Brenda O'Brian's "insight" into atheists

Tyrrial

The Irish Times really has lost me with this article...


first line reads: "Religious people and atheists have much in common – their beliefs require a leap of faith"

it then goes on to examine this horribly flawed statement as it where... (for lack of a better word) gospel.

Dades

BREDA O'BRIEN wrote:

Atheists often appeal to science to underwrite their disbelief, but the decision not to believe in God lies ultimately in the arena of gut feeling, or hunch, or intuition.

Science doesn't underwrite disbelief - it more a case of not underwriting belief.

And how can not sharing someone else's faith be a faith, ffs.

Breda O'Brien

I thought that the article was just about tolerable until I came to this in the final paragraph:

Breda O'Brien wrote:

Perhaps the real division is not between atheists and religious people, but between those who would wish to see a culture of social justice, concern for the vulnerable and weak and a sustainable future, and those who are just out to grab everything they can for themselves.

She is clearly being snide here and implicitly saying:

Theists = want a culture of social justice, concern for vulnerable and weak.
Atheists = "out to grab everything they can for themselves".

She doesn't explicitly say this, but it's clearly implied. How dare she? That's the second columnist/journalist that I've lost all respect for in the last few weeks.

Sam Vimes

Tyrrial wrote: »

"Religious people and atheists have much in common – their beliefs require a leap of faith"

stevejazzx

breda o' brien wrote:

Some atheists speak about the impossibility of proving a negative. Polemicists like Richard Dawkins like to talk about the impossibility of proving that there isn’t a teapot flying around the sun. It would be hard to imagine anyone, after serious weighing of and struggling with the possibilities, coming to believe in a flying solar teapot, but many, including prominent scientists, have come to believe in God.
Indeed, many believers see in science, particularly quantum physics, increasing evidence for, though not proof of, the existence of a god.

Most prominent scientists that talk of God do not mean a personal God. This is a well known fact. Hawking's is a good example. He mentions God in the end of BHOT and later clarified what he meant in an interview. Einstein was a really good example. He clearly believed in some kind of cosmic force but not a personal God as he stated many times. If quantum physics is doing anything at all then it's getting rid of the need for a God (prime mover) by explaining energy and time.

breda o' brien wrote:

She describes a long tradition of dialogue between theologians and atheists, which both sides found stimulating and valuable. She does not think such a dialogue can happen with new atheists, because unlike Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, they are not theologically literate. For example, she says that Dawkins takes the Bible as literally as any Protestant fundamentalist. The only point of disagreement is that Dawkins finds it unreliable about science, whereas fundamentalists do not.

Hitchens and Dawkins not theologically literate? She obviously has little experience of either of them. Dawkins *questions* whether or not the bible is a literal text. Religious people claim it is 'in part' and conveniently, only in the parts which are not ridiculous. The talking animals and some of the murdering stuff is allegory, metaphor, simile, onomatopoeia, hyperbole etc...the good stuff like Jesus saying "hey you don't disrespect your fellow man" is completely accurate.

eoin5

In the comments:

"Richard Reid: As an Agnostic (specifically not an Atheist) I find your final observation that "the atheist and religious person can be friends" to be patronisingly pointless. What, I wonder, is this "increasing evidence" in quantum physics which you say many believers see in science for the existence of a god? What god? What sort of god?."

I know its been done before but why do people still think there is this third choice called being an Agnostic? You either believe or you dont. If youre not sure you dont. To be an agnostic thats not an atheist means you are an agnostic theist, which is a very odd position to take.

</rant>

toiletduck

And so another person expressing their ignorance in the broadsheets. My we are getting popular! So problems are

i) not getting what atheism is (not that difficult to get if you put your mind to it!)

ii) thinking that taking pot shots at Richard Dawkins somehow 'lessens' atheism (see i)

iii) equating atheism with religious belief (see i)

iv) that atheism means some adherence to some form of social darwinism and/or other tenants (see i)


Hmm, seems a pattern is emerging...

Handsome Bob

eoin5 wrote: »

In the comments:

"Richard Reid: As an Agnostic (specifically not an Atheist) I find your final observation that "the atheist and religious person can be friends" to be patronisingly pointless. What, I wonder, is this "increasing evidence" in quantum physics which you say many believers see in science for the existence of a god? What god? What sort of god?."

I know its been done before but why do people still think there is this third choice called being an Agnostic? You either believe or you dont. If youre not sure you dont. To be an agnostic thats not an atheist means you are an agnostic theist, which is a very odd position to take.

</rant>

Agnostic Theist refers to someone who acknowledges the possibility that God does not exist, but who still makes the choice to continue living according to religious teachings.

On the other hand, I am an Agnostic, and I don't live my life according to any religious teachings. Agnostic is not the same as Agnostic Theist.

CerebralCortex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Agnostic Theist refers to someone who acknowledges the possibility that God does not exist, but who still makes the choice to continue living according to religious teachings.

On the other hand, I am an Agnostic, and I don't live my life according to any religious teachings. Agnostic is not the same as Agnostic Theist.

But don't see what doesn't make any sense about calling yourself Agnostic? I mean are you Agnostic to? The god of the Vikings, Shinto, Islam? What?

Rev Hellfire

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But don't see what doesn't make any sense about calling yourself Agnostic? I mean are you Agnostic to? The god of the Vikings, Shinto, Islam? What?

Of course it makes sense to call yourself agnostic to the idea of a god(s) while rejecting particular narrow definitions.

Galvasean

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.
It's like we're finally seen as a threat or something. In times past we could just be ignored because our numbers were so few. Now, apparently, we're something to worry about.

Tyrrial

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.
It's like we're finally seen as a threat or something. In times past we could just be ignored because our numbers were so few. Now, apparently, we're something to worry about.

Well i think we've a way to go before atheists are more than just a passing concern for most people.
Also if we where something to worry about i feel firstly that this blasphemous article may not have been published or maybe even the Defamation Act could have had a little bit of trouble getting passed.

pts

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.
It's like we're finally seen as a threat or something. In times past we could just be ignored because our numbers were so few. Now, apparently, we're something to worry about.

Reminds me of the words of this good man:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Galvasean

Can't say I'm looking forward to teh fight part... how many tanks do you think the atheists would have access to?

stevejazzx

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.
It's like we're finally seen as a threat or something. In times past we could just be ignored because our numbers were so few. Now, apparently, we're something to worry about.

This the affliction of the intelligent persons compartmentalized mind trying to fight off the diseased riddled remnants of an early religious childhood hence the shadowy sentimentality of the mother figure in the piece.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't say I'm looking forward to teh fight part... how many tanks do you think the atheists would have access to?

it's a shame the soviet union collapsed, but maybe we can still count on China.

Genghiz Cohen

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't say I'm looking forward to teh fight part... how many tanks do you think the atheists would have access to?

Don't worry, while the Theists are busy praying for protection, we'll sneak around behind them and launch the explosive packed babies.

Victory!

Galvasean

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Don't worry, while the Theists are busy praying for protection, we'll sneak around behind them and launch the explosive packed babies.

Victory!

Oh yeah, I forgot we don't have any morals and as such will stoop to any low.
This will be the basis for our victory.

Turtwig

Why would they fight us?

All you have to remind them is that if they're right then when we die we'll suffer for an eternity : surely that's better than waging warfare on us and risking their own lives.

Also, I quite liked this Irish Times comment:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

It'd be a lot politer than my one, just wondering whether I should bother ...

Gotta say though that it's really really REALLY begining to tick me off that people are claiming that Quantum Physics offers proof of an omnipotent power.

I really think the MRBI and Red C folks should poll quantum physicists on this;)

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.
It's like we're finally seen as a threat or something. In times past we could just be ignored because our numbers were so few. Now, apparently, we're something to worry about.

...blot out the sun...

Seriously have no intention of reading the article, the outtakes in the thread are enough to tell that it would simply be an exercise in frustration.

Húrin

Good article. I don't think I've ever read a word of Breda's that I disagree with.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I thought that the article was just about tolerable until I came to this in the final paragraph:

"Perhaps the real division is not between atheists and religious people, but between those who would wish to see a culture of social justice, concern for the vulnerable and weak and a sustainable future, and those who are just out to grab everything they can for themselves."

She is clearly being snide here and implicitly saying:

Theists = want a culture of social justice, concern for vulnerable and weak.
Atheists = "out to grab everything they can for themselves".

That must be the only part of the article you read. For that part is preceded by
"Many atheists would also be appalled by lack of social solidarity. Neither atheism nor religion has a monopoly on truth and morality. Ireland is facing enormous challenges in the years ahead."

and the title of the article is
"Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven"

So no, she obviously isn't saying what you want her to say.

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time I see an article in a mainstream publication trying to villify atheism I get a feeling of smug satisfaction.

I don't think that you read the article if you think Breda is trying to vilify atheism.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hitchens and Dawkins not theologically literate? She obviously has little experience of either of them. Dawkins *questions* whether or not the bible is a literal text. Religious people claim it is 'in part' and conveniently, only in the parts which are not ridiculous.

If he asserts that religious people differentiate literal from allegorical passages based on their convenience then he is theologically illiterate. The differentiation is in fact based on a discipline called exegesis. This uses the language of the text, informed by how language was used at the time, to discern its intended meaning.

Malty_T wrote: »

Gotta say though that it's really really REALLY begining to tick me off that people are claiming that Quantum Physics offers proof of an omnipotent power.

O'Brien specifically says that it doesn't offer any such proof in the article.

Zillah wrote: »

...blot out the sun...

Seriously have no intention of reading the article, the outtakes in the thread are enough to tell that it would simply be an exercise in frustration.

As my post above demonstrates, this thread has been an exercise in misrepresentation of O'Brien's article.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

If he asserts that religious people differentiate literal from allegorical passages based on their convenience then he is theologically illiterate. The differentiation is in fact based on a discipline called exegesis. This uses the language of the text, informed by how language was used at the time, to discern its intended meaning.

Most people who have ever picked up a bible have never even heard exegesis.

And other parties might even suggest exegeses is an exercise in convenience in itself. As in convenient that the stuff shown to be false by science happen to be 'exegesed' as being allegorical. :pac:

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

Most people who have ever picked up a bible have never even heard exegesis.

And other parties might even suggest exegeses is an exercise in convenience in itself. As in convenient that the stuff shown to be false by science happen to be 'exegesed' as being allegorical. :pac:

Exegeses in a nutshell:

"This part of the bible appears wrong/immoral/ridiculous. The bible is the perfect word of God so it can't be wrong, we must be reading it wrong. Let's interpret it until it's right again"

Turtwig

O'Brien specifically says that it doesn't offer any such proof in the article.

Of course she doesn't if she did I'd have torn her to shreds .
All, I was saying, is that I'm getting ticked off with people saying Quantum Physics offers proof at there being a deity. It is really annoying!
The problem is though, if you look at the passage it says

many, including prominent scientists, have come to believe in God.

This is then followed up by the fact that 'many believers' believe science offers prove of a deity. Some readers (impossible to quantify) would easily mistake this as to referring scientists. Why? An reference to scientists is directly followed by statement of science offering proof (questionable though it may be).. it's something you can experiment by yourself the next you write a blog or something.



Anyways, seeing as you're defending her,and I applaud you for letting your opinion be known, let's get the dissection started
On this passage alone she says

Many prominent scientists

Very vague, who are they? Are they still alive?

Many Believers

Again, who are they?

Examples would be nice, though I may stepping out of line here a bit, it seems she may be just writing what she thinks, an opinion. Opinion column though it may be, she still has to explain her thoughts and arguments ALOT better : sloppy.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Good article. I don't think I've ever read a word of Breda's that I disagree with.

Theres plenty of things I disagree with in the piece but those aside the things she does say about atheists that are fair enough really shouldnt need saying. Its the type of talk thats used to veil a snide type of bigotry. This kind of stuff:

"I realise with a certain degree of mild surprise that I know rather a lot of atheists, certainly far more than I should, given the overall representation of atheists in the population. The ones I know best are principled, highly moral people, and are extraordinarily tolerant of this columnist’s well-known religious biases. In fact, they are the kind of people that my mother would have declared, without a trace of irony or any wish to offend, to be certain of a high place in heaven."

The underlying tone is that of surprise at her atheist friends being nice people. Substitute black or homeless or any minority you like for atheist in that paragraph and youll get it.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think that you read the article if you think Breda is trying to vilify atheism.

You're right, she's not quite trying to vilify it, but she certainly portrays it as a maladaptive and worrying change in Irish society which poses a threat to our development as a nation

Brenda O'Brien wrote:

new atheists lack a passion to create a better world. Their desire to ascribe all evil to religion means that they show little concern for the poverty, injustice and humiliation that are underlying causes of many of the atrocities they label as religious.

As people abandon practice of their faith (in the sense of daily engagement with compassionate service and openness to mystery), some have substituted either the pursuit of wealth or selfish individualism. This can hardly be termed progress.

religious belief enables people to transcend suffering, inspires acts of altruism and builds community.

Húrin

Malty_T wrote: »

Of course she doesn't if she did I'd have torn her to shreds .
All, I was saying, is that I'm getting ticked off with people saying Quantum Physics offers proof at there being a deity. It is really annoying!

Who are they?

This is then followed up by the fact that 'many believers' believe science offers prove of a deity. Some readers (impossible to quantify) would easily mistake this as to referring scientists. Why? An reference to scientists is directly followed by statement of science offering proof (questionable though it may be).. it's something you can experiment by yourself the next you write a blog or something.

Evidence isn't proof. She mentions evidence.

Very vague, who are they? Are they still alive?

It doesn't need to be said. You'd have to be pretty blinkered to think that 100% of scientists these days are atheists.

Again, who are they?

Again, doesn't need to be said. She's talking about a large segment of society.

Examples would be nice, though I may stepping out of line here a bit, it seems she may be just writing what she thinks, an opinion. Opinion column though it may be, she still has to explain her thoughts and arguments ALOT better.

I agree. I think she tries to say too much in too little space.

Dades wrote: »

Most people who have ever picked up a bible have never even heard exegesis.

I expect they have. Anyone who teaches the Bible to other people is relying on some form of interpretation.

And other parties might even suggest exegeses is an exercise in convenience in itself. As in convenient that the stuff shown to be false by science happen to be 'exegesed' as being allegorical.

Exegesis ends with a conclusion. It does not start with one. You are starting with a conclusion about what exegesis is, to suit your prejudices.

eoin5 wrote: »

Theres plenty of things I disagree with in the piece but those aside the things she does say about atheists that are fair enough really shouldnt need saying. Its the type of talk thats used to veil a snide type of bigotry. This kind of stuff:

"I realise with a certain degree of mild surprise that I know rather a lot of atheists, certainly far more than I should, given the overall representation of atheists in the population. The ones I know best are principled, highly moral people, and are extraordinarily tolerant of this columnist’s well-known religious biases. In fact, they are the kind of people that my mother would have declared, without a trace of irony or any wish to offend, to be certain of a high place in heaven."

The underlying tone is that of surprise at her atheist friends being nice people. Substitute black or homeless or any minority you like for atheist in that paragraph and youll get it.

Nonsense. She's trying to guard against the kind of misreading that is happening in this thread. Atheists are not a disadvantaged minority either unlike your examples.

MatthewVII wrote: »

You're right, she's not quite trying to vilify it, but she certainly portrays it as a maladaptive and worrying change in Irish society which poses a threat to our development as a nation

None of the statements you picked out are false. It seems she can't win: when she highlights selfless and moral atheists she's a baddie; when she highlights selfish and amoral atheists she's a baddie too.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Exegesis ends with a conclusion. It does not start with one. You are starting with a conclusion about what exegesis is, to suit your prejudices.

You start with the conclusion that the bible is the perfect word of God and anything that suggests otherwise is simply being interpreted wrong. No other book gets that treatment, if it appears to be wrong that's because it is

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You start with the conclusion that the bible is the perfect word of God and anything that suggests otherwise is simply being interpreted wrong. No other book gets that treatment, if it appears to be wrong that's because it is

Yeah that point is quite stunningly ignored by believers who claim to seriously study the Bible.

You cannot seriously study a book of history without considering the possibility that the authors were mistaken/wrong/contradictory/inaccurate/lying/making stuff up

It is all very well saying that you are going to study the Bible in terms of what you believe the authors meant in the context of the time they lived, rather than a modern slant or interpretation.

But Bible exegesis is invariably done using the context that the authors were being inspired by God. Which makes the whole process ridiculous.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Nonsense. She's trying to guard against the kind of misreading that is happening in this thread. Atheists are not a disadvantaged minority either unlike your examples.

I havent a clue how thats supposed to help guard against misreading, the zeitgeist has moved on from statements like like that. Its just stuff that doesnt need saying. Consider this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o . And of course atheists are disadvantaged, would you be up for wearing a tshirt with "I'm an atheist" on it for a week to prove otherwise?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You start with the conclusion that the bible is the perfect word of God and anything that suggests otherwise is simply being interpreted wrong. No other book gets that treatment, if it appears to be wrong that's because it is

Exegesis is concerned with finding out what the authors are really trying to say. I don't see how it is relevant whether the authors are correct or in error in their beliefs - exegetes are trying to find what their beliefs were. That said, most experts in Biblical exegesis do not view the Bible as inerrant. Indeed, some non-Christians do it too.

Wicknight wrote: »

But Bible exegesis is invariably done using the context that the authors were being inspired by God. Which makes the whole process ridiculous.

Why are you making such an assumption about how exegesis is "invariably done"?

eoin5 wrote: »

I havent a clue how thats supposed to help guard against misreading, the zeitgeist has moved on from statements like like that. Its just stuff that doesnt need saying. Consider this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o . And of course atheists are disadvantaged, would you be up for wearing a tshirt with "I'm an atheist" on it for a week to prove otherwise?

I find this insinuation that O'Brien is prejudiced against atheists, or thinks that they're bad enough to require some patronising, to be barely credible in this day and age. I think you who make such are just begging for an enemy. This idea that atheists in Ireland are swimming against the river or are in any way not completely part of the established cultural mainstream is infantile.

In Dublin I'd rather wear that around than "I'm a Christian" (I think this would draw the most mockery) or other religion. Atheists are not disadvantaged in Ireland in terms of career choice, material wealth, or any of the usual criteria. Indeed, the middle and upper classes have traditionally been overrepresented in the "ranks" of atheists.

Coriolanus

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists are not disadvantaged in Ireland in terms of career choice, material wealth, or any of the usual criteria.

Well, if they want to be a judge, they have to perjure themselves, don't they? Not exactly a shining way to start off one's career in the higher echelons of the justice system.

Húrin

Nevore wrote: »

Well, if they want to be a judge, they have to perjure themselves, don't they? Not exactly a shining way to start off one's career in the higher echelons of the justice system.

One of my neighbours is a judge and they are not religious by any means. Doesn't seem to cause a problem.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

I find this insinuation that O'Brien is prejudiced against atheists, or thinks that they're bad enough to require some patronising, to be barely credible in this day and age. I think you who make such are just begging for an enemy. This idea that atheists in Ireland are swimming against the river or are in any way not completely part of the established cultural mainstream is infantile.

In Dublin I'd rather wear that around than "I'm a Christian" (I think this would draw the most mockery) or other religion. Atheists are not disadvantaged in Ireland in terms of career choice, material wealth, or any of the usual criteria. Indeed, the middle and upper classes have traditionally been overrepresented in the "ranks" of atheists.

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

Shacklebolt

eoin5 wrote: »

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

Ah but Hurin is using his skills at Exegesis to interpret what Brenda really meant to say in her article.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled minority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

You think I'm misreading it. I think you're just seeking justification for your victim complex.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled majority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Ah I love the way Dubs think what happens in Dublin is representitive of the rest of Ireland. Also while your fellow twenty somethings may not be religious that says nothing about there belief in God or the Catholic shame they maybe stuck with. Members of my familly even behave less like a Christian than I do and still go to mass. You should not underestimate the power of institutional fear and fleeting youth to have people flock back to religion.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled majority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Your peers are not a statistical sample. Look at the census. (Yes, I know it's probably somewhat inaccurate, but I doubt it's out by more than a few percent.)

Stercus Accidit

I'd be surprised if the census were any way representative of the level of actual dedicated religious belief in this country, with census forms filled in by mammy, or the generally religiously apathetic who are catholic by birth only, who haven't seen the inside of a church unless for a wedding, funeral or christmas get together since their confirmation as children.

Valmont

It's taken a while, but this article has finally pushed me to a state of anti-theism. I just wanted to smash my computer, I mean, come on, how can some people be this f***ing stupid? I don't care if it's arrogant anymore, I'm calling bull****, bull****. :mad:

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah I love the way Dubs think what happens in Dublin is representitive of the rest of Ireland.

In the rest of the country it isn't that different bud. There's a bit more of the physical act of going to mass, but in terms of belief, we're one post-Catholic nation.

Also while your fellow twenty somethings may not be religious that says nothing about there belief in God or the Catholic shame they maybe stuck with.

Which doesn't make them Catholic or Christian or religious and is thus irrelevant.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Your peers are not a statistical sample. Look at the census. (Yes, I know it's probably somewhat inaccurate, but I doubt it's out by more than a few percent.)

I'm pretty sure the census is out drastically in terms of being a measurement of devout believers. It is probably accurate as a measurement of cultural backgrounds.

The Mad Hatter

My own experience says otherwise, and because I have the supporting evidence of the census I'm inclined to trust it.

I work with people of a wide variety of classes, ages and backgrounds, and the vast majority of them are Christian - many vocally so.

Húrin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My own experience says otherwise, and because I have the supporting evidence of the census I'm inclined to trust it.

I work with people of a wide variety of classes, ages and backgrounds, and the vast majority of them are Christian - many vocally so.

Where do you live? By Christian do you mean Catholic? Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Exegesis is concerned with finding out what the authors are really trying to say. I don't see how it is relevant whether the authors are correct or in error in their beliefs - exegetes are trying to find what their beliefs were. That said, most experts in Biblical exegesis do not view the Bible as inerrant. Indeed, some non-Christians do it too.

The thing is, though, that it's usually pretty obvious what their beliefs were from reading the text but it seems that it always turns out that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean when what it appears to mean doesn't match what we think it should mean. They're not trying to find out what their beliefs were, they're trying to gloss over the fact that their beliefs no longer match those of society. Any time I find what appears for all the world to be a glaring error, inconsistency, immoral part I find it's been analysed to death until the "accepted wisdom" is that black means white and nothing is ever presented to back up the assertion. It's always just someone's opinion.

And of course,the main problem with exegesis remains the fact that it does not consider the possibility that they made the whole lot up, which I personally think is what happened. They will read anyone else's holy book and point to any inconsistencies as evidence against the book, as they should, but any inconsistencies in their own are simply exegesised.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Hey I copyrighted that line :P

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is, though, that it's usually pretty obvious what their beliefs were from reading the text but it seems that it always turns out that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean when what it appears to mean doesn't match what we think it should mean.

So you think what it appears to be at first glance must always be the true meaning? That's dogmatic, lazy and ignorant.

They're not trying to find out what their beliefs were, they're trying to gloss over the fact that their beliefs no longer match those of society. Any time I find what appears for all the world to be a glaring error, inconsistency, immoral part I find it's been analysed to death until the "accepted wisdom" is that black means white and nothing is ever presented to back up the assertion. It's always just someone's opinion.

If that was true then the Bible's disagreement would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.

And of course,the main problem with exegesis remains the fact that it does not consider the possibility that they made the whole lot up, which I personally think is what happened.

Of course not. If they thought that then they would have to flippantly dismiss their own area of study.

You think that Biblical authors made the whole lot up, but that's faith - an emotional reason. You have no evidence for that at all, and you think that perhaps exegetes should embrace your opinion simply because it makes atheism easier. Why should they consider that possibility?

They will read anyone else's holy book and point to any inconsistencies as evidence against the book, as they should, but any inconsistencies in their own are simply exegesised.

Who are you thinking of?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Hey I copyrighted that line :P

I performed Sam Vimes cheapo value exegesis on the boards charter and found that all words here are copyleft.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the census is out drastically in terms of being a measurement of devout believers. It is probably accurate as a measurement of cultural backgrounds.

I agree with you, I think the census is way off... I think by as much as 20%. But I also agree that the peers of one person is not at all representative. About 40% of my closer peers are anti-theists, another 40% are regular Atheist/agnostic, 15% are alternative spiritual, and less than 5% are theistic. In fact, I can't think of a single acquaintance I've met in the last two months who describes themselves as Christian...but I would never think this is representative even of the student population of Dublin, let alone a larger demographic.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

So you think what it appears to be at first glance must always be the true meaning? That's dogmatic, lazy and ignorant.

You really have a way with words I must say. All I'm saying is you shouldn't decide what it means based on what you want it to mean. If something appears to mean something that's usually because it does.......unless it's in the book that contains the perfect word of god and can't possibly be wrong

Húrin wrote: »

If that was true then the Bible's disagreement would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.

Unless they're taking the literal meaning of the words in front of them, it all boils down to someone's biased opinion, whatever that bias may be.

Húrin wrote: »

Of course not. If they thought that then they would have to flippantly dismiss their own area of study.

You think that Biblical authors made the whole lot up, but that's faith - an emotional reason. You have no evidence for that at all, and you think that perhaps exegetes should embrace your opinion simply because it makes atheism easier. Why should they consider that possibility?

In fact I have lots of evidence of it. There are many things that are factually wrong, there are dozens of contradictions even in the most important story, the resurrection. There is evidence that the gospel writers were trying to make it look like Jesus fit the prophecies because he fits them in different ways. And of course the most important evidence is that there is no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There are millions of claims of supernatural events from history and I see no reason to give this one any more credence than the story of Zeus

They should consider the possibility that it's all made up because the existence of the christian god has not been proven, therefore it is possible that it was all made up. Not to consider that possibility is intellectually dishonest and makes the whole process futile. They are beginning with the assumption that the bible is true and trying to explain away anything that doesn't fit that unfounded assumption. The whole discipline is based on an unfounded assumption

Húrin wrote: »

Who are you thinking of?

When writing that I was thinking of a post from Jakkass where he said that any inconsistencies in the book of mormon indicated that it wasn't true. Why not apply exegesis to that book by beginning with the assumption that it's true and any apparent errors are allegorical?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You really have a way with words I must say. All I'm saying is you shouldn't decide what it means based on what you want it to mean. If something appears to mean something that's usually because it does.......unless it's in the book that contains the perfect word of god and can't possibly be wrong

I agree. Respectable exegesis is like respectable science: it doesn't start with a conclusion and work its way back.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unless they're taking the literal meaning of the words in front of them, it all boils down to someone's biased opinion, whatever that bias may be.

Sorry I meant to say "If that was true then the Bible's disagreement with homosexuality, for instance, would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.""

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact I have lots of evidence of it. There are many things that are factually wrong, there are dozens of contradictions even in the most important story, the resurrection. There is evidence that the gospel writers were trying to make it look like Jesus fit the prophecies because he fits them in different ways. And of course the most important evidence is that there is no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There are millions of claims of supernatural events from history and I see no reason to give this one any more credence than the story of Zeus

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

They should consider the possibility that it's all made up because the existence of the christian god has not been proven, therefore it is possible that it was all made up. Not to consider that possibility is intellectually dishonest and makes the whole process futile. They are beginning with the assumption that the bible is true and trying to explain away anything that doesn't fit that unfounded assumption. The whole discipline is based on an unfounded assumption

I've already pointed out that performing exegesis on a text does not indicate that the exegete thinks the content of the text is true.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When writing that I was thinking of a post from Jakkass where he said that any inconsistencies in the book of mormon indicated that it wasn't true. Why not apply exegesis to that book by beginning with the assumption that it's true and any apparent errors are allegorical?

Why are you insisting, without evidence, that Biblical exegetes have false motives for what they do? Most of them do not subscribe to Biblical inerrancy so if contradictions really exist in the Bible, then they should not be glossed over.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

In all fairness, I think I have to point out that we only have "their" word for it that they were willing to die for it, and even then, there were not more than a handful (perhaps not even that), who were even reported to have died thinking it was all true.

Other contemporaneous authors don't produce tales of grand sacrifice or miraculous happenings. Or at least, they didn't produce christian ones anyway.

That said, I think you're right in suggesting that they were probably deluded, though I think it's almost inevitable that at least some posthumous creative editing went on too.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Sorry I meant to say "If that was true then the Bible's disagreement with homosexuality, for instance, would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.""

Why would that be? The bible isn't the only motivation for people disliking homosexuality. An atheist sees the bible as coming entirely from men so all the views in it would have originally been those of men

Húrin wrote: »

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

That's a possibility too, although there is the "ends justify the means" possibility, where they believed strongly in the message of Jesus but knew no one would listen to them to they said he was God. People would be willing to die for that belief even though they were using lies to spread it. As you point out, religion can have a placebo effect whether it's true or not

And of course, to say that they were willing to die is to go back to assuming the bible is true. They might well not have been. They might not even have existed.

Húrin wrote: »

I've already pointed out that performing exegesis on a text does not indicate that the exegete thinks the content of the text is true.

But you asked me "why would they consider the possibility that it's not true?"

Húrin wrote: »

Why are you insisting, without evidence, that Biblical exegetes have false motives for what they do? Most of them do not subscribe to Biblical inerrancy so if contradictions really exist in the Bible, then they should not be glossed over.

I wouldn't use the word false motives, that implies some kind of deviousness. They have the mistaken belief that we can safely assume the bible is divinely inspired.

I'm not insisting without evidence, I've come across many example where I read something and it turns out later on that people have arbitrarily decided that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean and have nothing to back it up other than what they think. One example would be the removal of limbo a few years ago and another would be a new one I heard where God apparently doesn't condemn people who commit suicide because they weren't in the right frame of mind at the time. I didn't get the memo from god myself. These people haven't been told these things by god, they just decided to believe them because they wanted them to be true.

In science, nothing is accepted just because of who's saying it. Even everything Stephen Hawking says is independently verified hundreds of times before being accepted as true. Whereas with exegesis, you have nothing but the perceived authority behind whoever is putting forward the opinion to say that they're right. It's just an argument from authority.

With science, people might point to Stephen Hawking saying something as evidence of its truth but if I don't accept that, I can look to the evidence cited by Hawking and see if he is indeed right. People point to exegesis to back up their points but exegesis doesn't point to anything. It's just an opinion