On the faithfullness of biblical literalism compared to liberal interpretations....
(just thinking out loud)
so it's always seemed to that, regardless of how ludicrous biblical literalism is, it is at least the most forthright Christianity there is. believing that what the book says is what the book means and that's that (to the extent that they do that) rather than, as most Christians do, picking and choosing the parts they want to believe and casually discarding the parts they don't want to or can't believe, is far more honest it seems to me.
i was just reading a post on John Luftus' blog and it strikes me as ridiculous that a Christian can reject much of what's in the bible but still have faith in their particular religion. certainly the fact that not a shred of the meaningful parts of the bible narrative are true historically should make all Christians renounce their faith. otherwise what really are they placing faith in? we've looked everywhere we'd expect to be able to confirm the bible's narrative and found nothing more than that many of the cities technically existed and some of the in some state but that there's no truth to the narrative in any meaningful sense.
at least the literalists, in their rejection of the findings of textual critics, in their rejection of the lack of archaeological evidence confirming the narrative (not to mention the wealth of archaeological evidence specifically refuting the narrative), in their rejection of evolution to explain in naturalistic ways the diversity of all life, and their insistence on the inerrancy of the account, can keep their faith because they believe the bible is the true, accurate, innerant word of god. the moderate and liberal Christians flatly disregard huge chunks of the bible as having no relationship to history but still have faith in the religion.
now to be clear, i'm certainly not saying that biblical literalism is more reasonable than are moderate or liberal Christianities. certainly the rejection of much of the silliness in the bible is much more reasonable than believing in it. i'm simply saying that to tacitly and sometimes explicitly acknowledge that the account doesn't offer much of anything in the way of truth while still keeping your faith is quite a bit of mental gymnastics. why aren't the moderate and liberal Christianities tied to the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative?
what do you guys think?
so it's always seemed to that, regardless of how ludicrous biblical literalism is, it is at least the most forthright Christianity there is. believing that what the book says is what the book means and that's that (to the extent that they do that) rather than, as most Christians do, picking and choosing the parts they want to believe and casually discarding the parts they don't want to or can't believe, is far more honest it seems to me.
i was just reading a post on John Luftus' blog and it strikes me as ridiculous that a Christian can reject much of what's in the bible but still have faith in their particular religion. certainly the fact that not a shred of the meaningful parts of the bible narrative are true historically should make all Christians renounce their faith. otherwise what really are they placing faith in? we've looked everywhere we'd expect to be able to confirm the bible's narrative and found nothing more than that many of the cities technically existed and some of the in some state but that there's no truth to the narrative in any meaningful sense.
at least the literalists, in their rejection of the findings of textual critics, in their rejection of the lack of archaeological evidence confirming the narrative (not to mention the wealth of archaeological evidence specifically refuting the narrative), in their rejection of evolution to explain in naturalistic ways the diversity of all life, and their insistence on the inerrancy of the account, can keep their faith because they believe the bible is the true, accurate, innerant word of god. the moderate and liberal Christians flatly disregard huge chunks of the bible as having no relationship to history but still have faith in the religion.
now to be clear, i'm certainly not saying that biblical literalism is more reasonable than are moderate or liberal Christianities. certainly the rejection of much of the silliness in the bible is much more reasonable than believing in it. i'm simply saying that to tacitly and sometimes explicitly acknowledge that the account doesn't offer much of anything in the way of truth while still keeping your faith is quite a bit of mental gymnastics. why aren't the moderate and liberal Christianities tied to the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative?
what do you guys think?
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 9:34pm -
You cant ignore the evidence against a literal interpretation and I think they are too afraid to state the obvious so they go through the motions.....just in case.
-
Comment by Nelson on March 16, 2009 at 9:38pm -
yeah, it occurred to me that moderate and liberal Christians are just going through the motions but then i'm not sure that they can be said to be too afraid to state the obvious. i'm not sure that most of them have given it the kind of thought that would be required to be afraid to state the obvious and then going through the motions. the just in case part seems to imply that they've given it some thought and are keeping to the faith simply to cover their asses. i can't think that's true.
i'm thinking a lot of it has to do with simple comfort and habit.
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 9:48pm
-
Yeah that has bit to do with it as well but I know that for me at least, when I was still a christian, I was more of a liberal christian and I was going through the motions just in case. Also, if you can ignore the evidence then you can trick yourself into believing it is not there. I knew the stories my history told us about noahs ark were not exactly accurate but I tricked myself into believing them to comfort myself in face of doubt. Its a weird experience but a lot of moderates and liberals come to their senses eventually.
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 9:49pm
-
*history teacher* :p
-
Comment by Nelson on March 16, 2009 at 9:58pm
-
see, now that's information i don't have because i was never a believer. i can't understand that personally but i can certainly see how cognitive dissonance would definitely play a role there. interesting.
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 10:04pm
-
Yes, it was the strangest thing. I had this little voice in the back of my mind screaming at me "This is bullshit!!"" but I continued to ignore it in fear of being a bad person, or more threatening, going to.....hell! :( lol, I know there are many many more out there like I was that just need a smack in the face or a firm shake to wake up.
-
Comment by Nelson on March 16, 2009 at 10:23pm
-
i've actually heard of that kind of think in the past. i know someone from another forum i frequent who was a fundamentalist Pentecostal. she can recall arguing with people who didn't share her particular brand of faith and thinking to herself, "i can't believe i just said that. that's not true at all. i know that's ridiculous!" but then squashing it just as quickly as it had come up simply because she knew she wasn't supposed to think that way.
amazing stuff. even in the most hardcore believers their capacity for reason and logic nag at them. it's only in their struggle to kill that nagging that they can maintain their faith.
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 10:32pm
-
"it's only in their struggle to kill that nagging that they can maintain their faith. "
Its funny that you mention that because I remember feeling like a good christian once I fought those thoughts and flushed the common sense out of my mind. lol, it was one of those "spiritual" battles that you hear about, the majority of them take place in the minds of the believers. Reason and common sense is the devil! :p
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 16, 2009 at 10:45pm
-
Lol, thats great, I received many sermons along that line. I just came across this while re-reading The God Delusion:
We respect your learning, Dr Einstein; but there is one
thing you do not seem to have learned: that God is a spirit
and cannot be found through the telescope or microscope,
no more than human thought or emotion can be found by
analyzing the brain. As everyone knows, religion is based
on Faith, not knowledge. Every thinking person, perhaps,
is assailed at times with religious doubt. My own faith has
wavered many a time. But I never told anyone of my
spiritual aberrations for two reasons: (1) I feared that I
might, by mere suggestion, disturb and damage the life
and hopes of some fellow being; (2) because I agree with
the writer who said, 'There is a mean streak in anyone
who will destroy another's faith.' ... I hope, Dr Einstein,
that you were misquoted and that you will yet say some-
thing more pleasing to the vast number of the American
people who delight to do you honor.
A letter from the president of the historical society in new jersey. I could not more perfectly outline the "spiritual" battle than he does with this wonderful letter.
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Strega 10 minutes ago. 328 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
-
Frederick Beer Week
May 11, 2013 at 12pm to May 18, 2013 at 6pm – Stillpoint Farm, MD
0 Comments 0 Likes
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist