I'm gonna read Carrier's paper that was posted earlier in the thread some time in the next few days and post my opinions on it. The first few paragraphs lead me to believe that this is exactly what I was looking for. After I read the paper, I might even try to raise some objections to it and see if I can't poke some holes in Carrier's position. A research project might even be a somewhat constructive way to take my mind off some personal issues I'm having right now.
If there is one problem I have with religion, it is its willingness to eschew the findings of those who have genuinely investigated reality and adopt a readymade truth found within their "sacred texts." Not only is the typical believer urged to accept a dogma solely on the basis of tradition, but also to consider further investigation into the truth fruitless, or (at the very least) fruitful only inasmuch as it conforms to a doctrine. Regardless of a doctrine's particular origin, I see adherence to a doctrine as nothing less than closing one's eyes to the truth.
Moreover, I believe that there are many valuable insights to be gleaned from the scriptures themselves. Some of the things found in the Bible are the result of genuine reflection and even perhaps (in some cases) genuine philosophical discourse. But believers are told to accept these insights and look no further for any more truth. "All you need to know is found in the Bible." If the authors of the Bible had adopted the same attitude, they wouldn't have bothered to add their own contributions. An atheist equivalent would be treasuring the theories of Albert Einstein, yet hating and distrusting science. Logic does not permit such a position.
Believe in God all you want. As an agnostic, I readily admit that I cannot disprove God's existence. But I can argue against the reasonableness of believing a book simply based on historical happenstance and the modern tradition that resulted from it. To me, it looks very much like a description of the shadows in Plato's cave in text form.
You make a good point. A "widespread and ancient consensus" means very little in regards to the accuracy of the canon's contents. After all, there was a "widespread and ancient consensus" that the Earth was flat.
If there is one problem I have with religion, it is its willingness to eschew the findings of those who have genuinely investigated reality and adopt a readymade truth found within their "sacred texts." Not only is the typical believer urged to accept a dogma solely on the basis of tradition, but also to consider further investigation into the truth fruitless, or (at the very least) fruitful only inasmuch as it conforms to a doctrine. Regardless of a doctrine's particular origin, I see adherence to a doctrine as nothing less than closing one's eyes to the truth.
Moreover, I believe that there are many valuable insights to be gleaned from the scriptures themselves. Some of the things found in the Bible are the result of genuine reflection and even perhaps (in some cases) genuine philosophical discourse. But believers are told to accept these insights and look no further for any more truth. "All you need to know is found in the Bible." If the authors of the Bible had adopted the same attitude, they wouldn't have bothered to add their own contributions. An atheist equivalent would be treasuring the theories of Albert Einstein, yet hating and distrusting science. Logic does not permit such a position.
Believe in God all you want. As an agnostic, I readily admit that I cannot disprove God's existence. But I can argue against the reasonableness of believing a book simply based on historical happenstance and the modern tradition that resulted from it. To me, it looks very much like a description of the shadows in Plato's cave in text form.
(August 3, 2018 at 1:50 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm not too clued up on who exactly made the decisions, but clearly some group of people did, or various groups over time.
What I find bizarre/amusing is this: where else do we see the word "canon", except in works of fiction? Some people just decided that certain recorded events happened, and some didn't, based on what? Usefulness for their agendas I guess, or just popularity. Clearly it's not accurate reporting or internal consistency that are the criteria. Normally in historical study, no sources need to be omitted, they either stand up to scrutiny or they don't.
You make a good point. A "widespread and ancient consensus" means very little in regards to the accuracy of the canon's contents. After all, there was a "widespread and ancient consensus" that the Earth was flat.
