Here is just one of the several emails I’ve received in the last few days from people who claim that I’m misunderstanding religion. (Surprise!) What the writers invariably mean is that “you’re misunderstanding my religion.” And that is compounded, in the case below, by the person misunderstanding my book, for he seems not to have read it. I’ve eliminated the name and location of the writer.
Dear Jerry,
I just spent a couple hours looking over your latest book “Faith vs. Fact”. Your position has a couple enormous flaws.
The main flaw is that you set up a false dichotomy between science and what could be called “biblical inerrantism”. You spend a lot of time showing why the Adam and Eve story cannot be true, and put forward other arguments supporting evolution (as you did more thoroughly in your well-argued “Why Evolution is True”).
The problem with this approach is that not every Christian buys into the argument that the Bible is inerrant with every word literally true. Granted, significant numbers of Christians do, but significant numbers (myself included) do not. Even C.S. Lewis was not in the inerrant camp and did not take the Genesis creation account literally; he referred to it as “mythopoetic”, to the book of Job as an example of “wisdom literature”, and in general took the Bible for what it really is; a collection of books containing some history, some mythopoetic elements, some wisdom literature, etc.
This shows that the person really hasn’t read my book, for I deal in depth with how theologians try to turn the Genesis story into allegory to comport with the scientific fact that humanity never went through a bottleneck of only two people (or, in the case of Noah’s Ark, eight). Further, I am not trying to address the views of every Christian, but simply of many Christians who do take the Genesis story literally, or try to interpret it metaphorically. (After all, the historicity of Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of all of us is the official position of the Catholic Church, one laid out by Pius XII in Humani Generis. Remember too that 42% of all Americans, not just Christians, are young-earth creationists. Further, as a recent poll of Americans shows (and I quote from the summary):
“The next most popular statement was that ‘Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.’ Fifty-six percent of respondents affirmed this statement. But when they were pressed, only 44 percent said they were absolutely or very certain about it. A majority became a minority.”
A 44% minority is not that small! At any rate, my book goes into detail about the degree to which Americans are literalistic, and by no means claims that all of us are Biblical literalists. As I say, “Some believers are literalists about everything, but every believer is a literalist about something.”
The problem comes when believers have to choose which parts of scripture are to be taken literally, and which aren’t, for there are no guidelines for this form of cherry-picking. Also, when trying to derive a metaphorical meaning from scripture whose literalism has been rejected, theologians often run into trouble, for there are no guidelines there, either. (Really, what does the story of Job mean?) But you can read more about that in FvF; here’s I’m just showing that the writer (who, according to Google, has actually criticized Sophisticated Theology™ in other places), hasn’t grasped my message.
The letter continues:
So when you have succeeded in debunking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account you have accurately critiqued the mistaken intellectual position of some believers but not disproven Christianity.
I’m not setting out to disprove every construal of Christianity. My goal was to show that the way many religious believers perceive and adjudicate truth about the cosmos is inimical to the way that scientists do it, even though both endeavors make claims about what’s real.
The letter continues, laying out what the writers says are the “true” doctrines of Christianity:
I would say the key doctrines Christianity rests upon are:
– The existence of the one God
– The divinity of Jesus Christ
– His resurrection from the dead
– The reality of a life after this one, in either heaven or hell
– The problem of sin and the possibility of forgiveness of sin through Jesus ChristIf your reason for not believing Christianity is based on a false dichotomy between science and biblical inerrancy it is time to rethink it.
There is, of course, no evidence that any of those key doctrines are true; the writer must believe them because he was taught to believe them, or because he had a revelation that they are true. And there’s no more evidence for those key doctrines than there is for the “key doctrines” of Islam or Hinduism. Really, how can people be so certain without evidence? How would this Christian show that Christianity is right and Islam wrong?
The letter continues, but I grow weary of “unpacking” it.
A couple further comments:
1) Original Sin – personally I don’t believe in original sin (or in a literal Adam), though obviously Paul did and many Christians do. Our problem is not Adam’s sin, it is our own sins.
You quote former Pastor Mike Aus as saying without original sin the whole of Christianity falls apart but that is just one man’s opinion, and not a sound one. Most Christians, whether they believe in original sin, realize that the problem is not Adam’s sin but our own. A crucial doctrine without which Christianity falls apart would be the resurrection of Christ.
2) I was raised in a Jewish household and did not come to belief in Christianity until I was around 40 years of age. A Christian friend suggested I study the matter out and I spent several months reading Christian apologetics, listening to Christian radio, etc. I figured the outcome would be that Christianity would be something that really could not be proven so I would just continue to go along my merry (or not-so-merry) way and not bother my head about Christianity any more, but, lo and behold, after a few months I concluded it was, in fact, true.
And here’s the kicker, one with which we’re familiar: you can’t really criticize Christianity unless you’ve “immersed yourself in the faith”, the best way being to become a Christian! But of course I have “read books” by people who are Christians, so I probably know a lot more about the tenets of Christianity, and how theologians defend them, than many garden-variety Christians. But look at the evidence that convinces our reader: books about people having gone to heaven! He says that “he doesn’t know what to make of these experiences,” but then why does he even mention those books?
I think that in order to test accurately whether Christianity is true you are going to have to spend some time immersing yourself in the faith; at least reading books by people who are Christians (and I do not mean people who are trying to prove creationism or biblical inerrancy). As you are no doubt aware, there has been a spate of books recently by people who claim to have gone to heaven, and while I am suspicious of some of these (and one was recently retracted), some are pretty good accounts. Christianity rests partly on a belief that miracles happen from time to time and, while I don’t really know what to make of these peoples’ heaven experiences, all of them received (after considerable suffering) some remarkable healing miracles by doctors identified by name and medical center in the books. I would recommend:
“To Heaven and Back” – Mary C. Neal
“Falling Into Heaven” – Mickey Robinson
“Flight to Heaven” – Dale Black
“Rush of Heaven” – Ema McKinleyIn the last book, the author is healed miraculously in almost the last chapter after having falling out of her wheelchair and laying on the floor crying out to Jesus for 8 1/2 hours; prior to the healing she had to sit leaning over almost parallel to the floor for several years, doped up on huge doses of morphine. Before and after pictures, names of doctors, etc. are included.
In these books, I skip all the intro biographical material and just start where the medical crisis begins.
On the subject of miracles, I recommend the recent book “Miracles” by Eric Metaxas. Start in chapter 10 where case histories of miracles begin.
There were a lot of other statements made in your book with which I disagreed (and many I agreed with; I think the biblical inerrantist position is completely wrong), but space does not permit and you are a busy man. I hope you get a chance to look at some of the books I recommended.
Sincerely,
[NAME AND LOCATION REDACTED]
Oy, gewalt! Once again I’ve read the RONG BOOKS. Has the writer immersed himself in the writings of Plantinga or Karen Armstrong? And has he read the Sophisticated Atheist books like Herman Philipse’s God in the Age of Science?: A Critique of Religious Reason. I could just turn the writer’s arguments back on him by saying, “I think that in order to test accurately whether Christianity is true you are going to have to spend some time immersing yourself in atheism and religious criticism; at least reading books by people who are nonbelievers.”
You are in for an interesting summer. 😉
Having just finished reading “Faith versus Fact”, it is clear that this person did not read the book but just looked at the headings and a couple of pages here and there.
Apparently, this is a great example of confirmation bias. He had points to make and didn’t bother with the reality of what was actually there.
Confirmation bias extends to the rational he uses in analyzing the “heaven exists” books. He admits he skips to the dramatic anecdotes and is thrilled to find that his beliefs in an afterlife are confirmed. He likely suffer from serious death anxiety.
From my experience there are a ton of gods out there, including a huge number of monotheistic gods. A couple of years ago I went to a cousins wedding that was officiated by a Baptist and got to compare that with the religion I was raised in, Methodist.
It struck me that the Baptist god was really insecure and needed constant affirmation that it was wonderful. The Baptist minister didn’t so much inspire as convince me that the Baptist god was a pathetic wretch, undeserving of worship.
I compare that with what I was brought up with. God is like a surrogate father and Jesus is like a surrogate big brother, and both just want you to do your best to help other people. If you have trouble with that it’s okay and they still love you.
This led me to conclude that the Baptist god is kind of a crappy god when compared to the Methodist god, or at least the Methodist god I was exposed to growing up. There could be others.
So many gods, so little time.
There is a god (or set of gods) for each individual believer.
From the writer:
What does “true” mean here? Does the writer mean it rings true? Or that the primary message is an appealing one? Or that the bible is a record of actual occurrences? Whichever it is, the writer doesn’t seem to believe it’s all true. But how does he, or she, know? Or, as PCC says, the writer doesn’t know and just cherrypicks the desirable bits.
Hitchens clearly did just this, and didn’t believe it was true. I wonder what the writer would say to this?
“What does “true” mean here?”
It means, “sounds good to me,” where me=the writer.
If I were “doped up on huge doses of morphine” for several years, I’d probably be leaning parallel to the floor, too, if not lying on the floor. Perhaps she was finally able to sit up because some of the morphine wore off during her 8.5 hours without it. It is not rare that people improve when their meds are reduced.
And what kind of god would have put her through such a long, torturous and medically dangerous stint, lying helpless and alone on the floor? To believe the way that writer does is to believe the ends justify the means and that, somehow, this “means” was required, though without any reason or excuse.
And what kind of doctors? Did they not have to satisfy an ethics committee? did they not have to have approval for a long term heavy morphine therapy? That kind of narcotics use is not normal. In fact I doubt if it would be sanctioned or that any doctor would employ it except in clearly short term terminal cases. Sounds to me like we have another apocryphal christian story from the internet – more lying for jesus.
I find those miracle stories particularly disingenuous. In the past few world wars, hundreds of thousands of devout christians, both civilian and military, have been perishing under the rubble of their house or in the trenches, with first degree burns and torn-off limbs. Inbetween them, they must account for millions of hours of deeply sincere prayers to Jesus. Did they get cured? Did they grow new limbs rather than gangrene?
If miracles exist, you cannot uphold they can be attributed to the Christian god. (Perhaps Ema McKinley had a pact with some demon? Even that makes more sense.)
I think this letter comes dangerously close to my prediction.
+1
And many more.
Wow! That was spot on!
Yep, Diana, but that wasn’t such a hard prediction to make!!! However, I’m glad you weren’t a reviewer. . .
A soothsayer.
My cataract makes me a blind seer 🙂
If you seek a great fortune, I suspect you will find one…though not necessarily the one you seek….
b&
Pretty close to “A great army will be destroyed.”
Though he was, at least, rather more polite about it than your (Diana’s) prediction.
The only thing I would tell this writer is…read the book, literally.
Yeah, the liar hasn’t bothered to read Jerry’s book, but he has lots of recommendation for Jerry to “immerse” himself in. I’d suggest that the turkey go immerse his head…
I I I I I I just spent a couple hours looking over (that is, not actually reading) your latest book… and I I I I I found it did not convince me so my mind remains welded shut.
Now, about the many miracles I I I I I do choose to believe…
Yes, one of the most common fallacies, and one that really needs a nice Latin moniker: The fallacy that I and my extremely limited knowledge are the benchmark for all truth.
A lot of my ex-coreligionists engage in this fallacy with terrifying frequency. Religion has inoculated them against learning anything new.
That would be the argument from personal credulity (it seems true to me, so I believe it), the converse of the incredulity one identified by Dawkins.
Of course it’s closely related to the Streaker’s Defence, i.e. “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
You can’t misunderstand religion, no one can, because it is undefined except in the minds of different groups and individuals. Its nature changes through time as does all terminology, even those for which there is objective evidence. Since the tenets of religion are subjective, “I believe”, its characterizations will be as narrow or broad as one chooses… Illegitimi non carborundum
I would agree that the bible is open to personal interpretation and therein lays the dichotomy. If some of the bible is to be taken literally and other parts allegorically it is always open to personal understanding. Unfortunately one person’s interpretation or personal understanding has no more validity than the Popes, Billy Graham, or the guy that deliver’s your pizza.
The bible is like a box of chocolates, however some of us are diabetics.
And some are coconut creams (you can tell those by the skull-and-crossbones pattern on the top).
Cockroach cluster?
/@
More like a spring surprise.
I really do not like coconut. Probably take the cockroaches.
I just started Faith v Fact. I am appalled that you left Cyrus out of the dedication.
No d*gs. . . . Besides, they didn’t have Cyrus when I worked on the book there.
And the courtiers’ replies begin, eh?
The blurb about original sin is funny. Didn’t un-baptised babies go to hell at one time? In fact, for the longest time they went to hell, until people complained, so the church *invented* the concept of purgatory? And now every miscarried zygote goes to heaven, along with pets, because the church has to eventually change with the times to reflect modern sensibilities.
But the burning question is whether the babies eaten by atheists go to heaven.
When I was in Catholic school (my grade school years were in the 1960s), we were told that dead unbaptized babies went to someplace called Limbo. Some time later, the Pope decided that Limbo didn’t exist. By that time, I had left Catholicism far behind, so I have no idea what the current status is. One thing I do remember is the supposed epitaph on a tombstone for a child who was born and died on the same day:
No, not purgatory, where souls do temporarily suffer, but Limbo–where unbaptized babies are happy as second-class citizens without being admitted to the Beatific Vision! Sophisticated Theology at work!
Thanks to both of you for the correction.
Yeah, the destination of those babies is always changing.
Recently a U.S. minister argued that abortion is wrong because aborted embryos go straight to hell.
Here is a question. Sometimes, twin embryos will fuse. In fact, occasionally an embryo will split into two or more..then fuse into one.
What happens to all of those excess souls? And if God can see the future, and has everything planned out before even creating the souls, then why create a soul that will just be miscarried? And these are *billions* of zygotes that are naturally discarded due to defects etc.
Hmm, I thought nothing much happened until judgment day when all will be raised judged and sent where appropriate.
Till then, just dead?
The unbaptized went to limbo, at least in Dante’s Hell.
I’m unbaptized and I DO the limbo.
My mother, who grew up in northeast Texas and whose father was a Baptist minister, told me that when she was a child, around 11 or 12, she attended a funeral for an infant who had died shortly after being born to one of her cousins. Another cousin, who was a member of the Church of Christ congregation, went up to the grieving woman and told her matter of factly that her infant was in Hell because it had not been baptized. I was about 12 myself when my mom first told me that story and my immediate reaction was thinking that even if that Christ of Church looney believed that infant was in Hell, it was quite galling that she would tell the mother. Part of what led me to the conclusion that religious belief can bring out the worst in people. I acknowledge that religious belief can inspire some people to do a lot of actual good, but that’s hardly universal and too many people behave abominably not despite but specifically due to their religious beliefs.
I remember being appalled when Christians, in the aftermath of 9/11, told the families of dead loved ones, that anyone who had jumped to their death was in Hell, because God hates suicides.
Oh, and, since ‘God knows all’ he has you “right where he wants you, at this moment”.
So, by that logic, God effectively forced those people to jump to their deaths from the twin towers, then sent them to hell.
Sure, that makes sense.
“Oy, gewalt! Once again I’ve read the RONG BOOKS.”
I almost fell off my chair laughing. One doesn’t understand christianity unless one has read the to-heaven-and-back stories. Even though these stories are recommended with words like “suspicious” and “I don’t really know what to make of these peoples’ heaven experiences.”
But it’s very interesting that this man came to Christ after immersing himself in christianity. It underscores that his ‘choice’ for christianity was the result of his environment, of exposure to a massive amount of religious material.
And for every believer who urges atheists to read the return-from-heaven books, there is an opposite and equal believer who argues that the return-from-heaven books are silly things that few Christians find convincing.
Of course if you offer to read one of their books if they’ll read one of yours, that’s probably a conversation stopper right there.
I once made an offer to a Jehovah’s Witless who rang my doorbell way too early on a Saturday morning (despite having this on my door): I’d read all the tracts and copies of the Watchtower he cared to give me if he would agree to read my copy of WEIT. When I showed him the book, he left. That was four years ago, and I haven’t seen a single JW on my porch since. My house is probably on some kind of blacklist – “Satan’s Palaces” maybe.
Reminds me of a situation I had… an old high school chum (rediscovered on Facebook) tried to convert me… he was a fundementalist creationist… I accused him of lying for Jesus because he was acting as if he knew what evolution was about but had never read a book on the subject. Trapped, he agreed and asked me for a recommendation. I suggested WEIT. He bought it and read the first chapter (I think). Then he simply evaporated. I’ve not heard from him since.
I’d settle for their reading their own book, like PCC did, like I and innumerable other nonxians (but very few xians, it seems) have done.
I’m not sure which one the letter writer was … and I don’t think they really are are either.
/@
Clearly, [NAME AND LOCATION REDACTED] didn’t get the memo that it’s the epistemologies that are incompatible.
Working backwards…
– Why does Jesus never call 9-1-1?
– Physics most emphatically demonstrates that your own life ends when you die.
– ZOMBIES FROM HELL! I mean, really…the “evidence” for this is that a certain Mr. Thomas fondled Jesus’s intestines through a gaping chest wound…and I’m to believe that grown adults can take this shit seriously?
– Jesus is a particularly nasty character in a certain ancient faery tale. He’s no more real than Peter Pan. Sure, in the Bible, Jesus is divine…but only in the same sense that Peter Pan can sprinkle magic faery dust on you so the two of you can fly off to Neverland.
– Is there any remaining need to address this one? Or is it enough to simply observe that this “God” character is a talking plant (on fire!) that gives magic wand lessons to the reluctant hero?
b&
At least he didn’t mention Aristotle or Plato.
This is 9-1-1, What is the nature of your emergency?
This Jesus H. Christ, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS
Ummm…OK, what is the nature of your emergency?
All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth.
Listen, don’t be foolish, this is an emergency line, please state the nature of your emergency!
That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Goddamnit! This is an emergency line…do you have an emergency?
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne…
I say unto you, Harriet Jones has fallen and she can’t get up … Hello? … Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Lol-worthy!
I think you’ve won the interwebs for today!
I like! Jesus, the omnincompetent….
b&
I’ve used variations of this over the years:
I change the names and contexts as needed – it never gets old.
Certain sorts of incompetence can be useful, if one knows (somehow) they are global.
For example, someone who *always* tells a falsehood and never says anything except when questioned and always answers when he is can be useful.
That’s a rather Labyrinthine scenario you’ve just depicted….
b&
Apparently, the only legitimate theological study is the kind that converts you to theism. If you remain skeptical, you’re obviously doing something wrong. 😉
Oh sure, most of the e-mails I get from people pretending to represent Nigerian royalty are bogus – what kind of dope would believe all them! But they can’t all be con artists! What would be the odds of that?
All the Nigerian ones are bogus but the ones from Botswana, particularly from the suburbs of Gaborone are legitimate.
I got one from someone today claiming to be in the UN Secretariat for Unclaimed Bequests, although their email address had nothing to do with the UN. Anyway, they claimed to be investigating all the bogus will scams from Nigeria, but in the course of the investigation had turned up some that were real and one was by a worthy gentleman who had named me as an heir. Does anyone actually fall for that sort of nonsense? I suppose someone must, or there wouldn’t be so many emails like that…
Someone fairly important in our local community lost a ton of money to a one of those Nigerian scams. IIRC, the victim was a school principal.
It’s hard to feel too sorry for such victims; after all they’re being asked to participate in a money-laundering scheme in exchange for a share of the profits. So each victim is essentially a white-collar criminal. The school principal should have had more sense – i’d be nervous about having children at that school.
Couldn’t agree more, on all counts! I seem to remember that the principal was put on “medical leave” or some such…
The Nigerian scam apparently predates email, too.
Secular Amen to
“Also, when trying to derive a metaphorical meaning from scripture whose literalism has been rejected, theologians often run into trouble, for there are no guidelines there, either.”
There is a relevant remark here made by J.R.R. Tolkien (in his rebuttal of spurious claims that “Lord of the Rings” was intended as a allegory to World War II). He notes one should not confuse “allegory” with “applicability” and writes that the first reflects the intentions of the author, while the latter lies in “the freedom of the reader”. (See p. 70 of Houghton Mifflin edition of “Fellowship…”)
Now there are indeed some intriguing (as well as bizarre) allegorical interpretations of various bits of the Bible floating about, but they are the product of the “freedom of the reader” not the intentions of the author(s).
First time I saw that argument – I like it.
As is always the case with texts, the interpretations tell us much more about the commentators than they do about the texts.
Good point. The faithful seem to think that an ability to apply a bit of sacred text to THEIR OWN LIFE is the litmus test for supernatural authorship. I mean, it’s just so incredibly unlikely that vague, fanciful sayings and stories could be twisted into an analogy with whatever might be going on or important to you at the moment, or at some moment in the past, or possibly in a hypothetical future.
Garbage in; garbage out.
Significance in; significance out.
The difference between “allegory” and “applicability” is more or less the difference between “exegesis” and “eisegesis”.
Apparently there is a thing called the Reader Response phenomena where any given text or communication is interpreted largely by the application of the readers world view and biases. It is quite strong phenomena that has bee conformed by studies, although I don’t know much about it.
Some one pointed it out to me after I complained about arguing with a Christian about hell and fire and suffering, which apparently the bible doesn’t mention.
There is no burning in hell in Christianity.
Apparently this phenomena is true for all of us to one degree or another. Science corrects for this bible readers see whatever they want.
Reader Response theory.
Once again using subjective opinions to prove an objective and universal truth. It is the equivalent of 5 plus 4 equals 10…it just doesn’t add up.
It does for sufficiently large values of 4.
Eight and a half hours on the floor crying out to Jesus before he intervened? Eight hours on the floor wasn’t enough? This Jesus character sounds like a real prick.
Luckily when my Grandmother had a fall recently she was wearing ones of those panic button necklaces. The ambulance showed up after ten minutes. My Grandmother is back home after some rehabilitation and doing well.
Ah, yes!
As I call it: “THE ARGUMENT FROM THE THEOLOGIAN THE YOU HAVEN’T READ>. (!!!!!!!!)
An argument which is often accompanied by “THE ARGUMENT FOR READING IT FOR YOURSELF, I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.”
“As you are no doubt aware, there has been a spate of books recently by people who claim to have gone to heaven, and while I am suspicious of some of these (and one was recently retracted), some are pretty good accounts.”
And they are all bollocks. No reason believe any of this. People write nonsense all the time.
Has he ever heard of confirmation bias?
“I think that in order to test accurately whether Christianity is true you are going to have to spend some time immersing yourself in the faith . . . .”
Well, some of us here have. Does the Southern Baptist Church qualify?
I’m sure it does! But what about the CofE in the UK? In my day it was more like being immersed in a tepid bath. But at least it gave one an understanding of – and in due course a scepticism towards – its texts, dogmas and unevidenced assertions.
Given that there are 35,000 and counting different christian sects in the U.S. and thousands more throughout the rest of the world, I doubt that there is any doctrine which all christians agree on and have agreed on throughout history. There just is not there there. Christianity (and probably other religions)is just a vague mishmash of personal prejudices and fantasies.
Hmm, 35,000 . . . .
If one were Divine Providence, and if one were omnibenevolent, one surely would make it easy to correctly determine “The Way, The Truth, The Life (Light?)” I mean, isn’t that the way we poor, weak, imperfect humans ought to interact with one another? One ought not gratuitously, egregiously be a stumbling block to another. Even more so regarding an allegedly omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent Author Of The Universe. But what do I know? A la Job, where was I when the stars and moon were hung?
How does that work exactly? Through his nose?
1) Sinner goes through Jesus’s nose.
2) Jesus: “Thank you for going through Jesus. You are now forgiven.”
Although NAME REDACTED is not a believer in Biblical inerrancy, NAME REDACTED is a firm believer in “fanboy inerrancy” apparently.
🐾
No, forget biblical inerrancy. Try applying a thoughtful, rational, scientific approach to the key doctrines. Go ahead, travel down the list while keeping in mind the vital importance of a skeptical mindset and an audience of expert critics.
I think the only thing you’re really going to come up with now is “there is good, convincing evidence that I — and a hell of a lot of other people — really like believing in these key doctrines.”
And no, that does not mean that a thoughtful, rational, scientific approach was clearly the wrong method to use here.
“No, forget biblical inerrancy.”
It’s funny how the people who try to make the critics as taking on biblical inerrancy only complain about the parts of the bible they’re willing to concede. How many of those who complain about the “literalist” new atheists are willing to say that Jesus didn’t literally rise from the grave?
It seems quite disingenuous really. Complain about the critics taking the wrong parts literally, while keeping other literal parts where the claims equally apply.
A Catholic friend of mine once reassured me that most of the Bible was intended and understood as a series of metaphors and analogies. Like fundamentalists, atheists are themselves guilty of literalism. He went down the list of beliefs, starting with Genesis (metaphor.) As I recall he even came perilously close to claiming that Jesus Christ was a metaphor, as were original sin and the atonement.
I asked him whether “God” was a metaphor.
“No.”
“Literalist.”
Noting that the babble contains errors is one small brick in the Great Wall that separates theism from atheism.
The general flow of criticism:
First: You haven’t read any theology.
Second: You haven’t read the right theology.
Third: You’ve fundamentally misunderstood the nature of theology. Theology is experienced and cannot be properly understood without a faith commitment.
It’s similar to addressing the arguments.
First: You haven’t addressed the arguments for God’s existence.
Second: You haven’t addressed the good arguments for God’s existence.
Third: A belief in God is a matter of faith, and faith is a non-rational enterprise. Thinking of God in terms of arguments is making a category mistake.
Those goalposts sure do get around, don’t they?
It’s a shell game. And while the participants are well-meaning (I don’t think there’s any malice on the part of the believers), but it’s a game you cannot win. All you get out of it is criticism that you haven’t truly understood the thing you are criticising, and that holds no matter which stage of the exercise you are at.
The two lessons I have learnt from years of debating with theists:
1. You’re wrong.
2. No matter how much effort you put into understanding the claims, you’ll never get any credit.
Oh, and if you ever mention that as an atheist there’s a futility in indulging theology, this will be taken as you having never read theology to begin with, and that you’re dismissing it out of ignorance.
How anyone in their right mind thinks that “Jesus died for my sins” makes even the slightest sense is beyond me.
I’ll go to prison for that bank you robbed!
Yeah, punishment by proxy makes no sense, and xians themselves wouldn’t allow it in our own, mere mortal, justice system.
The implication of jeebus’ atonement is that god simply has an indiscriminate bloodlust. As long as someone, somewhere, somehow is suffering, he’s good.
The challenge of characterizing a “true Christian” parallels that of defining a “true” anything. Religions have at their core sacred stories, rituals and rites which served prehistoric religions well. If prehistoric ethnologists are accurate in their writings, especially of the smaller groups, the quality of life then was more humane than now.
I am convinced the current religion/knowledge disconnect began when the sacred views became texts, making them appear to be objective reports instead if the imaginariums they are.
Many of us raised as Christians have migrated from the idea that some, even all, of the texts are factual, to a place of their being fiction and fantasy. Still, disavowing any factual basis in the Bible, does not void its value any more than the practice of pederasty in Socrates’s time invalidates his words, assuming Plato got it right.
As has been noted widely, religion is losing members. Those leaving a congregation are now challenged to find viable alternatives to the positive qualities they leave behind. Some move to more liberal groups. I am a UU in a community which includes folks whose focus is on love and social justice.
As Joseph Campbell wrote more than thirty years ago, “religion is in its terminal moraine.” What will replace its qualities of community and social service remain to be seen.
From the letter:
“You quote former Pastor Mike Aus as saying without original sin the whole of Christianity falls apart but that is just one man’s opinion, and not a sound one. Most Christians, whether they believe in original sin, realize that the problem is not Adam’s sin but our own. A crucial doctrine without which Christianity falls apart would be the resurrection of Christ.”
As I understand Catholic theology anyway, humans wouldn’t even have a propensity to sin (aka concupiscence) if it wasn’t for the original sin and the resulting fall from grace. This is a critical element because otherwise it would be God’s fault for creating us to be the nasty, evil creatures we sometimes are. Original sin viewed this way lets God off the hook.
(Before anyone asks: I’ve not seen a good Catholics explanation of how Adam and Eve were able to sin if they didn’t already have concupiscence.)
“I would say the key doctrines Christianity rests upon are:
– The existence of the one God
– The divinity of Jesus Christ
– His resurrection from the dead
– The reality of a life after this one, in either heaven or hell
– The problem of sin and the possibility of forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ”
There is no proof for these “key doctrines”.
There are no uniformly agreed upon “key doctrines” of Christianity. Christians have disagreed about these issues since before the beginning of Christianity and continue to do so.