There’s this popular view going around these days about the Bible which I think has been popularized by Sam Harris (professional atheist extraordinaire). Basically, many people are saying they don’t assign any authority to the Bible because it doesn’t match expectations of what one would find in a truly divine book.
Those who hold this view will claim that the Bible betrays evidence of creation by an ancient culture (partly true) and that it holds many contradictions, immoralities, scientifically disproven claims, etc. (not so true). You see, though it’s detractors would like to claim the intellectual high ground and say their position is obvious and the only reasonable view, the Bible can fairly easily make it through any unbiased analysis. The stories of those who have come to trust in God after reading through the bible critically are numerous. If one comes to scripture with as few preconceptions as possible, it’s very hard to imagine that humans could come up with such a collection.
It seems pretty blatant to me that if the Bible is divine, it’s descriptions of man as fallen and antagonistic towards God, and seeing God’s wisdom as foolishness, can easily explain the work of Bible bashers. Our pagan culture will always try to find some way to dismiss the Bible, because if it is true, we’re accountable to God in ways that are extremely disconcerting. Coating prejudiced diatribes in a veneer of rational criticism and a claim of attempts at clearing away myth and backwards thinking doesn’t make them any easier to swallow.
Having said all this, in an effort to be critical of my own views I’m always on the lookout for evidence of real scriptural contradictions or fallacies. If you feel you know of some, please take the time to search out traditional Christian answers to your proposition (since most “contradictions” have been pretty easily cleared up for centuries), and if you still feel no satisfactory answer exists, comment away, change my mind.
I look forward to the learning.
February 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think it was the famous English preacher, CH Spurgeon, that said: The bible is like a lion, let it loose and it will defend itself”.
I think the problem with many bible critics is that they read it to find it’s death, but fail to read it to find their life.
Good post Poppies
March 9, 2007 at 4:50 am
Hi, Poppies, I’ve done as you asked and continued our discussion over here.
Let me say at the outset that I have nothing against the Bible as a book. Indeed, my own Bible enjoys a prominent position along with other religious books on my shelves.
But let’s get down to brass tacks and explore deeper that which divides us. I am an atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods. I do not believe that a supernatural entity created the universe or even that the supernatural exists. As proof that my beliefs are wrong you offer the Bible which you say is divine. Other offer the Qur’an and say it is divine. Still others offer the Tao-te-ching, the Vedas, even the speeches of Haile Selassie - the list is endless.
As analogous to science, religion is fine by me as an exploration of the unknown but I am not covinced that any of them offer explanations that are any better than science.
) to state that all the answers are already known.
Science isn’t perfect, of course, but at least it is continuing its voyage of discovery rather than having the arrogance (with the exception of some scientists - but we all have our fundamentalists
In order to believe in your god I would have to have a need for your god - and I don’t. My morality is not inferior to yours. I live a law-abiding life. I smile at children and give to the needy - okay, my lack of humility needs some work!
- and I don’t yearn for everlasting life.
At the end of the day you offer me no more proof than the say-so of people who claim revelation. I’ve met people on LSD who made similar claims.
March 9, 2007 at 11:03 am
Hi Juke,
Thanks for your time and your attitude, I always appreciate your posts and comments. As for this comment, wow, so many strawmen, so little time.
I don’t offer the Bible as proof of anything, I don’t think the Bible should be used that way. I offer the strength of the logical arguments for theism, and the lack of strength of atheist arguments, as proof for theism. The more I explore the two sets of arguments in depth and with my greatest attempts at objectivity, the more I’m dumbfounded that atheists commonly paint theists as “illogical”.
Regarding science’s lack of “arrogance”, who said theists claim to have all the answers? I sure don’t! In fact, as I’ve said in a prior post, my experience is that atheists tend to lack epistemological humility far more than do theists. As a perfect example, look at your statement “In order to believe in your god I would have to have a need for your god - and I don’t”. I don’t have a need for a John Deere tractor, but I would be greatly mistaken to assume they don’t exist accordingly; reality exists as it is quite apart from my feelings about it.
I never claimed atheists can’t live “moral” lives; I think they borrow the basis for that morality from a theistic worldview, but nevertheless, I don’t picture atheists as going around beating up old ladies. I simply think they haven’t thought through the ramifications of all their intellectual beliefs. I specifically say “intellectual” beliefs because I think everyone lives as if God does exist.
At the end of the day, you also offer me no more proof than the say-so of people who claim revelation; I just happen to believe the evidence supports my camp’s revelation more than yours.
March 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
Before I can go further, I need your help. I’ve never heard a logical argument, without reference to the Bible, for the existence of ‘god’, for creationism, or precious little else Christian. This might be a first so please point to something (brief please) which outlines your case.
March 9, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Seriously? No offense, but it’s hard to believe anyone who calls themselves an atheist has never been exposed to non-scriptural logical arguments for the existence of God. Atheists and theists argue over these points constantly.
Someday soon I’ll put up a post that gives a brief outline of the logical arguments for God; until that time, you can check out: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html
March 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Thanks and don’t worry about causing offence.
March 9, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I appreciate your thick skin, Juke. You give atheists a good name!
March 20, 2007 at 7:25 am
Hey poppies,
I’ve been exposed to all of the “logical” arguments for the existence of a god, and I’ve always been let down. Especially those put forth by William Lane Craig (WLC) - his Kalam Cosmological Argument (his revival of the argument is something which theists seem to find nifty - are you familiar with the source of that argument?) lacks a sound logical framework. He likes to sound “rational” by referring to other high-profile authors, and he throws in lots of scientific-sounding buzzwords to lend credence to his claim of rationality and reason being the center of his arguments for the truth of Christianity. I will give credit to WLC where it is due - he’s a very polished speaker, and has been a player in the debate arena for years - but his logic and philosophical arguments for the existence of god leave much to be desired.
In particular, his Kalam argument purports to show the absurdity of an infinite past. He argued that it was absurd because (for instance) in an infinite history of the solar system, there would have been as many orbits of Saturn around the sun as there had been orbits of Jupiter - even though any finite interval will include more orbits for Jupiter than for Saturn, and the difference is greater the longer the interval. Utterly lame for anyone who understands even a little bit about the modern (post Cantor) view of infinity. Infinity means never having to say ‘we’re out.’
Also, you’ll find WLC’s “logical” arguments still boil down to one term: therefore god exists.
As an example, check out the transcript to this debate to get an idea of the levels of his arguments - here they are as a quick summary:
1. we don’t know how the universe came into being, so therefore god exists;
2. the universe is complex, so therefore god exists;
3. the “facts” of Jesus’ life demonstrate his divinity (facts like the empty tomb, his return, etc. (i.e. “facts” without any actual historical evidence beyond the bible), so therefore god exists;
4. god can be immediately known and experienced, so therefore god exists;
5. and the best of all - no one’s proven he doesn’t exist, so therefore god exists.
Bah! I don’t find that reasoning logical at all - that’s pure inanity.
Ronin