At first I thought this cartoon could be a metaphor for the Epigenetic Revolution, or for the more disreputable forms of evolutionary psychology.
But then I realized that it’s best thought of as showing what science would be like if it resembled theology.
I have realized, after finishing the Bible two days ago (congratulate me!), that theology is like modern literary criticism applied to a book by authors no longer alive. Faced with a text that says one thing on its face, but which can be “interpreted” in innumerable different ways, and with no recourse to the “true” meaning beyond what the words say—or to the author’s own take about what she intended (which, of course, can be misleading, too!), Sophisticated Theologians™ simply make up their own interpretations. This is such a palpably obvious exercise that I’m amazed intelligent people fall for it. That’s why in some ways I have more respect for Biblical literalists than for clever and sophisticated apologists like John Haught. The former, at least, try hard to stick to what Scripture really says. (Readers don’t need to inform me that even literalists exercise some interpretation.)
Oh, and the Bible is not a great work of literature. There are some good bits—we all know them—but most of it is tedious and boring. In no way is it as good as Shakespeare or Joyce. Yes, it is a cultural touchstone, and yes, I am glad I read it, if for no other reason than I can say I did, and know what a terrible guide to “morality” it really is. But I did not come away with the thought “what a beautifully written book!” There are some good sentences, and a very few good verses, but the book as a whole is leaden. And its vaunted “moral teachings” are, when not repugnant, trite. I’m glad to be done.
In this I disagree with Richard Dawkins. We both agree that everyone should read the Bible for cultural reasons. But to me it’s like learning organic chemistry: painful but necessary. To Richard it is also a chance to be thrilled at the beautiful language. But that beauty is thin on the ground. If you want beautiful language, read Shakespeare or “The Dead”. For morality, try modern secular philosophers like Rawls or Singer. At least they don’t advocate genocide or the subjugation of women.
As a palliative to the Bible, I’m reading my second book by philosopher/atheist Walter Kaufmann, Critique of Religion and Philosophy ($23.71 on Amazon, or get it at the library). It’s wonderful: erudite but not difficult, and loaded with original thought. It’s one of the best critiques of religion I’ve ever read—perhaps the best. Here’s the take of one Amazon reviewer, and I heartily agree:
It is appalling that the imperious academic philosophers of our time, as well as more emotional fanatics such as the previous Amazon reviewer, scorn the original philosophic works of the late Professor Kaufmann. I share the view of a still earlier Amazonian that this is a genuinely great philosophical work. Any reader who has openmindedly explored Kaufmann’s work in some detail cannot help but marvel at his erudition, his clarity, his humor, his poetry, and his illumination, here, of the realms philosophy and religion. Who would be so bold as to critique both realms in a single tome? Yet Kaufmann pulls it off. One may not concur with all of Kaufmann’s conclusions, but any sensitive reader cannot help but be challenged, awakened, and energized by this magnificent book. I love Plato; but I love Kaufmann just as much. Kaufmann belongs in the canon of the few philosophical greats.
Cartoon (not an afterthought!) from SMBC (h/t: Matthew Cobb):
Is it still thought that (parts of) the KJV were written by Shakespeare?
Oh, and: Congratulations!
/@
Not Shakespeare, but Marlowe.
Or Bacon.
Marlowe died 18 years before the KJV was published, so his involvement is … unlikely.
Heck — if Moses could write Deuteronomy 34 describing what happened after his death, then Marlowe could write the KJV.
Not Shakespeare, but another writer with the same name 😉
The idea that Shakespeare “signed” the KJV comes from the fact that in Psalm 46, the 46th word from the beginning of the psalm is “shake” and the 46th word from the end is “spear”. That kind of thing used to turn me on when I was a believer; now it makes me throw up a little in my mouth.
Checking to see that my memory has not deceived me, I see the following on the Wikipedia page for Psalm 46:
“For several decades a popular rumor has persisted that William Shakespeare placed his mark on the translated text of Psalm 46 that appears in the King James Bible, although scholars view this as unlikely. By coincidence, the 46th word from the beginning of Psalm 46 is “shake” and the 46th word from the end (omitting the liturgical mark “Selah”) is “spear”. Shakespeare was in King James’ service during the preparation of the King James Bible, and he was 46 years old in 1611 when the translation was completed.”
It’s a nice idea and it might have been a lot better written if they were….
Is there any historical evidence? Known acquaintanceships between known translators and Shaksp.? Since it’s suggested he was a closetted Catholic, how likely is it they would call on him?
“Since it’s suggested he was a closetted Catholic”
I’ve never found that convincing, and I doubt that Walter Kaufmann would have, either; see his remarks on Shakespeare’s lack of religious feeling, in FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM.
I’ve slogged through the Old Testament up until Chronicles where the white washing of previous biblical books and the writing stopped me cold. I need to remarshal my forces before plunging ahead.
With all due respect, this evaluation of the Bible (and by that do you mean the Tanakh or the Testaments?) is both shallow and uninformed. Let’s take the Tanakh (what Christians refer to as the “New Testament.”) The Tanakh is primarily a dramatic history of the Jewish People, including its major events and characters (patriarchs, kings, prophets, etc.) as well as genealogical chains, laws & jurisprudence, etc. It is composed of many books which include historical accounts, descriptions of places and practices, measurements of buildings, agricultural and ritual techniques, works of allegorical and love poetry, genealogical lists, and corpuses of laws. The Tanakh is not considered by Jews to be a “religious” book in the Christian or Muslim sense, which is why The Talmud (interpretation of the Tanakh) deals with ethical and legal problems within the historical framework of rabbinical exegesis which is never enshrined into an established ecclesiastical doctrine. To call the Tanakh a mainly religious book is to completely misunderstand both the nature of Judaism over several millennia as well as the intentions of the many writers of the dozens of books collected in the Tanakh and subsequently in the Talmud.
Sorry, typo: the Tanakh is what Christians refer to as the “OLD Testament” of course!
With due respect, you’re saying I’M shallow because I regard the book as Christians do: not only a true story, but a great fount of truth. Yes, you’re Jewish, but you’re telling us all that it’s not a religious book? Try telling that to Christians.
And the description of how they built the Ark is boring, and probably not true. The moral dicta of the “Tanakh” are problematic at best.
But you undercut your whole case by calling the New Testament “not a religious book”. Jews may see it as that, for they have to, but YOU are misunderstanding that it’s religious for Christians who, by the way, outnumber Jews by a substantial margin.
Sorry for any confusion – there was a mistake in my original post which i corrected in a subsequent one: I was referring exclusively to Tanakh NOT to the New Testament, which is a clearly “religious” book in the sense that it announces and chronicles the coming of the messiah and the associated eschatology. Moreover, Christianity recasts/co-ops the Old Testament (Tanakh) as a providential text that predicts the birth and death of Jesus Christ. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the way that Jews traditionally approach the Torah, Tanakh or Talmud. You’re right that it’s impossible to argue that the New Testament is NOT a religious text, as it is in fact the founding document of a new religion, whereas it is entirely possible to discuss the Old Testament stories of Moses, Saul, Ruth, David, Solomon, Esther, Job, Daniel, etc. without even invoking God (for example these figures can be discussed from a historical or allegorical or literary or sociological or ethical point of view without even considering the role of God, readings which are common.) My point is that it seems lazy to critique the “Bible” as a monolithic literary-religious text without acknowledging the difference between books, interpretations and even translations (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/the Vulgate/King James, etc.) It’s not enough to consider the often simplistic contemporary American Evangelical point of view, but also necessary to differentiate between traditional Jewish and Christian ones (which are very different and usually completely opposed) as well as the various denominations and secular/scientific textual interpretations.
I say all this as a fan of your blog who’s in agreement with you about the fundamental truths.
And btw it doesn’t matter whether I’m Jewish or not; it’s a matter of analytical rigor and historical sensitivity.
If you are going to treat the OT like Aesop’s Fables, you might as well just study:
The Lord of the Rings.
Superman comics.
Batman.
Starwars.
The morality is better and they are at least coherent works written so moderns can relate to them.
+1
Oops. Delete that, please. I had a brain fart, forgot what I was going to say and posted that trivial idiocy when trying to delete it…
It’s funny, but lots of Christians use the same argument as Lev. That the ‘Old Testament’ is all metaphorical and what not, especially the earliest parts…
What I never understand is why they then use it to bash gays over homosexuality. Or establish Israel’s ‘right to exist.’
I mean, if it’s just a metaphor, you’ve got nothing on which to hang your scholarly assertions vis the divine will the rest of your faith-assertions. If you’ve got stories, modern fiction (as you pointed out) is far better.
But what we get is people who play both sides of the issue. First they’ll tell us the Bible tells us God’s will through its clear divine guidance (which is usually something more along the lines of conflicting instructions and inscrutable Rorschach metaphors (that is, the metaphor is what you wish it to believe, regardless that others have equally valid and conflicting interpretations)).
Then they tell us it is ‘just a bunch of stories’ when problems are pointed out… Problems such as Exodus was impossible. The Sinai desert was Egyptian territory full of Egyptian soldiers and forts when that supposedly happened. No way 600K or so Jews are going to hide in that heavily fortified area. Or Noah’s arc and its impossible cargo. Or the Genesis stories don’t match… Or God routinely slaughters innocent women and children in an arbitary and capricious method…
Suddenly, ‘it’s just a metaphor.’
So, yes, I’ll take LotR over the Bible. The stories are at least coherent. Good and evil is clear.
I never used the word ‘metaphor’ nor imputed a metaphorical excuse to the very real historical problems posed in Leviticus when it comes to the lethal condemnation of adultery or homosexuality and any number of other archaic crimes (not like death sentences for what we today consider minor controversies didn’t abound in the ancient world.) And if you’re so worked up about homosexuality as a capital offence, rather than hate the Bible why don’t you petition the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia where they still kill homosexuals?
“And if you’re so worked up about homosexuality as a capital offence, rather than hate the Bible why don’t you petition the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia where they still kill homosexuals?”
Where do you think they got the idea?
Lev,
The Tanakh is most certainly a religious book! Just look at any Jewish Siddur or prayerbook: Jewish liturgy depends centrally on the contents and messages of Tanakh. The Shema, the closest thing Judaism has to a creed, is directly from Torah. The Jewish calendar and holidays often derive specifically from Tanakh, from Rosh Hashanah to Passover to Shavuous, and more.
I don’t know what a religious book is if the books of Tanakh are not in the category.
The Dead Sea scrolls shows that early judaism and christianism wasn’t even separated at the time (~ 200 BCE) even less discernible sects, and that these texts were _all_ religious texts from the funding of these religions. (The funding likely happened in Alexandria btw.)
I believe even religious “historical” scholars have had to agree on that.
… since Wikipedia describes that position in detail.
“Uninformed”? Jerry read the damn thing! He’s earned the right to evaluate it as he pleases.
Jerry: Very impressed that you persevered! Hope you enjoyed the acid trip that is Revelation.
Revelation was always one of my favorites, back in my Jesus days. It reads like a Left Behind novel. (FREAKY)
Someone (not Mel Gibson) should film it.
Hesitant though I am to argue with one of the Torah’s original authors, I’m not sure having simply read a work means the reader is in a position to fairly evaluate its artistic merit. Many people are bored to tears by Tolstoy or, say, Mozart, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything worthwhile there. The situation becomes even more dire if you look at less accessible works like Chaucer or 20th century serial music. In both these cases the subject is further removed from our everyday culture and requires a correspondingly more rigorous approach to understand and evaluate.
Having read the thing myself, I can’t say I’m in much of a position to fairly evaluate it because it was written by such a variety of authors in cultures that are so far removed from my own, that I suspect most of the meaning and “art” (if there was any) has been lost in the translation between cultures, if not languages.
However, I can see the sense in Jerry’s reading and critiquing it from a modern standpoint that largely ignores the context in which it was written, because that’s how modern Christians are reading it. And I assume he is interested not so much in what the book can tell him about the peoples/cultures in the middle east 2000+ years ago, as he is in what it can tell him about Christians living in the US today.
I refer you to Sastra’s* reply to Lev @16. For the task that Jerry had in mind, reading it *is* enough to evaluate it (I contend).
* @Sastra can I just say – your comments are almost always right on the money. A pleasure to read.
Well, yeah. That’s what my last paragraph was getting at. And I think reading through it and pointing out how tedious and unappealing it is is sufficient response to the myriad believers who rave about the beauty of the Emperor’s clothes. Those people aren’t approaching it from a literary perspective either.
I’m certainly in agreement with your footnote, though. Sastra’s commentary is always a pleasure.
“… is like learning organic chemistry: painful but necessary.”
oh, one of those.
why exactly do students despise organic chemistry in such a notable way? memorizing reactions, I can understand. but everything?
I hated organic chem because it wasn’t physical chem and wasn’t inorganic chem. Also, the organic labs stank. Seriously. Just walking in the door put me off. A friend who majored in organic said it ruined his sense of smell. The P&I labs smelled like the physics labs. That is, no smell.
I didn’t hate it, but I never came to grips with it. It was like a chess game in which every piece had different moves depending on which square it was on – and what other pieces were nearby, and…
The diffence between Org and P&I is kinda like the difference between differential and integral calculus. Differentiation is a science – standard methods just work. Integral calculus is an art – there are lots of “tricks” that work in individual cases but “cleverness is required”.
Organic to me seemed like a lot of tricks and special cases.
I am impressed, Dr. Coyne. I was a Southern Baptist for 24 years, and even I’ve never read the entire Bible. Why not? Because as you said, with the exception of a few books in the NT (imho), it’s SO BORING. I think the NT becomes more interesting to read if you actually believe, but the OT is boring whether you’re a believer or a heathen…unless you’re a believer AND a history fiend, in which case, you’re all set.
Pardon the pedantry…
“it’s best thought of” -correct.
“it’s vaunted ‘moral teachings’” -wrong.
It’s = It is / it has.
Its = belonging to it.
How to remember: You don’t write Her’s or Hi’s, do you?
You may be overlooking the independent “minds” apparently possessed by computer spell-checkers set to auto-correct, which don’t generally take note of the niceties of grammar. (Having said that, I must say that the its/it’s problem and related ones annoy me when I encounter them, too.)
I catch mine right after I make a post I can’t edit….
Congratulations on reading the Bible, and I agree with you sbout the large proportions of tediousness it contains.
Shakespeare studies have been a bit theological in the past, with a nod to ‘divine authorship’. Some of the more interesting scholarship on Shakespeare has been about the amount of collaboration in the Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre world, which highlights the fact that Shakespeare was one of many exciting writers who were bouncing ideas off each other. Most Shakespeareans are happy with the idea that there is no authoritive text, that the author/s adjusted their sources to make their point or make for better poetry and more excitinig story.
Perhaps the tediousness of the Bible is one of the reasons why it’s been swallowed for so long: surely something that boring has got to be true! Luckily, the best science writing can show that writing about reality doesn’t need to be dull.
“Some of the more interesting scholarship on Shakespeare has been about the amount of collaboration in the Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre world, which highlights the fact that Shakespeare was one of many exciting writers who were bouncing ideas off each other.”
That sounds like a fine direction to follow.
One of the sore points I have with “Shakespeare idolatry” (at least in pop-culture terms), is the refusal to see his work in the context of its time: he was a brilliant writer surrounded by brilliant writers, in a culture that excelled at poetry and theatre. To study his work in isolation would be like focusing on, say, J. B. S. Haldane, while excluding every other brilliant geneticist around him.
Congratulations on reading the whole goddamned thing. When I was “saved” at age 14, I decided I would become the best Christian I could possibly be by reading the whole bible from start to finish. It was really hard to do, and I can’t say that I understood everything I read, but as Mark Twain said, “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” By the time I finished, I was an atheist.
I would say that reading the bible, and actually paying attention to what is there, is one of the best ways to cure yourself of any religious feeling; and given that I’ve met christians who refuse to read the bible, I suspect that they feel the same way: they’d rather not see what’s lurking in the shadows of their faith.
“…the whole goddamned thing.”
Subtle. 🙂
That cartoon is going on my wall – I am about to forward it to various colleagues who liked the recent ‘wrinkly finger tip hypothesis’.
And congratulations on the whole Bible thing!
I first heard about the wrinkly-fingertip hypothesis in a radio programme last night, and it seemed quite convincing at first.
(For those who missed it, our fingertips get wrinkly on prolonged soaking becuase it enables us to grasp, e.g., shelllfish better, and likewise our toes to walk on slippery rocks. It would presumably be maladaptive for them to be wrinkly all the time.)
Looking at it skeptically, if it were adaptive, wouldn’t our fingertips wrinkle much more quickly on immersion than they do?
Thanks for explaining that reference.
Even biology can be like religion. Gould’s and Lewontin’s biology, for example, was often such.
How so?
Here is one recent “revelation” from Lewontin:
“The other exception to random inheritance is not in the chromosomes, but in cellular particles called ribosomes that contain not DNA but a related molecule, RNA, which has heritable variation and is of basic importance to cell metabolism and the synthesis of proteins. Although the cells of both sexes have ribosomes, they are inherited exclusively through their incorporation in the mother’s egg cell rather than through the father’s sperm. Our ribosomes, then, provide us, both male and female, with a record of our maternal ancestry, uncontaminated by their male partners.”
I don’t see how this supports your claim.
George: how does this explanation of maternal inheritance qualify as religion?
I didn’t say it was religion. It’s “like” religion, i.e., making stuff up.
Lewontin is actually unable to distinguish ribosomes from mitochondria? Or just doesn’t understand that rRNA is transcribed from DNA and isn’t a separate genome?
Far out.
I wouldn’t accuse Lewontin of “religious” biology. One of the greatly enjoyable talks he gave at various campus biology departments in the early 1970s was titled “Some Things That Don’t Work.” (I heard it as a grad student at Yale.) It was quite interesting and fully in the scientific tradition of trying out ideas, discarding them if they fail to solve the relevant problem, and moving on to another approach.
No, because neither of them evoked divine beings or divinely inspired books. Neither of them argued on the basis of revelation rather than facts.
To compare strong scientific views (even if erroneous, like punctuated equilibrium) with religion is simply wrong. Gould, after all, adduced evidence and data, although his theory of how punctuated patterns came about was, I think wrong. And remember that Lewontin was my Ph.D advisor.
Sorry, but it’s not kosher to say that scientists with strong views are like religious people. That’s a gross exaggeration–no, not an exaggeration: it’s not even wrong.
Yes, Gould adduced evidence and data, sometime even data he simply made up (as in “The Mismeasure of Man,” for example).
But the religion of “Political Correctness,” requires sacrifices, I guess. Gould was a true martyr.
Okay you’ve had your say and derailed the thread. Now shoo for now.
I did not get the comparison to theology until you pointed it out. My first thought was that that conference would be perfect for aquatic ape theory.
Professor Coyne, I’m thrilled that you’re reading Kaufmann — and I’d recommend his work to anyone else who might be curious.
I’ve heard scientists argue online that philosophy is outmoded, that it no longer serves any purpose as a way to understand life and the human condition. But against that view, I’d offer Kaufmann, with his clarity, his feet on the ground, and his refusal to sell conceptual snake-oil.
But that is yet another opinion. What evidence would you offer for philosophy being correct about anything observable, exclusively and helpfully so?
If not, it is outmoded as a way to understand any system.*
*I guess you can do a last save and say that it helps us understand how people form opinions. But sociology does that too, likely better.
“What evidence would you offer for philosophy being correct about anything observable, exclusively and helpfully so?”
I can only offer personal evidence.
By emphasizing the importance of making my own observations, of testing my own opinions, of reaching my own conclusions, even in the face of public opposition or incomprehension, Kaufmann helped me to learn to think.
And more importantly, by showing the difficulties that others have encountered in doing just these things, Kaufmann made me realize that I was not alone, that the task at hand was a general human challenge most of us have to confront, sooner or later. In this, he helped me to endure a long period of frustration and confusion in my life, and in short, to survive.
In that sense, philosophy might be considered less a way of knowing than a way of living. For me, that has value.
I’d like to add, as well, that philosophy can also be useful as a tool for the *evaluation* of competing ways of life.
How do we confront a world in which we know certain things very well, but other things hardly at all? How do we navigate through life with only a partial, provisional map?
To fill in the blank spaces of that map, many people choose religion. I would argue, myself, that religion is no answer, and what’s more, that it creates more problems than it resolves.
But the discussion that would ensue would be a philosophical discussion; and any replacement for religion *as a way of life* will have to face the challenge of what to do, of how to live, when certain essential answers are missing. Until we know more, empirically, about human nature, these will remain questions of and for philosophy.
Didn’t Dawkins say that if he was to be stranded on a desert island the Bible is the first or second choice o take?
I can take or leave large tracts of the OT but he NT is well worth the read.
Perhaps you’re thinking of his appearance on The Desert Island Discs BBC RADIO 4 programme back in 1995?
You can hear it at this link:- Desert Island Discs Sun. 22nd January
His choices of music discs, book & luxury item were as follows:-
** DISCS #6 was his favourite of the eight discs he chose
1. Gabriel Fauré
In Paradisum (from Requiem), Op 48
Choir: Choir Of New College Conductor: Edward Higginbottom
2. Paul Robeson
Passing By
3. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Sleeping Beauty – Aurora’s Wedding & The Bluebird
Soloist: Raphael Wallfisch Orchestra: The English Chamber Orchestra
4. Judy Collins
Michael From Mountains
5. Ralph Vaughan Williams
Fantasia On A Theme By Thomas Tallis
6. Franz Schubert
String Quintet in C major
Soloist: Christopher Van Kampen Orchestra: The Fitzwilliam String Quartet
7. Vangelis
Conquest Of Paradise
8. Johann Sebastian Bach
St Matthew Passion – Mache dich, mein Herze
Soloist: Tom Krause Orchestra: Chicago Symphony Orchestra Conductor: George Solti
** Book [You are automatically given The Bible & the complete works of Shakespeare]
The Jeeves Omnibus by P G Wodehouse
** Luxury item
Computer (solar-powered)
Also he discussed his #8 choice in The God Delusion:
Actually, I think it was in a book, The Blind Watchmaker. I’ve had a casual try at finding it again, no luck. But I’m pretty sure of what I read.
Congratulations Professor.
Now I can tell my theist friends, “No, I haven’t read the whole bible. But I read the blog of someone who has.”
That should work.
I hope so. The biology tradition is to read the sources, even if they are so old that it is historically doubtful.
It doesn’t work in physics. Try reading Newton! It can’t be done, we lack the necessary references to understand why he wrote like he wrote.
I messed up on Newton’s “absolute space”, thinking he made a mistake. But it turns out he probably very well knew that relative space works too (and better as it turns out).
Newton had to separate objects from an abstract space in people’s mind first, it was the first time someone did that! Eg, before him they used the distance between a table and a chair to portray a space, et cetera, so different and objectified “spaces”.
Which is why I am so glad someone did the leg work on this one.
I have great respect for Dawkins, but I rather strongly agree with Jerry’s view of the Bible. If anything, I find the NT (with the possible exception of Revelation) more of a crashing bore than the OT, since the more ridiculous aspects of the OT, which are many, often (for me at least) have the effect of a particularly absurd stand-up comedy routine, provoking peals of raucous laughter, whereas the absurdities of the NT are much less humorous. But that’s my $.02 worth.
Sorry; that was meant as a reply to #13.
Sorry for any confusion – there was a mistake in my original post which i corrected in a subsequent one: I was referring exclusively to Tanakh NOT to the New Testament, which is a clearly “religious” book in the sense that it announces and chronicles the coming of the messiah and the associated eschatology. Moreover, Christianity recasts/co-ops the Old Testament (Tanakh) as a providential text that predicts the birth and death of Jesus Christ. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the way that Jews traditionally approach the Torah, Tanakh or Talmud. You’re right that it’s impossible to argue that the New Testament is NOT a religious text, as it is in fact the founding document of a new religion, whereas it is entirely possible to discuss the Old Testament stories of Moses, Saul, Ruth, David, Solomon, Esther, Job, Daniel, etc. without even invoking God (for example these figures can be discussed from a historical or allegorical or literary or sociological or ethical point of view without even considering the role of God, readings which are common.) My point is that it seems lazy to critique the “Bible” as a monolithic literary-religious text without acknowledging the difference between books, interpretations and even translations (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/the Vulgate/King James, etc.) It’s not enough to consider the often simplistic contemporary American Evangelical point of view, but also necessary to differentiate between traditional Jewish and Christian ones (which are very different and usually completely opposed) as well as the various denominations and secular/scientific textual interpretations.
I say all this as a fan of your blog who’s in agreement with you about the fundamental truths.
And btw it doesn’t matter whether I’m Jewish or not; it’s a matter of analytical rigor and historical sensitivity.
Lev #16 wrote:
As mentioned above, Jerry was not trying to give a scholarly critique of an historical, literary work. He was instead approaching the entire Bible as a presumed sacred text inspired by God for the timeless edification of humanity — and asking the perfectly reasonable question as to whether the Bible seems to meet this standard. He was then giving us his answer to this question, doing so as an ordinary reader like ourselves, neither approaching the work as a scholar nor as a believer.
That’s a legitimate goal, and approach.
Someone could read Shakespeare and think him over-rated as a writer. It would be fair to say that this person might benefit from more history and insight into the text. But Shakespeare, remember, did not claim to be God delivering a message for humanity. Nor do Shakespeare’s fans generally think that a life lived without a familiarity and appreciation of Shakespeare is quite literally worthless, missing the entire point of existence.
You may not have to approach the ‘Old Testament’ for its religious aspect — but you certainly can. Your criticism sounds a bit like the Courtier’s Reply.
Congrats on completing an arduous endeavour and thanks for the cartoon.
It’s worth remembering that Dawkins’s comments only refer to the 1611 translation into English — not the Bible per se. And even then he generally only mentions the poetry — so think Psalms, Ecclesiastes, maybe Lamentations and bits of the major prophets. No question there are some grand and resonant phrases there.
I’m afraid I can’t go with you guys on this idea. I’ve better things to do with my time than slog through leaden religious prose. But I’m glad you read it and suffered on my behalf.
“He read for our sins.”
Sorry, couldn’t help it. 🙂
I couldn’t agree with you more.
There is a mountain of theological bullshit that I refuse to climb (which is not to say that I don’t respect the achievements of people like Jerry who do).
This is a genre that I rank somewhere below bodice-rippers.
When I was a young teen I read a large book titled something like Bible Stories for Children. While this may not prepare you for Biblical criticism, I think it will pretty much give you everything you need to understand most popular references in the arts and culture.
Well, at least the bible went out with a bang. Literally.
Revelations is one of the weirder books of the bible, about the end of everything.
It is written as future predictions. None of which have happened yet. Or are likely to happen. John goes on and on about Babylon. Babylon doesn’t even exist any more except as a bunch of ruins. Some say Babylon was a code word for Rome. Rome doesn’t exist either, at least as the capital of a mighty empire that ruled most of the known world.
Revelations barely made it into the bible and Luther almost tossed it when he was editing the inerrant book. As most know, Luther tossed somewhere around 8 books of the Catholic bible out.
That should be Revelation not Revelations. Not that it makes any difference.
At the risk of being as annoyingly pedantic as the its/it’s guy (as though JAC didn’t know the difference!), it’s Revelation (singular, not plural).
Aargh. I should always refresh the browser before sending a reply to see if anyone else got there first.
Well done on finishing the whole thing. It really is a tedious book and you have to push yourself to finish it.
Unlike a good book, now that you’ve read the whole thing, I suspect that, like me, you’ll never read it again. Good books are read over and over, you can’t read this more than once.
Congratulations on being finished reading the Bibel!
We both agree that everyone should read the Bible for cultural reasons.
I don’t understand. Culturally, today, the bible could be equated to a shadowy painting that no one is able to quite see what is there or intended by the artists (’twas an orgy that did the painting) to be there. By reading the whole of the damned god bible you are actually getting a view of the painting that the whole of the culture does not possess. The damned god bible is seen, purchased, sworn upon, used as a prop but, it is seldom read. So, I don’t understand, how the reading of the damned god thing could actually provide cultural understanding? Wouldn’t it be better cultural knowledge/reason, to understand how the bibel is used as a device to induce fear, confusion, obedience and, occasionally as a comforting device in a ‘give your mind a break sort of way’?
I’ve considered reading the damned thing a few times. When I did I went into the chore with the intent that it was the word of a god and with the knowledge that It supposedly had commanded 10 items that Its followers must adhere to. I must add that I consider intent to deceive to be inclusive in the thou shall not lie command because if that isn’t the intended meaning then the commandment is frivolous. In the interest of brevity I will just state that I read the damned god christian thing until my mind has thrown up a gaggle of red flags warning that the content is filled with the deception and deeds of a character that is not worthy of my adoration and certainly not worthy of my worship. I have not however ever gone into the chore of reading the damned god thing with the intent of punishing my mind beyond exhaustion just so I could honestly state that I have read the whole bloody thing.
I do however respect the internal fortitude of anyone that has read the whole bloody christian bible in the light of honest assessment while not wearing the blinders of christianity. I hope I never find myself in a position were I am obliged to do so.
While on the subject of the christian bib, I wanted to send Dr. Coyne a link to the actual video of this as it was much better than the writeup which can be found here. It originally aired on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell (1/10/2013 I think, if anyone can find the video I would much appreciate a link), who I have found to be refreshingly critical of christian stupidity on at least several occasions:
“This time, as it was last time for the first time in history, the book will be held by a First Lady who is a descendent of slaves. But the holy book she will be holding does not contain one word of God condemning slavery. Not one word. But that same book, which spends hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages condemning all sorts of things and couldn’t find one sentence to condemn slavery, does indeed find the space to repeatedly condemn gay people, as the now banished Louie Giglio said it does. And as the First Lady is holding that book for the President, sitting someone near them will be a pastor who the Inauguration Committee will make sure is much more adept at hiding what that book actually says than Louie Giglio was.”
Unlike, Rachel Maddow who seems too often to pay undue respect to christianity and/or the g-o-d word.
The second paragraph was intended to be a quote from Dr. Coyne’s post:
OK, so there is a link to the video, in the right margin, from the link to the story I provided above, it just didn’t work for me before. This is a link to the video but I don’t know if it is a permanent link or not.
Congratulations to Dr. Coyne for finishing his task. I would have liked a bit more commentary (not a mention of the main genocidal passages?), but it’s not my website.
During my 23 years as a believer (including 15 as a missionary), I probably read the bible through 15 or 20 times. Yes, at times it was a chore. But I’m a little surprised at all the comments people make here about christians not reading the bible–in my circles many did. I know there are regions where religion is mostly black and gay-hating, church-going, and creationism, but I didn’t hang out there. Those who do read the bible, though, have a way of shoving the genocide, misogyny, and general ignorance into an unused room of the mind; they pretty much have to, or the cognitive dissonance would become overwhelming.
So, what’s next, Doc? The koran? J/K.
Congrats, you are one of the few. Statistics shows that atheists are among the most knowledgeable about religion, with a few exceptions like Jews.
And reading web commentary, you can’t but agree that it often shows!
Yes, I see repeated references to this, and have no doubt that it is true, as many atheists are ex-believers, and (as I mentioned) there are areas in which religion is but an excuse for a “good ol’ boy” lifestyle. I just never realized it–as a fundamentalist missionary, one has little contact with atheists, except as religious targets. Since my entire family and previous group of friends are believers, I still don’t have much contact with atheists–I know four personally, but have limited contact with three of them. Most of my atheism comes from books (I’ve read pretty near all the usual suspects), this website (thank you to everyone!) and others, and some give and take with fundies (mostly creationists) on less salubrious websites.
Your last point is extremely well-taken. As a fundie, we did not know much in the way of anti-atheism, as it simply was not an issue in our (anti-)intellectual ghetto. Now that I know (a fair number of) the arguments in favor of reality and against theism, I am simply shocked at how shabby a philosophy any sort of theism is. And the drivel posted by the religious makes your point for you quite nicely.
The only way to understand the Bible properly is by reading it in its historical context. But yeah, that means giving up the idea that it’s coherent and consistent (bye theology) and implies a skeptical attitude towards its deeper meanings and towards the question what it has to say to us in the 21st Century.
“It’s one of the best critiques of religion I’ve ever read—perhaps the best.”
I respect your opinion – but would respectuflly suggest you hold fire until you’ve got hold of a copy of “An Atheist’s Values” by Richard Robinson, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Based on a series of lectures it was first published in 1964; a quick search told me that it’s going on Amazon.com for $19.94. Well worth reading.
Congratulations on completing the Bible Jerry. I’m about to undertake that onerous task myself. I just finished Steven Pinker’s brilliant “The Better Angels of our Nature” (a glorious Christmas present from my beautiful wife!), and I’m just finishing Dan Barker’s “Godless”. Steve Pinker’s book took me about a week, I’ll see how long the ‘Good’ book takes me.
“There are some good bits…”
Indeed? When stuck in boring Sunday School classes, I sometimes used to leaf through the Bible looking for ‘good bits’ but aside from a few mentions in Leviticus, I never found any. This is probably because at the age of ten, I was ignorant of most of the euphemisms the Bible uses for various forms of depravity, so all the best horror stories were lost on me.
I think maybe my rather questionable definition of ‘good bits’ is different from Jerry’s…
Congratulations. I have just started Deuteronomy. It’s a real struggle to plough through it. I hope I have as much endurance as you.