I came across the Brand New Atheist blog via Cameron Rilley's Blog, initially to a great and moving older post about how he became an atheist. More recently he posted a series of questions he wanted his Xn friends to answer since no one he knew was polite enough to answer I thought I’d give it a go. I'm guessing he's hot asking these questions so someone can convince him to become a Xn or so he can bait them but perhaps rather to answer the question "How can someone believe this stuff?"
These are my somewhat condensed answers. I’m happy to expand on any of them if you want.
Here’s a very small list of items that are wrong in the Bible, I would like you to explain how you deal with them.
1. The Bible refers to the Bat as a bird. (science has proven this to be wrong) Leviticus 11:13-19 and .Deuteronomy 14:11-18
2. The Bible refers to the Earth being flat. (science has proven this to be wrong) There’s too many, here’s an article that lists them all. http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/
3. The Bible refers to the Earth as being the center of the solar system. (science has proven this to be wrong) 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 9:7, there are others but these are the easiest to interpret.
4. The Bible refers to the Moon as having it’s own light. (science has proven this to be wrong) Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10
I'll deal with these 4 questions in one hit. You can also add that Pi = 3 and technically that the earth is a dome with waters above and below (kind of like an inverted snow dome). All of these are really the same critique, that is that the Bible is not scientifically correct. I would argue that the Bible is trying to answer why the world has been created rather than how the world is created which is why much of the creation story is a re interpretation of already existing creation myths with an emphasis on the world being ordered rather than a random accidental chaos. I've written a bit about this if you want to read more at http://achurchlessfaith.blogspot.com/2006/06/not-so-intelligent-and-definitely-not.html
5. The Bible condones slavery. (written in the text of the Bible) Too many to list, here’s a link to them all http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html
I think how you read these texts depends on how you view the Bible. that is whether you view it like a big law book were you can quote random verses from anywhere or whether you see it as an unfolding story or revelation. if you believe the first option then you have to disagree with Paul that you can be Xn without being Jewish as well. to me arguing that slavery is ok is a bit like arguing that neo is still trapped in the matrix by showing selected clips from the matrix.
6. Adam didn’t die the day he ate from the tree of knowledge. (written in the text of the Bible) Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:6, Genesis 5:5
Personally I think this is very much intentional rather than an overlooked flaw. it is part of an ongoing pattern of God promising to do one thing but then relenting and not doing it, or doing something less severe. This was exactly Jonah's problem with God and why he goes off to sulk in the last chapter of Jonah (the chapter usually left out by Sunday school teachers)
7. The Book of Judas and Book of Jasher are missing. (written about in the text of the Bible) Book stores already have the Gospels of Judas on the shelves http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692, Joshua 10:13
Also the book of Jude quotes Enoch (a non canonical book) as well. quoting texts outside the cannon will disturb you depending on your view of the cannon of scripture. If you view it as divine instructions handed down from God kind of 10 commandments style and the only source of any truth then this is going to be a problem (and you'll still be arguing that the world is flat and 6000yrs old). however if you view it as something that people chewed over for a while before they decided what was in and what was out (which is historically what happened) then it might not be so much of a problem. Also, if you are happy to accept that there is wisdom to be found outside of the cannon then it's not so much of a problem either.
8. The virgin Mary was a mistranslation of the maiden Mary. (written in the text of the Bible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8ntlyrXnY
Yep, the passage in the old testament that Luke quotes (Isaiah 7:14) is best translated as a young girl and was interpreted as virgin in Luke (from the slightly off Greek Septuagint rather than original Hebrew). some people might argue that the intent of "young girl" was virgin, it is also possible that Mary was a virgin even if the passage was mistranslated. I know that people make a big thing about the virgin birth but to honest for me it's just one small passage in just one gospel and personally I don't think it makes a big difference to the overall narrative either way.
9. The Bible speaks of the unicorn which has never been proven to have existed. (written about in the text of the Bible) http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
Hey what about the Leviathan (Job 41)? Or has someone found that ;) . See answers to question 1-4.
10. Atheists can’t get into heaven. Does that also mean Jesus didn’t let Peter into Heaven? (written about in the text of the Bible) Matthew 10:33, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao
Sure atheists can get into heaven. Any Xn who doesn't believe that hasn't read Matt 25:31-46. in this passage those who didn't describe themselves as Jesus followers (no reason why they couldn't be atheists as well) get into heaven, and those who do don't get in.
I hope these answers explain how at least one person is able to believe even though they know this stuff.
Peace.
15 comments:
Who is he really directing these questions at? If they are directed at Christians in general, they seem a little ridiculous, since lots of Christians are not threatened by flaws, innaccuracies, or contradictions in the Bible.
My guess (from reading his blog) is that he is directing them at all the Xns he knows which I'm guessing are all of the fundamentalist, literalist, 6 day creation variety. Hence why I thought I'd answer them - not being one of those kind of Xns.
Who is he really directing these questions at?
Good point.
His questions demonstrate that atheists are as susceptible to the commission strawman fallacies as anyone else. If you're not a biblical literalist, then the veiled criticisms (i.e. veiled in the guise of questions) don't apply to you.
This is one of my biggest bones of contention with Christopher Hitchens . . . his notion that if you don't believe x, y and z, you're not a True Christian (TM).
His questions demonstrate that atheists are as susceptible to the commission strawman fallacies as anyone else. If you're not a biblical literalist, then the veiled criticisms (i.e. veiled in the guise of questions) don't apply to you.
This is one of my biggest bones of contention with Christopher Hitchens . . . his notion that if you don't believe x, y and z, you're not a True Christian (TM).
Yes, it's true, this is definitely a phenomenon one sees quite often. A lot of militant atheists seem to share with fundamentalists a lot of assumptions about what it means to be a Christian. I have also noted in the past that a lot of ex-fundamentalists who turn into atheists basically just switch teams without changing a lot of their basic assumptions. The author of those questions mentions in his blog posting that his wife was (or had been) a believer in biblical inerrancy, which is telling in this case, I think.
I have also noted in the past that a lot of ex-fundamentalists who turn into atheists basically just switch teams without changing a lot of their basic assumptions.
I think this is a sound observation, and you also see this phenomenon among former Marxists who turn conservative (e.g. David Horowitz).
But I also have a bone of contention with the term "militant atheist." In what way are the targets of this ad hom "militant?" Who are they threatening?
maybe evangelical atheists might be a better term for an atheist who's trying to convert people or an aggressive atheist if they are aggressive, You're AV "militant atheist" is a very strong phrase especially since in every other context we would picture someone who is militant as carrying a weapon and willing to kill.
wow, there should be more people like you.
...in some way, there's tons of material out there for people struggling with faith. But, as I realised myself, when you have specific questions or try to nail down something, the answerers sometimes disperse and the answers get scarce.
thanks for that post.
concerning the slavery thing...
I assume (I guess you do as well) that slavery isn't God's will and that those passages in the Bible just reflect those times rather than God's character.
But how on earth do we then, when we read the bible, meet God if the whole book is so interspersed with human fallacies? How do we realize when God inspires us through the bible and when it is rather human baseness that motivates us?
Also, if it is not literal inerrancy but rather something like the mystical touch we feel when reading the bible that makes us trust it, how can we exclude the possibility that the inspiration we get by reading this book (and which vouches for its authority) is not rooted in some human psychological mechanisms instead of in God?
you don't have to answer... I'm just trying to get clear myself about my questions...
Hey there Wowy thanks for the comments and big questions.
Re: How do we read the Bible?
My short answer to this is through the lens of Christ. That is as Xns we follow Jesus not the Bible. We Jesus often confronted the Pharisees on the way they interpreted the Hebrew Bible, I'm sure they would of thought of him as "not following the law / bible"
Re: How do we trust the Bible?
Mmm I guess that depends on what you expect the Bible to be. I don't think of the Bible less as a transcript of Gods mind and more of the record of God interacting with humanity.
Hope those 2 quick perspectives help somewhat.
Hey Chris
Thanks for your answers!
I'll be thinking about those issues a lot; or waiting for God to shape my thoughts on these issues in a good way...
One thing that still bothers me: if the rules that the Bible portrays as law aren't some collection of eternally valid truths that God handed down to humanity (and I agree that it isn't that), why then does the Bible portray the law as coming from God and as being perfect and as being eternally valid?
btw, which books or what have you read to shape your view on the bible?
(you could also refer me to that instead of answering my questions *smile*)
Hey Wowy,
No worries on the quick answers. Not much point having a blog if you don't answer comments.
re: why then does the Bible portray the law as coming from God and as being perfect and as being eternally valid? I'm not sure that the Bible does I think say the New Testament quotes the Old Testament as if it has authority but perhaps that authority comes from it being the record of God interacting with humanity in a particular place and time. So it doesn't mean that things that happened then will be eternally valid neither does it mean that you can just ignore them becasue that was another time and place. It has to be weighed up with all of Scripture. So stuff about loving your neighbour and looking after the poor is a lot more consistant than say slavery.
Re: which books or what have you read to shape your view on the bible. I'll do a post on that soon :)
Thanks, Chris, for your answers! And, I am looking forward to hear what people read who get along well with the bible (except the Big Book itself...)!
best wishes to you,
wowy
Have yet to meet a person who has actually entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ become an atheist.
Many people become anti-religious, anti-Christian, anti-God and anti-anything if all they have are constructs of belief without any relationship.
Interestingly, too, if a person has a relationship with another person and the clue dries, from a Christian perspective, if the persons involved do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then they will turn anti-faith, or anti-that person's faith, or anti-religion, or anti-Christ.
As for people being atheist, have yet to met an atheist. Everybody has some god, even if they do not want to acknowledge the Creator.
Hey Happy,
Thanks for commenting "Have yet to meet a person who has actually entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ become an atheist" I have certainly heard of people who were ministers or very commited Christians who have become athiests. They would probably say that they thought they were in a relationship with Jesus at the time. As far as "everybody has some god" that probably depends on how you define god.
Post a Comment