Bible | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'bible' Category

Denial of Evolution and "the word of God"

Published

on April 16, 2008

in bible, creationism, evolution and religion

. 4 Comments

If you’ve ever debated creationists, you’ve probably heard a version of this argument:

Scientists say evolution is true and the Earth is old, but they’re only human and fallible. Between them and God’s word (the Bible), I’d trust God any day.

But how do they know the Bible is God’s word?

An incredible large number of believers will say something like, “well, it says so right in there! Would God lie?”. Sorry to say this, but that is such a ridiculously stupid argument that I can have no respect for you as an human being afterwards. Do realize how idiotic it is to say that something must be true simply because it says so? Would you believe a murder suspect with a lot of evidence against him to be innocent, as long as he said “I didn’t do it, and I’m telling the truth“? If you believe that, then, well, (inspiring music) know henceforth that this blog is the very word of the High God, the more-supreme-than-supreme being who created all human gods, including yours (after all, nothing can exist without being created, so someone must have created Yahweh and so on, right? The High God did it. Ignore the obvious implication.). Therefore, you must believe everything written here, since these are not just my words, but the words of the High God himself. The High God wants you to send me a billion dollars. You doubt it? Are you calling the High God himself a liar?

A slightly smaller number of believers will reply with something much like “I feel in my heart that this is the word of God. When I read it, it touches my soul in a way that no mortal words ever could.”

Well, what if you’re mistaken?

What, you believe you can’t be? Do you consider yourself infallible? Perfect? Incapable of error about something like this? Are you claiming that, just because you “feel” something, those feelings must be true, with no possibility of your being just mistaken or deluded?

Then what about all the other people out there who feel things completely different than you? How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong? How can you be sure your feelings are 100% trustworthy, but those of other people are not?

Most people would agree that claiming “I can’t possibly be wrong; I am incapable of error” is the epitome of arrogance. Then why is it that nobody is called on it when the subject is the belief that a book (written thousands of years ago) must be the word of a god? Or that the feelings in your heart must be justified (even though that is not valid for other people’s feelings)?

Admit it: there’s no way to be sure that the Bible is divinely inspired, other than one of the two: dumb circular logic you wouldn’t accept for anything else, or the belief that you’re infallible about something.

More on this: The Aura of Infallibility, on Daylight Atheism

Is Christianity to blame for Bible-inspired sexism?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 15, 2008

in bible, christianity and sexism

. 3 Comments

Seen on Friendly Atheist: a female referee was forbidden to ref a boys’ high school basketball game because it would mean putting her in a position of authority over males. Which, according to the Bible, is a big no-no.

To condemn this as bigoted and repulsive would be redundant, since others — even some Christians — have already done so. Therefore, I’ll address this question: is Christianity to blame for this, considering that most Christians don’t actually agree with such first-century bigoted “morals”?

I believe that, yes, Christianity is to blame.

Consider the facts:

the Bible includes that passage. And it’s in the New Testament, after Jesus, so one can’t use the old “oh, that’s in the OT, Jesus changed all the rules” excuse which allows Christians to ignore the prohibition on eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabric, but to believe homosexuality is still an “abomination”.
many denominations, and therefore many believers, believe (and teach) that the Bible is 100% true, and the literal word of God. (think about why they refuse to accept the fact of evolution: it’s not because it disproves God (it doesn’t), but because it means that Genesis isn’t literally true.)

Now, Christians could have changed the Bible. It’s not like they didn’t do it often in the first couple of centuries after Jesus, after all. Or they could have left that passage in there, but with a warning that it corresponds to Paul’s bigotry, not to what God actually wants. More liberal church leaders could actually denounce that passage as unjust and incompatible with a “god of love”. Or, like some other denominations do, simply accept that the Bible had many authors, many of its parts are parables or myths, and it was a product of its time, not to mention that it was edited often in the beginning, so it’s quite possible that someone inserted his own beliefs and agenda in it — which at the time would almost surely include bigotry.

But no. They still insist that the Bible is the literal word of God, 100% accurate, and so on. Which means God is a sexist bigot. And they’re OK with that.

If Christianity says “this book is 100% true”, and that book includes sexism, then Christianity is sexist, and is to blame for the sexism it causes.

Science vs. the Bible, and the God of the Gaps… again

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on June 20, 2007

in bible, christianity and religion

. 23 Comments

Science, much like species, evolves; it’s not based on dogma, so, when evidence contradicts a theory (even a cherished one), the theory must be discarded. This is science’s greatest strength, and, yet, according to creationists and other theists, it’s a “weakness”, since God’s words “don’t change”…

One of the theists’ arguments goes like this: “science explains 95% of it, but the Bible explains 100%! The Bible is obviously superior!”.

The problem is that the Bible doesn’t actually explain anything! Every “explanation” is either magical, or requires something else that is unexplained — and, often, by definition unexplainable. Furthermore, a lot of the available evidence contradicts the Bible’s claims: no, there was never a worldwide flood. No, it wouldn’t be possible for the Ark to carry all those animals. No, the universe isn’t just 6000 years old. No, species weren’t created as they are. And so on.

A variant of that claim (PZ mentions it here) is to say that, since science explains only 95% of something, to trust in science requires faith… and, not only that, it requires as much faith as the religionists’ explanation. What they don’t understand is that those 95% have survived every available evidence so far, while many “scientific” claims in the Bible have been disproved long ago — and only the most willingly blind continue to believe them. The Bible’s claims remind me of Chico (not Groucho, as many people mistakenly believe) Marx’s “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”, or of that claim from an ancient church father, that he would believe black is white if the church told him so.

The other claim by theists (especially creationists) is this: “science explains just 95% of it? Then the remaining 5% are obviously an act of God, and science will never be able to explain them! This proves God exists!”

Next year, that field of science advances another 1%, and you can guess exactly how the theists’ claim will change… and how they will scream it with as much certainty as the year before.

"Circular Logic R Us"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 31, 2007

in bible, christianity and logic

. 59 Comments

Bible

Isn’t it annoying when Christians use the Bible as “proof” that God exists?

Yesterday, I had to delete several comments here, all from the same guy. They were long and obviously written long before, totally unrelated to the posts they appeared on, and most of them were quotes from the Bible, including, repeated several times, a bit from a psalm: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Obviously, that was supposed to convince me, and any other atheists, that we’re being utter fools by disbelieving God… since the Bible says only fools do so!

Christians, if you don’t see the problem with that “logic”, anything I say will probably fall on deaf ears anyway… but, please, think just a little about it.

Suppose I write a book tomorrow, and in that book I write that I am God. Would you believe it, because that book says I’m God, and, so, since I wrote it, that book is the word of God, and therefore it must be true?

I’m sure you won’t. “A says B is true, and B says A is true, which proves both are true” is circular logic, and it doesn’t work.

Well, it’s exactly the same thing with your book. We think of it as you think of the Qur’an: not a reliable source. Do you believe Muhammad’s claims are true just because the Qur’an — which he wrote — says so?

Anyone (who is literate, that is) can write a book. And, sorry to say, yours isn’t special.

Heliocentrism = Atheism / Anti-American? Gee…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 20, 2007

in bible, christianity, fanaticism and religion

. 4 Comments

Like several other bloggers, I wonder if this post on Blogs 4 Brownback, Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine, is a joke. On one hand, it is quite well written in terms of language, and of course the premise is ridiculous, which suggests that this is a new Shelley the Republican. It can also serve as a exaggerated parody of anti-evolution propaganda: a total disregard for facts and reality, because the Bible says differently.

On the other hand, the fact that it’s on a quasi-official blog for a presidential candidate makes it appear serious. Frighteningly so.

If you think about it, however, then you’ll realize one thing: if that is for real, then the author is not doing anything other than being coherent with his own beliefs… because, according to the Bible, the earth really does not move. Why accept biblical infallibility for some things and nor for others? Why use the Bible as an argument against evolution (because many people don’t understand how it works, and don’t know that “theory”, in scientific terms, means something quite different than some wild fancy), but not heliocentrism or a round earth, which are accepted by virtually everyone these days? Where do you draw the line? And why draw one at all?

Either the Bible can be trusted, or not. I obviously think it can’t, but, to most Christians — especially fundamentalist ones –, it can. So why be selective? Would God ever lie? If it says that the earth is flat, then it must be… and, taken to the extreme, if a Christian was taken on a rocket ship and made to look at the earth from space, he’d deny the truth of what he was seeing as “an illusion from Satan”. Or “an illusion from God, to test our faith” (they actually say this one about fossils). Because, to quote Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Fundies. Who else can make us laugh and frighten us at the same time?

"The Bible is the origin of morality"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 9, 2007

in bible and christianity

. 6 Comments

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

– Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Lovely.

Abraham and Isaac

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 2, 2007

in bible, christianity and morality

. 6 Comments

The story of Abraham and Isaac, in the Old Testament, is one of the best known in the Bible. Abraham and his wife can’t have a child until old age, then miraculously they have a son, and then God tells Abraham to sacrifice his long-awaited child, which he accepts without question. At the last possible moment, God tells Abraham to stop, as it was all just a test, and to sacrifice an animal instead.

Incredibly enough, Abraham’s actions are considered “good” by most Christians, even though we probably value human life quite higher than we did thousands — or even hundreds — of years ago. However, due to precisely the latter fact, many people explain that part of the bible as “not literal”, “just an allegory”, or “simply a moral lesson”.

Vjack of Atheist Revolution addresses that contradiction: even if that is just “an allegory”, it’s an allegory to what? Certainly, in modern moral terms, there’s nothing to learn from a father ready to kill his infant child. Besides, many Christians don’t believe it to be “just an allegory”: many fundamentalists, especially in America, believe in the Bible (with all its absurdities, atrocities and contradictions) literally.

As for choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally and which ones not to, I have addressed it in the past, such as here. In short: if you accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then, for a human to decide which parts come from God and which don’t, or to decide which are literal and which aren’t, is an act of supreme arrogance, it’s believing you “know better than God”.

But what about the morality of this tale, itself?

Continue reading ‘Abraham and Isaac’

Christianity without the Bible, part 3

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 27, 2007

in bible, christianity and religion

. 24 Comments

NOTE: You might want to read part 1 and part 2 as well.

From a comment by micah:

Why couldn’t belief in God come from something other than the bible? One doesn’t have to believe the biographies of George Washington are completely true to think that George Washington did indeed exist.

Expanding a little on my reply over there…

For a general belief in “a” god, no. But for Christianity, well, you can’t redefine terms. Much like you can’t say “I’m a vegan, but I eat meat,” you can’t say “I’m a Christian, but I think Jesus, if he existed, was just a man.” Both of those contradict the main point of the definitions!

Now, if you DON’T contradict the definitions, and believe in the divinity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, and accept him as your savior, but refuse the Bible… well, there’s a problem, since there’s nothing else about Jesus from even NEAR his time. The 4 gospels were written decades after his death (and contradict one another, but that’s another story), but non-Christian literature only started to mention Jesus centuries after his death, and at a time when there were already many, many Christians; in other words, it was second-hand (or third-hand, because the only thing those Christians had was the gospels, and oral tradition) information at best.

So, how do you know whatever Jesus was, did, or say, without the Bible? How do you know he even existed?

Unless you’ve had a “vision” or dream of Jesus (and we know how reliable those are…), either you use the Bible, or you make up your own “Jesus”. I really don’t see any other possibilities here.

An experiment

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 21, 2007

in bible, christianity and religion

. 7 Comments

I want you to picture yourself performing the following experiment:

1- Pick about 30 books at random. Really, randomness is important. The books are supposed to be of varied genres, authors, and so on, and it doesn’t matter whether you’ve read them before or not. The sample is supposed to include many different kinds of books: technical, political, fiction, children’s, philosophical, erotic, poetry, whatever. Don’t restrict yourself to books you figure you will like, or authors you think you agree with. As I said, randomness is vital. The best way would be for a computer to pick books from a huge catalog, randomly.

2- Read them all. Whenever you find something you agree with, or something you find inspiring or insightful, remember it. Bookmark and/or underline those parts, or copy them somewhere else.

Note: there’s no need for artificial “fairness”. Don’t feel like you have to pick at least one thing from each book, or that you must take equally from each. It’s perfectly OK to take a lot from a book and nothing from another.

3- Forget about everything you didn’t mark or copy. From now on, think of the parts you marked or copied as the “core” of those books, as the truly meaningful parts of them.

4- Use the parts you collected as a “guidebook” for your life, as a wonderful source of wisdom, knowledge and morality. (Ignore the fact that you picked whatever you already believed or agreed with.) Follow that guidebook for the rest of your life. Defend it, if necessary.

Strange experiment, isn’t it? But you probably already know what I’m getting at. I’ve just described, in a way, what virtually every Christian does with the Bible. (Those who actually read any of it, that is.)

The “random books by different, random authors” part was important, because the Bible isn’t only one book, it’s a collection of several, written by many authors who never met each other, sometimes separated by centuries, and who sometimes contradict each other. Not to mention that some parts are song lyrics, some are proverbs, some are (highly biased) history accounts, and some are laws or moral rules.

So, most Christians pick the parts they already agree with, ignore the rest, and call their favorite parts “the core of the Bible”. You’re a nice person? Pick the few love / forgiveness parts (mostly in the Gospels). You’re a bigot? Pick Leviticus, or Paul’s books in the NT. You’re suspicious of science and secular knowledge? Pick Genesis, along with some parts from Job. Want to believe God is good, loving, and just? Ignore virtually all of the Bible, and invent your own God in your mind, with the traits you want him to have (but keep calling yourself a “Christian”).

And, no matter what you do, defend the parts you’ve picked as if they represent not only the entire Bible, but Christianity itself.

Why do Christians hate homosexuals (but not shellfish-eaters)?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 19, 2007

in bible, christianity and religion

. 94 Comments

There’s a recent post at The Atheist Ethicist, The Source of Hatred, where Alonzo explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals.

According to him, religion is not the cause. It’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “the Bible says it’s an abomination.”

But… Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians probably eat shrimp, and, anyway, there was never any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?

The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.

I loved this part in the article:

If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.

What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.