Wednesday 17 October 2007
I'm getting out of the box
Yes, I'm having a change of tack on this blog. It's been interesting discussing faith with you Billy and Jonathan and I'm not closing the conversation, but as it's been going it's become a bit futile. Why is that? From my point of view, it's because you're trying to debate 'surface' stuff when root issues haven't been tackled. Basically, it seems to me you're trying to attack and rubbish Christianity from a position of hostility rather than genuine enquiry - for whatever reasons. When all's said and done the heart really does matter here, and there's no escaping the need for faith in dealing with God. There's excellent thought and writing out there tackling in depth the key areas we've been discussing like the relationship between science, reason and faith. I don't feel it's my calling to regurgitate it to you. Some of it intellectually underpins my own faith, so that while I may not have time to answer all your qs and complaints, they don't threaten it. Once you've had a chance to read something I've suggested and come back to me with a response, I'd have more respect and be more prepared to chat further. As it is, for all the clever arguments and dancing circles, it's always going to look to me like you're dancing in a box. You've raised some good qs that I'm interested to look at further at my own pace eg about OT morality and homosexuality. But it's futile tackling these sub issues without the root issues also being addressed - and for that I've no better suggestion than to read some good material and get back to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
47 comments:
I know Billy that you have expressed willingness to look at the Contours book(s) and I do respectfully acknowledge that.
Oh and I still will respond to the old parallel universe q J! - that's been sitting around too long.
Bruce-
I hardly think that debates around the concepts of absolute and ultimate morality can be described as "surface stuff". One of the key "advantages" to religion is the idea that it provides some sort of moral base for humanity, without which things would be very different. I think that Billy and I have done a good job of demonstrating that it isn't necessarily so.
I'm glad that you will respond to my old question, because I think it will cast some light on the whole "ultimate morality" issue.
I also would have to disagree with you as regards to this "hostility" that you claim that we display. I certainly don't feel that I have, and I don't believe Billy has either.
I might venture to suggest that the reason you believe us to be acting in a hostile manner is that you are not used to having your beliefs challenged in this way. Another root issue is that religion is somehow uniquely privileged, immune from criticism and must be respected.
Even if we were hostile, it does not follow that we are wrong.
Billy
Hello everyone. In a shameless piece of self-publicity, I've gone ahead and revived my old blog. it can be found here- http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/
I would be most happy if you guys could stop by every so often, perhaps leave a few comments? Nothing worse than a blog that nobody reads.
When I get the chance, Bruce, I may do some writing of my own on atheism and religion, give you a chance to play the argumentative commentator!
Well, that's stirred things up, though not entirely my intention.
Brief response: I'm not attacking either of you. If my 'hostility' line sounded a little strong, sorry... I do though think genuine enquiry into Cnity could show more interest in checking out some of the serious defence written by people who've had time to do it. There's a real conflict of perception here that I want to try and clear up once and for all: you seem to think I 'ignore' issues because I don't want to face them. No: I don't respond to everything simply cos I don't have time in my blog! My reason for so constantly suggesting reading material - and I've only suggested a very limited amount, the tip of the continent of what's out there - is because I feel it challenges some of the underlying presuppositions here. It cd take me a whole week to do that in my blog, but it'd take you a matter of hours to check out one of these books, and it would let some outside air in. Come on guys, I've read more than half of TGD, what's the problem here? I've even asked you to recommend me some reading! (I am genuinely interested to check out Mackie's book). Hardly the attitude of one scared of having his faith challenged.
Billy, you react strongly. I don't at all mean to belittle what you say, I know your grievances are genuine. I think it's more appropriate to discuss that kind of thing over a drink than on a blog, but it does at least support my point that the heart matters here.
Jonathan, 'surface' stuff is I concede the wrong expression, 'sub' issues is better, and note I wasn't talking about the whole morality issue.
I'll check out your blog BTW - looks interesting.
Let's keep it friendly; I don't view you as enemies.
Bruce, it is not the reading I object to, it is the attitude that you would have more respect for our opinions if we read what you wanted us to read. You forget that I spent over a year fully immersed in christian apologetics (3 or 4 hours a night, several nights a week) to try and justify my beliefs. That is Why I react strongly. Dont mistake frustration with an inability to be objective. Heart is really just another way of saying if you want to believe in something strongly enough, you can. It does not make it true though.
Billy
Hi Billy
I feel that Christ has this to say to you
Mark 15:3-5.
Jimmy,
Jesus is telling me he has nothing to say? how come he told me that then? :-)
Seriously though, I used to get feelings like that all the time about people, and with out exception, they all proved to be false.
Billy
Hi Billy
Your thinking will also be proved to be false.
Jimmy, you seem to be suggesting that Jesus is silent because Billy is challenging and accusing him. Billy has said in the past that when he was a believer, Jesus was silent then, too. What is the difference?
Jimmy, what would Jesus have to say to me if he didnt exist?
Billy
Hi Jonathan
God can be silent and even when he breaks his silence he is laconic.
I think that for Billy God does not exist and the purpose of his comments are an attempt to injure faith.
But most Christians are a bit like Blackpool rock with 'faith' going all the way through their psyche.
Christ is 'the word of God' and when you have Christ in your heart and life then someone screaming baby killer at God - who is the creator and giver of all life -doesn't give the impression that they know much about anything.
It is funny how when religion or god is questioned, it is called an attack or hostile.
Yet if I question a theory, it is called good science and is welcomed.
To paraphrase Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins - the “religious meme” has created itself a protective shield.
We cannot question it, we cannot test it, and we cannot doubt it - but WHY – because the religious meme tells us so.
Time to take the medicine and grow up.
Time to TEST your beliefs.
Lee
Jimmy, You make me laugh. If you think christian have faith written all the way through, I suggest you get into pastoral care.
You do reasise you have not given sone shred of evidence supporting what you believe.
Like we keep telling you, it seems that christians need to think those who dont share their view must be wilfully ignorant or corrupt. The more christians keep saying things like that to atheist, the more it confirms our beliefs.
I'm affraid you have no concept of rationality at all? Why do you even believe? Is it a psychological crutch? Is there something missing in your life that only an invisible friend can fill? Do you feel you cant cope on your own? have you suffered from addiction, mental illness or trauma, or were you force fed faith from birth? The reason I' asking is because you just ignore challenges and spout dogma - i've even been to those sermons where you are told what to believe about non christians. Try thinking, and while you are at it, answer that long list of questions that I gave you a while back, like who was the father of joseph, how is Micah 5:2 about jesus, How do you explain jeremiah's failed 70 year prophecy? We could also add the failed Tyre prophecy, the failed prophecy of jehoaikim's succession, the failed second comming prophecy, the failed prophecy of the three days till the resurrection, the failure of isaiah 53:7 etc.
Also, what would jesus say to me if he was dead?
I feel I am being told to tell you to read Ezekiel 5:17
Tell me why god is not a baby killer, and it's hardly screaming - you old drama queen. Lile Lee says, it's interesting your irrational response to your beliefs being questioned. Do you have children? If so, would you take advice on rearing them from an invisible god who drowned his children?
Billy
Jimmy, Does this sound silly to you? I've got an invisible friend, He only appears to people he chooses to. He doesnt like answering questions, so he wont answer anyone. He doesn't talk to anyone anymore, but has left you a vague set of rules. If you cant understand the rules, then it is your fault, they make sense to(lets call him) Dave. Dave tells us he is always right about everything and we are not capable of fully understanding him. Dave says he will give you gifts, but everyone who knows Dave knows that really only means he will give you gifts that will enable you to do what he wants you to do - so dont ask. Dave is in charge, but you can ask him to do the things he wants to do - although He is going to do them anyway. Sometimes, that's cutting your leg off, sometimes it's drowning the neighbours cat, sometimes its just letting the sun rise in the morning. Dont ask Dave to do something that affects someone elses choice - he doesn't do that, so dont ask him to make everyone approve plans for your kitchen extention for example. Dave wants you to like him, but he will kick your ass if you dont. Now, Dave says he really doesn't want to do this to people, but he doesn't show his nice side to the people whose asses he his going to kick - so he goes ahead and kicks their asses anyway. If you think this is unfair, he will kick your ass - and quite rightly too, because Dave has already written you a note saying that he always knows what's best, so you were warned (assuming he chose to talk to you in the first place). Sometimes if you take enough alcohol and class A drugs, if you are really lucky, you can see Dave swirling around the room telling you to blow up abortion clinics.
Sometimes Dave changes his name to Allah, zeus, God - or even David Icke
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
If you think I'm here to damage faith, what are you worried about? You have Dave on your side. The only people I will deconvert are those who want to - god wont let me take true believers away - now, will he? After all, those who lost faith were never true believers in the first place. You can feel happy that you are "special", and all those who fall away will strengthen the church - Just thing, no more listening to people whine on thinking they are not worthy and rejected by Dave - living in fear of His cramponed boot. This wont affect you, becase you only know proper blackpool rock Davians. Just think, with all those pathetic people out of your church, you can concentrate on the real issues: did Dave cause the boxing day tsunami? does Dave want you to meerly set aside homosexuals and cure them, or should you kill them? does Dave like jam in his porage and does he like knob gags?
Billy
Hi Billy
Glad I made you laugh
nice of you to reciprocate.
Ps
Ezekiel 5:7 made me think of Job 1:20-22.
Jimmy,
As long as you are happy.
Job reminds me of how god killed his family for a bet with the devil.
Oh yes, you never answered the Biel or Thatcher question either
By the way, what exactly is it that makes you laugh at drowning babies?
Steven weinberg comes to mind: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." But, I guess that is lost on the faithful.
Billy
Interesting post Jimmy- I will comment on my blog tomorrow.
Jimmy,
Another thing Job reminds me ofis the fact that god obviously prefers beautiful peopl, he gave Job beautiful daughters (not just daughters, but beautiful ones "12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
Remember your earlier dogde of the thatcher/biel question? I thought god looked on the inside
Billy
Hi Billy
As you don't believe in God or the Bible
Why do you quote the Bible about God?
If - as you believe - God does not exist and the bible untrue
what then are you talking about?
Jimmy, I thought it was obvious, this thread is about MORALITY Bruce's original point was that one reason he believes in god is the existence of moral values. We have argued that such values are relative and can arise naturally. We also argue that the bible is a very bad book when it gomes to defining what is currently accepted as generally good behaviour. In fact, it is down right barbarice, and is a good arguement that we dont get our moral values from the bible - we may get our immoral values - homophobia, intolerance and arrogance from it (in part anyway).
The second reason I quote from the bible is because it is good evidence against itself and its own claims of divine inspiration - that's why i ask you about contradictions etc. It is a challenge to people to question their beliefs - if they dare.
Thirdly, I quote from it to highlightthe inconsistencies in certain doctrines (more about puting your own agenda on it and its contradictory nature).
Fourthly, I point out factual absurdities and ask people to ponder it.
I am always suprised and disappointed by christians who say - you dont believe, but you quote the bible. Christians do the same with the Koran. You should at least be happy that I have taken the time to study it. I was a bit like you a few years ago, I believed you only needed to quote the bible to win an argument with an nonchristian. I never doubted the truth of it, I also just assumed because it was true and the word of god(at least in my mind), that others could not aargue against it. That was a very silly philosophy. I now realise that the biblical authors were not inspired in any way, so the whole arguement from the bible collapses.
Care to answer some of my questions now - if you can
Billy
As you said Billy
your whole argument from the Bible collapses being untenably flawed by your own admission that you don't believe the Bible.
Or do you just believe the passages - that to your mind - show God in a bad light.
I wouldn't want to present evidence in court with the caveat that I didn't believe it myself - not unless I wanted to be laughed out of court.
Jimmy, it's quite simple really, these are reasons not to believe the bible - surely it cant be hard to grasp - you know, jeremiah says god says jerusalem will be desolate for 70 years, but it was only 49 years, matt and luke cant agree on their genealogies etc ... And you think this is inconsistent with disbelief how?
So Jimmy, I presented just a fraction of evidence that the bible is not true. Care to present some that it is. I would hate to tell someone to trust in a book that I cant demonstrate the truth of now - if religion didnt have a "special status" you should be sued for making such wild claim, so evidence please.
And yes, the bible is good evidence that the character called god is a completely evil bastard - I dont see you attempting to defend him - apparently you think drowning babies is funny and does not need an explanation.
I find this funny because I know it is not real - you however believe it. Do you think it is good?
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces." (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
Billy
Well, you guys have been busy. Just a few points:
Can we make sure language is kept respectful and decent? I'm linked to a minister's blog as you know Billy and I'm sure he and other linked readers would like this.
I'm not getting drawn into arguments I don't feel it's my job to respond to anymore, though I will respond to points I think it's worthwhile saying something on. I will say I am bothered by the objection by Lee and Billy here that religion has special status and sees itself as deserving protection from criticism and questioning. There may be instances of this, but as blanket assertion it's utter tosh. Go to the theology/religion section of a decent library/bookshop and you will plainly see that religious thinkers have actively engaged with all the issues raised at the highest intellectual and academic level. I continue to be perplexed by the peceived lack of willingness by critics of religion to engage with such material - or even awareness that it's there! Surely if you have serious objections and questions that you want serious and substantial answers to, going to experts in the field wd be one of your first and main lines of enquiry. Not lightweight books, but heavyweight ones. This approach wd surely show serious desire to explore and understand rather than just attack. But it's up to you.
Bruce, is this the same minister that occasionally throws naughty words into sermons? Given that he has to deal with a church full of siners, I doubt calling gpod an evil bastard would shock him - and god is. Why do you maintain he is good?
As for special status, have you heard of blasphemy laws, tax exemptions? The fact that you are allowed to teach homosexuality is wrong. And dont just assume that we only mean your religion - we have certainly bent over backwards for the muslims. Tell me, where else do you think you could get away with false advertising like religion does?
Religion has a history of making life tough for others. Currently in America, atheists are viewed as lower than Gays. I was even forced into prayers at schools - you most certainly do do have a privilaged position, and any claim otherwise is Tosh.
Bruce, have you taken in anything that has been said here about philosophy? No one has ever demonstrated the existence of god, so Muslim theology, Hindu Theology and Christian theology are all pointles. Surely all I would need to do is ask your god if he is there - it is afterall supposed to be a relationship - Cue the you are demanding god to do things your way defense
Billy
Jimmy-
if the religious use the Bible as evidence for God, how is it unreasonable that atheists also use the Bible? It is the Word of your God, isn't it? You don't have to believe something in order to point out the fallacies in it.
What if you were debating a Muslim? Would you think it reasonable for the Muslim to turn around and say "You don't believe in the Koran, so you can't use the violent passages as evidence against Allah?" Of course not.
It seems to me, by trying to deny us the right to use the Bible as evidence, you are tacitly admitting that it does not hold up. If the Bible was iron-clad evidence, nothing we could do would make a difference.
Bruce, should we remove all religion froms schools? What about faith schools, should they be publicly funded? Surely places of worship are the only places were religious education should be allowed (Teaching about different religions in schools is OK, but preaching or making childern pray is not).
More on false advertising: I have been told that being a Christian is the best possible experience.I've been told it can be hard, but it always gets better - FALSE
I've been told God answers prayer - have even seen the verse "you don't recieve because you dont ask" used as an encouragement to pray (and at your church). Read the verse properly and it continues ... "even when you do ask, you still do not receive because your heart is not with god" - Blatant misrepresentation - and christians always moan about atheists taking verses out of context - something I personally try not to do. There is also the problem that prayer demonstrably does not work - if you want to claim you cannot test prayer, then you have no evidence to back up the claim - again false advertising. Note the in built defense mechanism: if it doesn't work its your fault - perfect, you just blame yourself and never question whether its true or not.
I'm a bit suprised that you claim there is heavy wieght stuff out there - none of it is actually rooted in reality - remember our discussion about that morality link you posted? I even pointed out that the bifurcations in the metaethics section were false. The choices are not as simple as either morality has meaning or it doesnt, then Jonathan and I pointed out that morality can have an evolutionary meaning - Whether you agree with it or not, it is a different option, the whole metaethics argument is constructed to give the answer that you want - full of false bifurcations leading to a fallacious assumption that a lawgiver must give out laws (a job impartial natural selection can do). But what does seem odd was the fact that you admitted hat you hadn't actually read te metaethics section yourself, yet you maintain there is actually high impact stuff out there. What is your justification for this statement then? Again, and I'm not having a go at you here, you seem to have with drawn into the protective shell that Lee mentions: I dont need to take your points seriously, or respond, because there is some good stuff out there by clever people (Although , I haven't actually read it myself, I know it's there, so I can ignore your challenge) I only mention this to tempt you out of it.
So far I've never come accross anything more than god is right, but we dont understand him, and if we did understand him, then we would be god. Well, you may undestand (or not) why I want celtic to lose all their games, but understanding that does not make you me. Also we are supposedly one step short of god - we ate from the tree of the knowlegde of good an evil (so we should be able to tell if god killing babies is a moral act or not) If we had drank from the fountain of life (or whatever) we would be just lie god - Yes Jimmy, I'm quoting the bible again, but it shows how internally inconsistent it is and how christians pick and choose their dogma.
Billy
Bruce, Just to let you know, I have just picked up that contours book. I brieflt skimmed it, and 4 pages in (p14) we have a problem "While the historian or sociologist may also study religious beliefs, his focus is not on the truth or reasonableness of such beliefs".
Well, what a loaded statement. It assumes for example that there is a truth that historians or sociologists can not access. For example, history/ archaeology have shown many biblical stories to be false - therefore, god did not take isreal out of egypt etc. If the history corroborated the bible, that would not prove the existence of god, but when it shows events god supposedly did did not happen, it provides evidence that there ios no supernatural force behind the religion. Dan Dennett will also disagree about sociologists not being able to study the truth about religion - read his book "breaking the spell- treating religion as a natural phenomenon". Already the author or your book has lead to an assumption that he has not justified, and just down right wrong - It doesn't look good for the rest of the book.
Billy
I do suggest Billy you read a little more carefully. It's not a loaded statement at all and contains no such assumption, in context or without. I do hope you will give this book a little time and space, and allow it to say what it has to say before leaping to judgement.
Bruce, that first chapter gave no reason to believe whatsoever. All it did was point out problems with philosophy, and betray the authors own presuppositions eg p28 “through this process [testing faith] I am confident that my faith will be deepened and strengthened.” Note he does not consider that he may be wrong – he is taking a Fideist view, which he points out is impervious to reason, because it assumes the existence of god, and that non believers are rebels against god. I fell he is also basically saying it is impossible to consider the existence of god properly – this is a real problem, especially when you are arguing the existence of something. This is why philosophy is meaningless without empirical evidence to back it up. He also fails to realise that “presuppositions” in science are self correcting - theories would break down if they were not based on valid assumptions. Overall, there is no evidence presented that god is real. Another problem with philosophy is that if we assume for the sake of argument that the case for god was sound, it only argues for a god, not your god. Then you argue from the bible – which is why I use the bible Jimmy. Going straight for the bible cuts out the pointless middleman of philosophy – that I contend is where your faith ultimately comes from. I see he uses the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments – that will be easy to refute – read the God Delusion
It's not a loaded statement at all and contains no such assumption, in context or without.
No Bruce, I suggest you read it carefully, he is saying the historian is not interested in the truth of religion – if a historian shows the Exodus did not happen, or that Ai was uninhabited at the time of the Joshuaic genocides, then the Historian most definitely has something to say on the truth of that religion. For example, all scripture is god breathed, and god lead Israel from Egypt, and helped destroy Ai. well, if it never happened, god never did it, but the ultimate source on god (the bible) says he did - How has that got nothing to do with the truth of a particular religion. If sociologists show religion to be nothing more than memetics, how does that not comment on the truth of a religion? Are you happy to accept that some tribal south sea island religion is a result of cultural evolution, but yours isn’t? Then again, the burden of supernatural proof lies with you.
The use of the word truth in this context implies something beyond history or sociology.
Billy
Jimmy, Are these your words?
"In my opinion before someone could call themselves an Atheist they would have to read the Bible through and then if after giving the idea of God a little study and a little thought they decided they did not believe in God then they could call themselves an Atheist.
Glibly deciding that you're too intelligent to believe in God just doesn't cut it for me".
Taken from
http://gadgetvicar.typepad.com/gadgetvicar/2007/07/
a-question-of-p.html#comments
(stick the two bits together)
If so, why are you complaining that we are attacking christianity with the bible?
Consistency is an art you need to master. You can usually tell how informed someone's opinions are by their consistency
Billy
Hi Billy
To deny the truth of a document while simultaneously quoting it as an authority is hardly consistent.
If you want to understand the word of God then you need to consider Jesus Christ - he is the living embodiment of the word of God. To attempt to interpret the Bible without considering his life and words and work is denying yourself the key.
Billy, I'll get back to you later.
This is a bit of a radical step, but I've decided I'm really not happy with the amount of misinformation and distortion in some of the above comments, and it's actually making me quite angry. I will be responding, particularly to the misrepresentation of what the writer of the Contours book says. But for the time being I'm going to change my settings to 'moderate comments' so that I have a chance to respond before any more misinformation comes in. Sorry people, I hope I won't have to stick with this situation. I'll also try and ensure I see all incoming comments on my email. Cheers.
Testing if outside comments publish.
B
Well, it says comment moderation has now been enabled, but got a feeling that comments still appear before I've 'approved' them from my email. I'm sure you'll let me know Billy.
Yep, it says moderation has been enabled.
I haven't read the Contours book, so I can't comment on the above!
Jimmy- if Jesus is the embodiment of God's Word, why do so many pay attention to writers of the Epistles, most of whom never met Jesus?
Jimmy, you dont get it, do you? I'm not saying the bible is authority, I'm saying it is nonsense, imoral, and that you dont use it consistently amongst other things
Bruce
Look forward to you reply - interested to see how you think I am misrepresenting Evans. He said that historians are not interested in the truth of religion whe that is clearly not true, he says that both extremes of philosophy - neutralism and fideism have inherent problems, and appears to take a fideist line himself - over to you
Billy
Billy, can I ask you please to be polite to fellow contributors? Saying 'you don't get it do you?' to Jimmy isn't very helpful.
I'm going to copy the paragraph re your first criticism of Evans:
'The focus on the truth and reasonableness of religious belief helps distinguish the philosophy of religion from other academic disciplines that study religion. While the historian or sociologist may also study religious beliefs, his focus is not specifically on the truth or reasonableness of such beliefs. False beliefs may be as important as true ones to the historian or sociologist who tries to paint a picture of the history of a religion or the place of religion in society.'
You say,
'He said that historians are not interested in the truth of religion', and earlier, 'It assumes for example that there is a truth that historians or sociologists can not access'.
Now I think an impartial observer can see that you have misrepresented what he says - which is simply about the historian's specific focus of interest - past events and their interpretation. It doesn't imply what you say it implies.
Bruce, there is a whole field of biblical history and archaeology that is interested in the truth about claims concerning the truth about religion. Names like Carrier, Silberman and Finkestein come to mind. Sociologists are also interested in the truth. His claims that such people are not interested in the truth about religion is false! they are! what do you disagree with here? are the above mentioned people interested in the truth or not?
Secondly, there is an implication that the truth is not subject to analysis by history and sociology - would you not agree?
BTW I think I'm being quite tolerant of Jimmy, especially when he has called me dense and a fundamentalist - amongst other things. If I actually say something like that to him, then you may reprimand me
Billy
Billy, he simply does not say that such people are not interested in the truth about religion. All he says is what the focus of a historian's discipline is.
I don't see your second implication in what he says either. He doesn't say history and sociology have nothing to contribute to an investigation of the truth of religion, though it's certainly questionable whether these disciplines by themselves shd be final arbiters. They can indeed contribute though - and I don't see Evans disputing that.
Bruce, Let me rephrase it, there are historians (as named) and sociologists (like Dennet) whose focus is the truth behind religion.
He says this "False beliefs may be as important as true ones to the historian or sociologist who tries to paint a picture of the history of a religion or the place of religion in society.'
This says to me two things. 1 that there are true and false religions - this implies a bias by the author - and we can guess which religion he considers as true 2. That it is not important to the historian whether it is true or not, the historian is only interested in painting a picture - the truth does not matter. Like I say this is false.
You are making a big deal of something that I said I had only skimmed and would read more of later. Some thing that as it turns out, I am actually correct about.
The implication comes from him constraining historical and sociological studies to
"the historian or sociologist who tries to paint a picture of the history of a religion or the place of religion in society.'
Like I say, there is more to these subjects than that, and these are valid ways to look at religion and test the truth about its authority, traditions and myths. To imply there may be truths inaccessible to these subjects carries much presuppositions that are not supported
Now I think an impartial observer can see that you have misrepresented what he says - which is simply about the historian's specific focus of interest - past events and their interpretation.
And whether they are factually correct or not reflects on the truth of religion
Also consider the fallacy of the first sentence above. If an observer cant see it your way, they are probably are not impartial.
Billy
Ehile we are waiting, here is some more on the special status religion enjoys.
Imagine there is a book called "Sex with the headless zombie of the virgin astronaut". It contains rape of POWs, ritual human sacrifice, murder of babies, deception, mistreatment of women and slaves, cruel long lasting torture scenes and killing people for the wrong sexual orientation. Would you not be screaming for it to be banned? Would you be out raged at the thought of young children being allowed to read it. Now, imagine a book called "the bible" It contains rape of POWs, ritual human sacrifice, murder of babies, deception, mistreatment of women and slaves, cruel long lasting torture scenes and killing people for the wrong sexual orientation.......
Billy
Post a Comment