Why We don't take your Holy Scriptures Seriously
October 21, 2018 at 5:29 pm
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2018 at 7:01 pm by vulcanlogician.)
The "Atheist Bible Study" thread got me thinking: why are some religious adherents so averse to their scriptures being ridiculed? I think the main reason is that those from religious backgrounds are accustomed to their holy scriptures being held aloft, as something beyond reproach-- ie. taken super seriously. In religious settings, the more "troublesome" verses are often glossed over, instantly apologized for, or explained away. These verses are handled in a "special way." Social mores in these circles dictate that no one ask: "What if this is just a bunch of bronze age bullshit?" In our "Atheist Bible Study" thread, it is pretty obvious that no verse will be afforded such special protection. And I think some people are bothered (maybe even scared) by that.
I'll be the first to step out of the thread if it becomes some kind of "free-for-all" that refuses to see anything good or meaningful in the scriptures. That would indicate that the discussion is neither fair nor relevant. But (by the same token) "What if this is just a bunch of bronze age bullshit?" also seems like a fair and relevant question, one that ought to appear perennially in the discussion if we are to consider ourselves any kind of self-respecting atheists/skeptics.
But why are so many so quick to treat the scriptures so roughly? One of the main reasons is: you guys take them so seriously. I mentioned the Greek myth of Arachne in one of my posts there. I love mythology of all kinds, especially Greek myths. But if a third of the people around me insisted that I take the myth literally, that is, I treat it seriously as the reason why spiders exist, I might begin heaping some ridicule upon it.
A third. I know I've shown the chart below before, but I think it says something relevant. 34% of Americans (that's nearly half of all Christians in this country) treat Genesis as a literal history. They want creationism to have "honorable mention" status in our science classrooms. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas advanced an interpretive mode that does not typify that of the average modern Christian. These guys were all influenced by the Greeks, too. Remember that Paul dismissed the Greeks, and that's enough for the literalists to pay the Greeks or modern science no mind at all.
![[Image: FT_16.02.12_darwinDay_640px.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.pewresearch.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FFT_16.02.12_darwinDay_640px.png)
I remember mentioning some Hindu myths to some of my Indian friends I knew in DC. They grew up with these things. And they were more inclined to view the myths as something stupid rather than interesting. Reflecting on this, I conclude that their reaction to being presented with the myths was such because (where they came from) such myths were taken too seriously.
I was watching a documentary about India wherein a troupe of "miracle workers" would travel around to different villages and perform magic tricks (like lying on a bed of nails etc.) and would attract large crowds of spectators. Of course, the troupe would attribute their "magic powers" to God. They were dishonest magicians.
In the wake of this first group, a different kind of troupe followed. This group would similarly put on magic shows for audiences. They called themselves the "God Busters." They had a different style. After performing the same feats that the other group performed, they would explain to the audience exactly how the tricks were done, adding that God had nothing to do with any of it. I'm sure these "God Busters" are a great thorn in the side of the charlatans who would prefer that nobody questioned their supernatural claims. But one could also imagine a middle of the road Hindu saying that, while some people make unfounded claims related to the Hindu religion, this does not discredit the religion entirely.
I can see how some theists on the forums resemble those middle of the road Hindus. I think it's important to understand as we continue the Bible study thread, that some "God busting" is to be expected. To ignore the need for such a thing would be to ignore the fact that (at least) half of Christians are making exaggerated claims which make such "God busting" warranted. And, like it or not, these guys still push to fuck with our science classrooms and elect like-minded politicians whenever they can...
Should we spend some time considering allegory as we make our way through the text? Sure. But don't get all huffy if we do a little "God busting" too. Your problem ought not be with us. Your problem ought to be with the literalists who make such commentary pertinent.
I'll be the first to step out of the thread if it becomes some kind of "free-for-all" that refuses to see anything good or meaningful in the scriptures. That would indicate that the discussion is neither fair nor relevant. But (by the same token) "What if this is just a bunch of bronze age bullshit?" also seems like a fair and relevant question, one that ought to appear perennially in the discussion if we are to consider ourselves any kind of self-respecting atheists/skeptics.
But why are so many so quick to treat the scriptures so roughly? One of the main reasons is: you guys take them so seriously. I mentioned the Greek myth of Arachne in one of my posts there. I love mythology of all kinds, especially Greek myths. But if a third of the people around me insisted that I take the myth literally, that is, I treat it seriously as the reason why spiders exist, I might begin heaping some ridicule upon it.
A third. I know I've shown the chart below before, but I think it says something relevant. 34% of Americans (that's nearly half of all Christians in this country) treat Genesis as a literal history. They want creationism to have "honorable mention" status in our science classrooms. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas advanced an interpretive mode that does not typify that of the average modern Christian. These guys were all influenced by the Greeks, too. Remember that Paul dismissed the Greeks, and that's enough for the literalists to pay the Greeks or modern science no mind at all.
I remember mentioning some Hindu myths to some of my Indian friends I knew in DC. They grew up with these things. And they were more inclined to view the myths as something stupid rather than interesting. Reflecting on this, I conclude that their reaction to being presented with the myths was such because (where they came from) such myths were taken too seriously.
I was watching a documentary about India wherein a troupe of "miracle workers" would travel around to different villages and perform magic tricks (like lying on a bed of nails etc.) and would attract large crowds of spectators. Of course, the troupe would attribute their "magic powers" to God. They were dishonest magicians.
In the wake of this first group, a different kind of troupe followed. This group would similarly put on magic shows for audiences. They called themselves the "God Busters." They had a different style. After performing the same feats that the other group performed, they would explain to the audience exactly how the tricks were done, adding that God had nothing to do with any of it. I'm sure these "God Busters" are a great thorn in the side of the charlatans who would prefer that nobody questioned their supernatural claims. But one could also imagine a middle of the road Hindu saying that, while some people make unfounded claims related to the Hindu religion, this does not discredit the religion entirely.
I can see how some theists on the forums resemble those middle of the road Hindus. I think it's important to understand as we continue the Bible study thread, that some "God busting" is to be expected. To ignore the need for such a thing would be to ignore the fact that (at least) half of Christians are making exaggerated claims which make such "God busting" warranted. And, like it or not, these guys still push to fuck with our science classrooms and elect like-minded politicians whenever they can...
Should we spend some time considering allegory as we make our way through the text? Sure. But don't get all huffy if we do a little "God busting" too. Your problem ought not be with us. Your problem ought to be with the literalists who make such commentary pertinent.
