- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
segovius said:Another issue I have with the current atheist approach is that they do not take religion seriously. If they did then they could far better promote the cause of logic and reason.
For example; why not go through the Bible step by step and prove it's falsity (as the inerrant word of God rather than a historical document) by listing its contradictions, falsities and historical inaccuracies? Why not do this instead of mere polemic in the Dawkins-Hitchens mould?
For the same reason I suspect that Creationists don't try to disprove Darwin page by page: so much easier to just write from a position of opinion rather than logic.
Of course in the above comparison, Darwin would not be disproved and the Bible would but that makes it all the more difficult to understand why atheists are using the same approach as the Creationists in this example - they at least have nothing to lose but they still don't do it.
Perhaps it's because they are so sure they are right they don't see it as being worth the trouble.
I have to disagree. Atheists frequently take apart claims of the unerring and literal truth of the Bible. In any argument it would be difficult to come out on the side of those who believe in a world younger than the earliest human artifacts unless we abandon all trust in the scientists whose theories and inventions we are happy to take for granted in everyday.
Where there is difficulty is with those who maintain that the Bible is the word of God but who don't accept the most obvious readings. Many Christians seem to believe - rightly - that the Bible, whilst in their opinion being absolutely devine, requires interpretation and contextual understanding. I'd agree that was the case with any historical document. However, that very process of interpretation by definition renders it as something less than the word of God.
I frequently find when debating the issue that those believers with any smarts will offer some such plausible sounding explanation of how some particular passage is meant to be read symbolically or that Jesus 'meant' some such thing not directly referenced and so on. Again that may very well be the case but when even modern authors, lyricists and journalists have interpretations they don't recognise foisted upon their work it's difficult to see how claims of the Bible's divinity can be accepted.
Of course, this just applies to one area of one particular religion but across the board a similar truth seems to be evident regarding religious knowledge. In an ironic sense it proves, to my mind at least, the applicability of Darwin ideas to religious thought - those religions which make palpably absurd claims with little scope for explaining away contradictions or falsifiable evidence will go the way of the physically weak whilst those with the capacity to evolve to new environments and new data will survive.
In the case of Christianity it strikes me that it has had 2000 years to get its story straight before presenting its final case to the jury but has some explaining to do given the way its stories have altered over the years and its provision of false alibis and memories. It makes it very difficult to argue against when you suspect that had the same conversation taken place at some other remote point in history (or even the future) a different retelling of the story would unfold but would still be told with the same conviction.
In the end its immaterial anyway since I've never met an intelligent person who derived their faith from reading a holy book although I've met plenty who will defend it as though they have. Debunking the documentary 'evidence' supposedly at the heart of a religion is no more worthwhile than trying to make someone who doesn't like red wine enjoy claret by calling it champagne.