I had a bit of time to read more of John Loftus' book, Why I Became an Atheist, this weekend.
I got to a rather interesting portion about Biblical events and science. He makes some very good points about the basic cause-and-effect stuff we see in the world around us, and about events being reasonable or unreasonable based on what we know of our environment.
Now, there are a lot of WEIRD accounts in the Bible - talking donkeys, pregnant virgins, blind guys seeing, shepherd staffs turning into snakes. And Christians tend to take these all as literally true because they believe the Bible is literally all true. The problem is this: if those same people were to hear of a similar thing happening NOW, they'd demand evidence. If your coworker said a cat told her not to get in her car that day because God spoke through said cat, and warned her of certain trouble, you'd think she was nuts.
I used to be a Christian so I can hear the argument now: "Well, that's just the way God worked then and it's not the way he does now." Well, to my knowledge, since the beginnings of written history and science, nature hasn't changed so much as to think animals will speak to us or inanimate objects will just float around in the sky. And, if most Christians were told that one of these Bible-style things happened, they'd demand some evidence.
So, why is that standard not applied to the Bible? Why is it so utterly believable, when many of the events are uncorroborated anywhere else?
Just thoughts to put out there...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People tend to have a set of expectations of what’s reasonable and what isn’t, regardless of whether it conflicts with their stated beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of the sort of thing you describe is what people expect by way of miracles. They say that they believe God to be omnipotent, and this is why they pray for the sick to be cured, missing people to be found and so on. There’s no doubt that they genuinely believe this. But suppose a person has lost a leg? Does anyone pray for it to grow back again? If a person falls into the sea and is in danger of drowning, do they expect God to intervene by giving him the power to walk on water? No, they don’t, any more than they would expect a dead person be restored to life, despite Biblical precedent – because, consciously or unconsciously, they realise it won’t happen.
The blunt truth of the matter is that people only expect God to do things that might be expected to happen naturally (or, where appropriate, with medical assistance, something they rarely turn down, despite their beliefs). They make a clear separation between events in Biblical times and ones that occur now – without explaining why this should be.
I've always believed that if I grew my hair long - I'd be stronger - like Samson. That's why I couldn't work out why the Army made me cut it!
ReplyDeleteI have always struggled with the "literal interpretations" in the Bible. I don't think all who believe practice that ideology, but Southern Baptists do...and some others.
ReplyDeleteI still never feel more spiritual than when I am in the woods as the sun rises. It is awe inspiring.
k
Kona - the problem with taking some of the Bible literally and some of it NOT literally is this: how do you know which parts are literal and which parts aren't? And who gets to decide that? And for something that's supposed to have eternal implications, shouldn't that be something that is crystal clear?
ReplyDelete