between where the problem arises.

Absolutely. Though I disagree that there is a “true” form of Buddhism any more than there is a “true” form of any other religion, nonetheless, Buddhism is a perfect example of how religion need not be superstitious, or even theistic.

I was trying to be a little more specific, because the Westernized version of Buddhism isn’t the same as the age old Eastern Buddhism. It is an adaptation of it and geared towards those in the Western part of the world. You understood my point anyway.

The fuzziness is, by nature, in the boundaries. There are some things that everyone agrees is “Christianity”. There are some things that everyone agrees isn’t. It’s the stuff in between where the problem arises.

Quite right. When people use a word incorrectly, I often find that it is sufficient (at least for me) to pull down my dictionary from the bookshelf, point, and say “Here, this is what that word means. It doesn’t means what you think it means.” This doesn’t work at all for the word “Christianity,” which my dictionary defines thus:

1. The Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches. 2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character. 3. The state of being a Christian.”

None of these definitions really help us understand what is meant by “Christianity,” now, do they?

Certainly many of those who affix the label “Christian” to themselves would deny to some others who want to wear the same label any right to do so. I just entered the phrase “are mormons christians” into my Google search box. The following were the first two hits that popped up:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/
http://www.cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm

I don’t want to give you any ideas that you can simply accept or reject. I want to open up possiblities of thoughts that are still in motion and evolving.

I’d like to see you concentrate on opening up possibilities of thoughts that aren’t murky and unclear. If you insist on using “glory” to mean “a nice knock-down argument,” or “faith” to mean “having an open mind,” don’t be surprised to be misunderstood.

Linda,

I didn’t think someone would continue to insult me for not understanding that “the puzzle” means “the direction we are going as the whole of human race” when we were talking about “open mindedness”. Who were you addressing your comments if not me? Did you honestly expect me to know what you were saying?

I recieve: transformations, “life expresses itself”, “aha” moments, whatever you believe about Christ is “solid”. Not an example of a truth, or how it was revealed. I cannot see any description, only vague expression of something I haven’t been told about. What kind of transformations, from what into what? What has your life expressed so far and in what way was it expressed?

I know of “aha” moments of transformations from a state of not understanding to a state of understanding. You can understand something without it being the truth. I conclude that while we may make the same noise, an exclamation, we are expressing different things.

The mere act of tearing a book to pieces and examining the words therein will not reveal anything.

Word choice can be important to understanding text? Yes/No

Aj,

Did you honestly expect me to know what you were saying?

No, I honestly expected people to ask me, “Linda, what are you saying?” with a genuine interest, which you seemed to have.

What kind of transformations, from what into what? What has your life expressed so far and in what way was it expressed?

You want specifics? Does it matter to you? If I were to tell you, I had no leg but it grew back, would you believe me? Nothing would be “satisfactory” to you, so why even go there? Actually, I cannot even explain it. There was darkness, and then there was light. Everything was illuminated. I understood grace. I can’t explain it or describe it accurately. I’m sorry. But like I said, the specifics of what happened to me is irrelevant to anyone else. You just have to see it for yourself.

Word choice can be important to understanding text? Yes/No

Yes. But that’s not the end. You have to continually test it and look for deeper meanings… if you desire to know more. I don’t know about you, but I’m never quite satisfied with the initial definition. I always want to know more. Always.

We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state a mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception.

Now I understand. You’re following the thought of a man that tried to make knowledge and truth a matter of faith. Yes, I can see how a Christian would appreciate that. I guess I was right about your thinking after all. To quote myself “Reminds me of the ’60s: Pop Psychology meets Khalil Gibran.” Replace Khalil Gibran with Alan Watts.

P.S. your mocking of me and name-calling is shabby.

MTran,

And the guy seems to conflate “myth” with “religion” with “politics”, and they may all be hanging out together in all the wrong places but they are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination.

Then you have not stretched your imagination far enough. He’s not saying they are synonymous; he’s only saying that they can be categorized the same way if you look at how people behave toward them.

I don’t know if you should be so quick to judge him (especially if it’s because of me). He has a lot to say that makes sense. This particular book is called Wisdom of Insecurity. A freind (who’s not a Christian) gave it to me.

Of what I see you have no idea

Which part, the immaturity or foolishness? 🙂

And in all fairness, you did try to ignore me and move on, but I egged you on to tell me what you thought. And you did. And you win. Because I guess I realized that sometimes, I can’t handle the truth.

You have no obligation to be nice to me. I know that. But gosh, couldn’t you have been a little gentler?

I have bruises, for crying out loud! 😉 I’m not as tough as I wanted to believe. But no permanent harm done. Truce?

Your flagrant and constant insults and tones of belittlement toward anyone who does not share your own attitudes, prejudices, and assumptions is another altogether.

MTran, that’s not fair. Now that IS NOT FAIR! The only person that I purposely insulted was Darryl, to whom I apologized. And that was only because I felt insulted first.

Since you love facts so much, tell me where I did those things that you accuse me of, other than to Darryl.

Ya know, Linda, it may be that I have been cranky and needlessly snarky here, and maybe even unfair. I don’t post comments just to insult people or make them unhappy, although it may sometimes look that way. It’s a common problem on the intarwebs and I am not immune.

So I will retract the “troll” accusation. That being said, I don’t think you’re going to like my response. (Though you did, literally, ask for it.) 😉 I also hope that what I say here does NOT drive you away or make you feel that you are being ganged up on.

So here goes: You’ve been making a lot of remarks about atheists, how they think, what they think about, how they should improve themselves by changing in ways that you approve of.

Many of those sorts of comments appear to be based on some misperceptions and unfounded assumptions.

Your insights have read something like this:

Linda: Why the hell are you here?
Who are you to be criticizing anyone’s presence on another person’s blog? Who the hell are you and why the hell should anyone care?

Linda: I’m asking you to engage your brain to think outside the box.
Because you don’t get the response you want, someone else needs to get out of a *box* that exists entirely in our own fantasy world? How about engaging your own brain and get out of the rut of your preferred modes of thought. If you can’t make yourself understood, don’t get angry when people ask for clarification.

Linda: How do you call yourselves lovers of science when you have that kind of an attitude?
You’ve pulled this one on other threads, if I’m not mistaken. I didn’t like it then and find it offensive here.

First of all, there are plenty of atheists who are not affiliated with or intereseted in the sciences. I became an atheist for reasons unrelated to science, as did most of the atheists I know IRL.

Second, you don’t seem to be very well qualified to recognize what constitutes a “proper” attitude for science or anything else.

Linda: you also need to open yourself up for new information, a different direction, more possibilities.

More advice that assumes people here have never heard the stuff you think they should hear. Most people who become atheists do so precisely because they *are* open to new information and have spent a lot of time and effort in thinking outside of the box you insist they are in.

Linda: Nothing would be “satisfactory” to you, so why even go there?

Again, you make assumptions or read minds then use those assumptions to avoid responding in any helpful way while adding an insult for good measure.

Linda: You can only contemplate what you can see in front of you. I get that.

What an arrogant insult. You seem to *get* nothing at all. But that’s okay, I *get* that you are pretty full of yourself.

Linda: I feel they have a misconception of Christianity, as do you.
Right, the world is full of people who have misconceptions, I mean different perspectives, from yours.

Linda: you have not stretched your imagination far enough.

You know nothing of my or any other poster’s imaginative capabilities and have shown very little yourself.

I can’t help but think that your attempts here have been unpersuasive precisely because you can’t get your preconceptions out of your head.

Unfortunately, it seems your preconceptions are being reinforced by the process of being challenged.

However, I think you are intelligent, diligent, and resilient enough to take this as an opportunity to recraft some of your points so that they can be better understood and thus more fairly addressed.

MTran,

Wow. Yes, I can see how it could look that way. I have no excuses, other than that it was not my intention. I just have a habit of opening mouth and thinking second. Not to mention that I do talk in metaphors much of the time.

Perception seems to be more of the reality than the intention, doesn’t it?

I did get a little bit full of myself and let my pride get in the way of thinking clearly. Gosh, that pride keeps poking its ugly head through everytime I think I got a handle on something. What’s up with that? Once I was out of the gate, I kept accelerating and could not figure out how to stop.

Okay, I’ll stop before I start going off on my metaphorical rampage again. 😉 Thank you for taking the time to bring this to light for me. I’m becoming a master at falling on my face in front of everyone. But I learned a lot, and I’m not running away. 🙂 (Okay… Stop that booing! I’m not so bad when I can control myself.)

Gary:

Augustine was as much what we would now call a “young earth creationist” […]

I have a bit of a problem with that.

The term “young earth creationist” only makes sense as a reaction to science. Augustine respected intellectual inquiry, and I think would likely have respected scientific inquiry had it existed at the time. As such, he had very little in common with YECers as we know them today.

Similarly, it would be unfair to put the likes of Newton, Kepler, Galileo and Gassendi in the same category as modern-day astrologers, even though they did study astrology.

Linda,

All your comments about the “attitude” of others and the stuff about understanding one another is completely contradicted by your actions. I suspected that this was the case, and called you on it, so did others, and now you admit it. I am here to communicate, discuss, and understand, you clearly are not. I do not like being played games with and accused of not being an honest party for no reason, by someone who later admits to playing games with people.

This is to say I am unhappy with your comments that insult others, detailed by MTran well. That despite pissing on others for their failings to be open to your comments you readily admit to responding in ways you know people will not understand. It gets worse because when questioned further at the end of it we get a response that seems to express “you don’t believe in miracles, and I am unable to explain it regardless”.

Firstly, I wouldn’t believe you if you said your leg grew back, and I would hope you wouldn’t believe me if I said I flew without the aid of technology today. Yet, if that’s what you had to say, you should say it, not refer to it in response to me, and be dishonest with your responses when asked about it. I will accept “I don’t want to discuss this with you” as long as you stick to that and don’t refer to it. Secondly, what’s the point of talking about something if you can’t express it? You might as well use a random word generator, because that’s going to produce just as much sense. That explains why so many of your posts are contentless or vague.

Gary,

As the article makes clear, Augustine was as much what we would now call a “young earth creationist” as any complete literalist, but he did reject the notion that it took God six whole days do get the job done — he thought it was accomplished all at once.

His interpretation illustrates my problem with this. He is not basing his differing view on the authors intent, through analysis of the text, contextual or historical information, but on the faith that the authors were writing the truth. He is solving the problem of the Bible being true vs the facts by interpreting it differently. The source doesn’t include any support he may have presented for his new interpretion, only that it has been successful in his goal of interpreting the Bible in the way that makes it compatible with beliefs from other sources.

This method seems obviously backwards, and is an example of what I was talking about in my original comment. The factor in “selecting the genre”, or interpreting a passage differently, is the need to conform to modern science today, and to some other method in Augustine’s day. Suggesting that despite claims of the opposite, the passages were interpreted to suggest things about the natural world.

When the words “theological” or “spiritual” are used, it is likely that there has been this type of dishonesty. Putting aside genuine methods that try to honestly interpret the authors intent. Overlooking the simpler explanations, creating highly complex interpretations, to try to resolve conflicts between what we know and what they wish to be true or have been indoctrinated to believe.

First of all, there are plenty of atheists who are not affiliated with or intereseted in the sciences. I became an atheist for reasons unrelated to science, as did most of the atheists I know IRL.

I came by mine by studying, psychology, other religions, and myths, not science.

Linda: you also need to open yourself up for new information, a different direction, more possibilities.

More advice that assumes people here have never heard the stuff you think they should hear. Most people who become atheists do so precisely because they *are* open to new information and have spent a lot of time and effort in thinking outside of the box you insist they are in.

He does have a point there. It takes a lot of thinking outside the box to study other subjects not related to Xianity.

You do make a few good points, MTran, but I also think we all have a certian mindset and for some of us, it’s hard to break. Maybe she has studied a little or a lot of other religions, but maybe she has not studied Humanism, atheism, and other non-theistic beliefs or even associated with non-theists in RL settings. Thus, she doesn’t quite have a grasp as to where we are coming from or even where we came from and arrived to where we are today. Maybe she doesn’t know where we have been and the various journeys we took to get where we are. In order to do that, she may have to read books on Humanism and atheism, as well as associate with a few non-theists on a regular basis, not just here on Hemant’s blog.

I’ll give you that she is stuck in a religious mindset and has not explored the tougher questions as we have. However, I must give Linda some credit too, in that there is some truth in religious texts, but it’s not exactly what she believes it is. Some of it is part of the human condition, like loving one’s neighbour, and it also shows us where our ancestors came from concerning superstition, but it is not the gospel truth.

Directed more towards Linda now, than MTran:

In reality, all the gods of various religions are human concepts. Humans created these gods to explain what they could not explain and many still do that today. Old gods died when they lost their usefullness and in the same pattern/template, with newer theology and sometimes a twist on the old to fulfil the needs of the next generation, until governments realized they could control people via religion, and then it took yet another turn and twist. At the same time, it’s always been the case, that the religious believed there was something wrong with those who don’t believe in some form of god. It’s difficult to handle when the tables are turned though and the evidence to the opposite is right there before them.

In essence, the religious mind is set to believe in a god and to think others who don’t have this mindset haven’t thought about the things they have thought about. Part of it is training and part of it is their own thinking. Many people can’t let go of the idea that there is a god and to think about such a thing troubles them greatly, which was, at least for most people, instilled into them with fear and guilt.

Directed at whoever wants to read further:

I’m not saying this is Linda’s problem or that she has one at all, but I am saying she hasn’t viewed it from our angle and she may never view it from our angle. The thing is, she is going to have to want to view it from our angle. She can’t be forced anymore than we can be forced to view it from her angle, but to do that, she will have to take off the glasses (no insult intended Linda) and view it from other angles. She will also have to want to look inside herself too, because it is not as empty as much as she may think. In fact, I think if more people looked within and actually got to know themselves, it might help a lot, esp since many have been told what to think, read, say, do, etc most of their lives. (Don’t take offense, Linda, email me if you like, and I’ll explain more, hopefully in a way you’ll understand.) What is that philosophical saying about knowing yourself?

If she wants to understand our POV, she will read more, not just on the blogs, but various books, and maybe even make friends with an atheist or two off the blogs, if she doesn’t have any relatives who are non-theists. If she has an atheist relative, she needs to sit down or spend a day with him/her, or even a phone call, and learn how interesting they can be. Blogs are no where near the same as up-close and personal.

The thing is, she is looking at things from a different perspective, while we are looking above it all. It’s not what some of us once thought it was, but we cut our loses and moved on, while she is still searching, but she isn’t as muddled as some who are stuck and not searching. If she were, she would not be here talking to any of us for as long as she has.

Give her some time MTran. A few times a day on a blog is not the same as knowing a non-theist in person and spending a little time with them, even a little each week. I don’t think she is as deep in the box as it may seem or she wouldn’t be here as much as she is.

Gary:

I won’t push too hard on the terminology. I will simply note that Augustine appears to have been an adherent of “young earth creationism” according to the first part of the definition of the term is defined in Wikipedia: “Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.”

I have a real problem with pigeonholing historical figures into modern pigeonholes. A position on some topic can only be defined by contrast to some other position. It’s fair to say that nobody of Augustine’s time had a contrary position (and if they did, it was just some other mythology).

If you don’t like the example of Augustine, how about Calvin? John Calvin was writing at a time when the new science of astronomy was in full swing. Clearly, some of Genesis 1, if taken literally, would contradict this. Here’s what Calvin said in his Commentary on Genesis:

Moses [believed at the time to be the author of Genesis] describes the special use of this expanse, “to divide the waters from the waters” from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.

I think that’s a pretty clear indication of what Calvin was thinking.

Again, you’re thinking like a foundationalist. It’s not about isolating one of these as the basis for all of our other beliefs. All four of these are interconnected. For instance, just speaking personally, my religious beliefs are based on an interconnection between my philosophical reasonings, my personal experiences, my familiarity with the experiences of others both past and present (which is essentially what tradition is), and my examination of scripture. To me they all support and mutually interpret each other.

Throwing out terms like ‘foundationalist’ are not explanatory.
You choose the metaphor that pleases you, it makes little difference. If, for instance, you remove the divinity of Jesus from your web, what is the result? Can you simply make an adjustment, or does your network fall apart?

Aj,

Ouch! I choose to believe you are not as cold as you sound.

Just to set the record straight, you misunderstood my words. My intention was never to purposely insult anyone (other than, of course, my comments to Darryl). My admittance was not that I played games, but only that I agree (looking back) that my words could have been easily misunderstood.

It was wrong of me to assume that others would be able to understand how my mind works.

And I did get a little irrational when some sensitive buttons were pushed. I do apologize for that to all who had to witness it.

Mike, back aways in this thread you made this statment:

. . . just speaking personally, my religious beliefs are based on an interconnection between my philosophical reasonings, my personal experiences, my familiarity with the experiences of others both past and present (which is essentially what tradition is), and my examination of scripture. To me they all support and mutually interpret each other.

Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity? In my experience these things are all parts of a whole that is pieced together in one’s experience. They are not consistent of themselves, but are made to fit together, and it is precisely this fitting process, and the product of it, that occupies the mind of the theologically-inclined.

es, if I didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ it would affect my Christian faith. That’s so obvious and banal I’m not even sure why you brought it up.

I brought it up in relation to the previous set of questions about why a divine Jesus is literal, or God, or miracles, etc. in contexts that are not, to which you thought me a foundationalist and you a networkist, or whatever, and that your network would simply adjust to changes and not be destroyed, etc. I was just following the direction of your argument. But, I’ll let it go.

I think we’ve already pretty well established that your experiences have been nothing like my own experiences.

May I take this response to be an affirmative to the question “Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity?”

Mike:

Literary interpretation of the Bible is one thing, but to believe its supernatural claims is something else. That’s the point, put simply. Do you give similar credence to other books, by the way? It seems to me that someone who was honestly searching for the real god would not settle upon the prominent holy text of his culture, and fail to examine in similar detail the god-claims of other cultures’ texts. Any less of an effort seems a little too convenient to be considered honest in my opinion.