One thing that gets me when I am involved in religious discussions is the constant struggle of the religious to “bring it back” to scripture, as if their arguments are somehow validated by the ancient scratchings of ill-informed desert dwellers. Their beloved texts, other than perhaps the fact that they have survived so long, have no more value as factual references than, for instance, Homer’s Iliad, which has survived (in much better shape) even longer than the bible and related scripture.
My semi-rhetorical question is: Why do people who are supporting rationalism (atheists, agnostics, skeptics, etc.) keep being lured in by the trap of having to argue the details of such scripture?
The simplified way to see what’s really happening when we succumb to the temptation to argue about whether scripture is right or wrong goes something like this:
Rationalist (“R”): “We need no spirits or religion to be moral.”
Believer (“B”): “Ah, but the Bible indicates otherwise.”
R: “How is that relevant? The bible is flawed, and therefore cannot be fully trusted.”
B: “How is the Bible flawed? There are no contradictions in the Bible. It is perfect.”
R: “No contradictions? Are you crazy? There are hundreds of…”
B: “Name me one. Just one! You can’t!”
R: “Yeah, I’ll name you one. How about the no smaller seed part, huh? Or the cud-chewing cloven foot part. Or, even better, the fact that Genesis is all screwed up in its timeline.”
B: “Fascinating, but I don’t think you’re really reading the Bible. If you really read it, you will see. Now, show me what you were talking about in Genesis, and I will show you where you are wrong.”
And then what happens? You get into a lengthy discussion about what boils down to be strict versus loose interpretation and the validation of the bible as a work of god via the holy spirit, which we non-believers just don’t get, because we don’t open ourselves up to the truth. How do we do that? By reading the bible. And so on.
What has been accomplished as a result of that conversation? The optimistic among us might think that, at some point, the rationalist may have planted a seed of doubt in the mind of the believer, hopefully eventually steering the believer into becoming more skeptical about scripture and the world view created around that scripture. The cynical among us might think otherwise — that this was a fruitless battle that mimics many of the discussions believers have with non-believers, on the turf of the believers. That, I argue, is a flaw in our approach to the overall issue of infusing society with reason, and pushing aside (back into its niche, if anything) religion.
The question that naturally follows is: Where, exactly, is the rationalist playing field? Or, where should it be?
It doesn’t seem logical to argue in a vacuum. It’s also probably not effective to avoid using arguments targeted specifically against scripture, like the argument that scripture should be trusted as much as, but not more than myth. One might argue that a rationalist’s playing field ought to be from the point of view of science. That makes sense, to some degree, since science is the language we use to interpret the natural world, and rationalists argue that there is nothing but the natural world. However, not all of us are versed in that language. Should all rationalists who hope to argue against religion, for reason, be made to learn science fluently enough to use it as the choice of the field of battle?
Perhaps the field is a melting pot of just about everything conceivable that can be referred to in a rationalist vs believer argument. Just as many believers cling to their bibles as the only source of truth and reference, perhaps the answer to that is for rationalists to cling to absolutely nothing. This isn’t battling in a vacuum, but is, instead, an acknowledgment that no sole thing defines all truth. It’s a recognition of the fact that everything in existence defines everything in existence, and ignoring 99% of everything in existence to try to define existence is akin to madness.
Regardless of whether I’m right about where the rationalist playing field ought to be, I assert that we need to wean ourselves from what should be considered a bad habit — arguing scripture. Doing so seems to be tossing kerosene on a fire you’re trying to put out. Instead, let their little fires burn in their niche of choice, and let’s start our own bonfire, in the field of everything, and give them the burden of trying to douse our blaze.
Tags: agnostic, ancient, atheist, bible, contradiction, Genesis, god, Holy, Homer, Law, Logic, Love, moral, rational, Religion, Science, scripture, skeptic, spirit, temptation, theist, truth
It may be a bit overly optimistic for me to say this, but I really do think that having non-believers with a firm grasp of scripture (think Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrman, or even Bishop Spong on odd Tuesdays) is a very important factor in our push for a more rational society. The fundamentalists often unstated but always present claim is that the bible is not only literal truth, but is revealed truth which can only be discerned with the proper study and prayer; therefore, their claims about it trump ours. The study of scripture through historical criticism, however, reveals a much more coherent viewpoint, one which brilliantly explains the biases of its human authors and thoroughly debunks the fuzzy “magical” thinking which surrounds the subject.
Think of a fundamentalist viewpoint as a rock. (And indeed, rocks are often metaphors in Christian spiritual terms.) Rocks can be eroded, however, with the proper application of water. It’s not an instant process by any means, but it can be devastatingly effective.
I think Onesimus is right about the important place people like Price and Ehrman hold in the push for a rational society, but I know I’ve been suckered into conversations that went very similarly to the one listed above, and I’m not so sure they had any effect on the believer at all. I can only hope that they have, but there is no discernible sign of that.
It ought to be up to the believer to prove that the words of the Bible originate from a divine source. But that’s a dead end as well, because ultimately it always come down to, “Well, you just have to pray about it and God will reveal it to you.” When I say, “I have prayed about it, many times,” then the excuses start flowing:
“You didn’t pray with the right spirit.”
“You didn’t pray correctly.”
“You have to keep praying without ceasing.” etc. etc.
Most of the time, arguing with believers, regardless of the playing field, feels like arguing with a brick wall. Perhaps we should all just carry around multiple copies of “Misquoting Jesus” and let the experts handle it.
Indeed. Thanks for the comment, Onesimus.
How would you respond to my rebuttal of your excellent argument if I asserted that focusing on scripture should be a narrow niche in a broad amalgam of various pursuits that make up the whole entity of the rational position? In other words, would you agree that it’s not necessary for every rational person to be as familiar with scripture as Bart Ehrman, or even close, and that those not pursuing such specific topics should generally avoid falling into the trap of arguing with believers about the details of scripture? Would it be acceptable, if not preferable, for such people to make reference to the experts in that field, just as they should for any field of expertise, such as referring to an evolutionary biologist when posed with a question about evolutionary biology?
Why can’t we rationals merely play to our own individual strengths, whatever they may be, in order to address our counterparts, without always being sucked back into the “but it says right here in the bible” debate?
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with learning about scripture, and generally how to counter it. What I am saying is that, even though you’re right about scripture being the foundation (and thus weak point) of religion, the religious influence survives well enough outside of the scope of scripture — within law and tradition and society — and should be addressed with fervor from all angles. To do so requires at least some of us to focus somewhere other than scripture, or one particular aspect of religious belief and practice.
Scriptures are not relevant, faith is. You cannot be expected to know the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, the Book or Mormon and so on, it’s a dead end approach and you are outnumbered by an endless sea of text. Faith, the enemy or reason, is the problem and what must be challenged. Faith is challenged by making the faithful think about it, come to term with the fear of losing it, explain how it is a self-induced condition following obedience to the multitude of rites and reinforcement from other faithful, etc. Engage people in defending their faith rationally if they want to talk to you at all. The more they try to present rational arguments to justify their faith, the more rational they will become as you guide them through logical fallacies. Keep your eyes on the ball, the ball is faith.
I am not the scriptural kind of guy. Scripture is pointless when the god it represents is logically impossible. However, it is good to have people who can be scriptural geeks. Assert all defenses.
Crusty,
These days, I’m self-identifying myself as some sort of John Shelby Spong Theist. (The universe is God, God doesn’t intervene, etc.) This makes religious fundamentalists go nuts at levels worse than you can imagine. (People with your beliefs can be safely ignored. People with my beliefs are a corrupting influence from within.)
The best way to argue with fundamentalists, literalists, etc., is in regards to the Resurrection. It is the central narrative to the system, right? And you’ve got four (or five – see link below) accounts of the event. If there are contradictions in scripture, this is the best place to find them. 4 or 5 infallible, inerrant accounts. Insist on some agreement on this point.
1) Ask your Debate Opponent to give you $20.00, stating that if they’re worried about your eternal soul, they’d be willing to put a 20 at risk.
2) Ask them what they know about the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. Ask them which one was probably written first. (The ones who have studied this will say Mark. The others will say Matthew, simply because it’s first in the arbitrary listing in the New Testament.)
3) Ask them to look at all four of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. Ask them to write down what happened from the time the woman (or women) came to the tomb until the time Jesus ascended to heaven. (Next time you go to a bookstore, look through the Bibles at the Gospel of Mark. Find a Bible version that acknowledges that the last 8 verses of Mark aren’t in the oldest manuscripts. Buy it in paperback. It’s worth it. You need to own a copy.)
4) There are a few rules to this task you’re going to give them. They need to write down what happened during the resurrection of Jesus, based on all four Gospels, AND THEY CAN’T LEAVE ANYTHING OUT. Ask them to pay attention to what time it was when the woman (women) arrived at the tomb. How many people were waiting there? Were these people angels? Young men? Where was the stone at the door? Was there an earthquake? Did Jesus show up? Did any of the menfolk get involved? At which places did Jesus appear afterwards? In what cities? The important thing is: THEY CAN’T LEAVE OUT ANY DETAILS.
5) Tell them you’ll give back their $20.00 as soon as they give you a written account of the resurrection, or when they admit defeat, or they can show evidence that they’ve even tried to do this. (I’ve learned that getting a cash deposit is the only way to get them to follow through on doint it.) You’re not dealing with an intellectual belief, like 2 and 2 is 4. You’re dealing with an emotional issue that they’ve never properly examined. In getting them to question this narrative, you’re asking them (more than likely) to question their family’s teachings, their community values, and everything that explains the universe for them. It’s a huge step you’re asking them to take, so be gentle.
6. For a somewhat comical version of this process, see this link: http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2008/11/resurrection-adapted-for-stage.html
That’s awesome, TWS. Also, you address me as if we’ve played WoW together before. Have we?
I’ve challenged a few fundies based on details of the bible (Genesis is another of those accounts that doesn’t make any chronological sense, even though it’s in a single book!). The end result is the same: rationalization.
Of course, with your idea, you also get $20, so I might try that next. Thanks!