[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Silver]

A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements. 

I do not read the bible as a science textbook. Rather, I read the bible as the fictional mythology it is.

When we refer to science and the bible what we mean is that our current understanding of science clashes with how the bible describes the natural world. After all, if a real divine being had chosen Messengers to write its Word, one would think that the contents of the book would align with our current understanding of science. Since it does not, it clearly means there was no divine inspiration; it means the bible is just mythology created by primitive fallible human minds.

[Belacqua]

A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements. 

I do not read the bible as a science textbook. Rather, I read the bible as the fictional mythology it is.

Yes, I agree this is the best way to read it.

When we refer to science and the bible what we mean is that our current understanding of science clashes with how the bible describes the natural world. After all, if a real divine being had chosen Messengers to write its Word, one would think that the contents of the book would align with our current understanding of science. Since it does not, it clearly means there was no divine inspiration; it means the bible is just mythology created by primitive fallible human minds.

I agree that the Bible doesn't describe the world in a way that fits with science. And I don't see any reason to think it's divinely inspired.

On the other hand, I see no reason to think that the authors of the Bible ever wanted to write something like science. It seems likely that the authors of Genesis, for example, knew they were writing myth for spiritual, moral, and propagandistic reasons. 

And while I don't believe in divine inspiration, I don't agree with your reasoning here. You seem to be assuming that if there had been divine inspiration, the authors would have written a science book. But since they were more likely interested in writing different things for different reasons from the very beginning, merely the fact that it isn't science is no reason to conclude it's not divine. I think we have to use other arguments for that. 

I want to avoid the simplified view that science=true=worthwhile and myth=false=waste of time. It's more complicated than that.

[Silver]

And while I don't believe in divine inspiration, I don't agree with your reasoning here. You seem to be assuming that if there had been divine inspiration, the authors would have written a science book.

What I mean is that if divine inspiration had been a real factor, had god actually been dictating what to be written, then the book would reflect an omniscient being's knowledge of how the natural world operates.

[Belacqua]

And while I don't believe in divine inspiration, I don't agree with your reasoning here. You seem to be assuming that if there had been divine inspiration, the authors would have written a science book.

What I mean is that if divine inspiration had been a real factor, had god actually been dictating what to be written, then the book would reflect an omniscient being's knowledge of how the natural world operates.

Maybe so. 

Not being omniscient myself, I am reluctant to say what such a thing would do.

And now that I think of it, it is downright dangerous of us to assume we know how such a thing would operate. Our own values are very much contingent on our time and place. There is no reason to think that they are or should be universal.

One of the worst things religious people can do is look at their own contingent values (e.g. owning guns is good) and make the mistake of attributing this opinion to an eternal all-knowing consciousness. They shouldn't do that, and I think we shouldn't do that.

[Silver]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, there is no maybe about it.

When there are writings that do not reflect reality, they are rightfully and reasonably labeled mythology. All religious writings are pure mythology.

Since religious writings do not reflect reality or how the natural world works, it is safe and credible to understand that god simply is not real and never existed except as an imaginative concept in the mind of fallible writers.

[Belacqua]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, there is no maybe about it.

When there are writings that do not reflect reality, they are rightfully and reasonably labeled mythology. All religious writings are pure mythology.

Since religious writings do not reflect reality or how the natural world works, it is safe and credible to understand that god simply is not real and never existed except as an imaginative concept in the mind of fallible writers.

Agreed, I think all the narratives in holy books are mythology written by people. 

This doesn't mean that god doesn't exist; just that the books about him weren't written by him. To show that he doesn't exist, we'd need further arguments.

[Silver]

This doesn't mean that god doesn't exist; just that the books about him weren't written by him. To show that he doesn't exist, we'd need further arguments.

Magical garden gnomes may exist, too, but it is unreasonable to have faith in that which defies logical thinking. It is perfectly reasonable to state, god does not exist. Only in light of actual evidence would it be folly to make such a statement, and then one would hopefully have enough intellectual honesty to at the very least acknowledge god's existence even if the god was unworthy of any type of attention.

[Belacqua]

It is perfectly reasonable to state, god does not exist. 

OK, that may well be so.

But that doesn't mean that "the Bible is mythology" equals "there is no god." 

In the interest of intellectual honesty, we have to be sure that we are using our claims accurately. The fact that the Bible is mythology is not proof that there is no god. For that, you would need other arguments. 

You kind of slide around with different assertions -- 1) that if god were real he would agree with you, 2) that the mythical nature of the Bible proves there is no god, 3) that the existence of a god defies logical thinking. These are all separate and distinct, and you don't want to Gish gallop from one to the other, as if they're all the same.

[Silver]

I never stated that biblical mythology is proof there is no god.

The veritable absence of evidence is what makes god's non-existence a current reality, just as it is realistically accurate to state that magical garden gnomes do not exist.

The proof that something does not exist is evidenced in its veritable non-existence. No evidence for something's existence is reasonably all that is needed to comprehend something does not exist.

The burden of proof, after all, is on the individual making the positive claim of existence; meaning that god's existence needs to be verified by those who claim he exists.

[Belacqua]

I never stated that biblical mythology is proof there is no god.

When I read the sentence below, that was the message I got. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Since religious writings do not reflect reality or how the natural world works, it is safe and credible to understand that god simply is not real and never existed except as an imaginative concept in the mind of fallible writers.

It seems to say that because religious writings do not reflect reality, therefore it is safe and credible to understand that god isn't real. But I would argue that it only means that religious writings do not reflect reality. And the issue of the existence of god is separate.

The veritable absence of evidence is what makes god's non-existence a current reality

Currently we have no evidence of alien life. Is this proof of anything? 

It may be true that god's non-existence is a "current reality," but the absence of evidence isn't what makes that true. It's either true or not, independent of the evidence we have. 

The proof that something does not exist is evidenced in its veritable non-existence. 

I don't understand this sentence. 

"veritable" in American English

veritable
adjective

(used to emphasize how great or unusual something is by comparing it to something else): 
If current projections hold, Montgomery County will experience a veritable explosion in its school-age population (= it will have many more students).

veritable
adjective [ before noun ] UK  /ˈver.ɪ.tə.bəl/ US  /ˈver.ə.t̬ə.bəl/

used to describe something as another, more exciting, interesting, or unusual thing, as a way of emphasizing its character:
My garden had become a veritable jungle by the time I came back from holiday.
The normally sober menswear department is set to become a veritable kaleidoscope of colour this season.

You're saying that the proof of a negative -- that something doesn't exist -- comes from the thing's non-existence? I guess that's true, isn't it, as a tautology...? The proof of a thing's non-existence comes from the fact that it doesn't exist. 

But to avoid begging the question, you can't begin with the assumption that it doesn't exist as proof that it doesn't exist. 

The burden of proof, after all, is on the individual making the positive claim of existence; meaning that god's existence needs to be verified by those who claim he exists.

I think the burden of proof falls on anyone making a claim. If you claim "it doesn't exist" then you have a burden of proof. If you make a more careful claim, like "I don't see any evidence of it," then your burden is less. 

But you can't say that because you have so far seen no evidence, then its non-existence is proven. I have so far seen no evidence of extraterrestrial life, which means I can prove -- what?