I was pleased to come across "Bible study: More people say the Good Book isn’t a God book" on Religious News Service' website. However, given how much information is available on the history and impact of the Bible the numbers are still rather dismal. It is also still quite disheartening that so few are willing to read, pay attention to what they are reading, and scrutinizing what they actually read in the Bible. It really is a horrible book. The "values" argument is completely unfounded. The "heroes" of the Bible are worse than any villain Hollywood could conjure up and God himself is a blood-soaked tyrant. It is also crap in terms of literary standards. There are a number of non-religious individuals who have made the equally bogus claim that it has a great deal of merit in terms of its writing. It doesn't. The closest forms of literature outside sacred text it can be compared to is that of an anthology. If you apply the criteria used to evaluate anthologies it doesn't hold up very well.
Despite this lack of merit I do not want to give a false impression or provide any excuses to those who may misconstrue my negative views of the "Good Book." I in no way endorse banning it or discouraging people from reading and talking about it. As the post implies, the more people do read and pay attention to it the less likely they will be to continue to view it in such biased delusional ways.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Actually, "God plays the villain" all the time
It is interesting that Baden seems to accept, though in a wishy-washy manner, that God can be a "villain." There are a few points that I do agree with him despite having different reasons and interpretations. For instance, I agree that when it comes to explaining/accepting the existence of evil; "This is our problem, not the Bible’s." I would differ from him in some fairly obvious ways. Namely, since the Bible is a work of fiction created by us the impetus in figuring out evil still falls on us. Even if you insist on the Bible being some type of supernatural work it still would not be the fault of the Bible directly. The Bible is pretty clear that God is a tyrannical psychopath so it is not likely to help us with examining the nature of evil in any meaningful way.
This line of thought leads to some other differences I take with the overall approach and implications of Baden's "When God plays the villain" piece. The title suggests it is only an occasional thing that God is the bad guy. How does that not eviscerate some of the most commonly held beliefs about God. If God is the supreme being and the creator/source of all things then God must the origin of evil. God cannot "play" the villain since God is the villain. It is equally true (within the context) that if evil is always present then God is constantly rather than occasionally the villain. This in turn leads to a variety of dilemmas and paradoxes for theists. How can an all-powerful and perfect God be both benign and malevolent simultaneously? How can an absolute divine being create freewill? If humans cannot violate the basic traits of a perfect entity (Omnipotent, Omniscient...) how can we possess freewill or any responsibility or meaning? And so forth...
Overall, it is an interesting piece. I enjoyed reading most of it but was a bit disappointed with how he winds it down. I should have seen it coming despite hoping for something more substantial. The very last sentence was an all too common theistic dodge.
"In other words, it is our changing concept of God, over two millennia, that is responsible for the moral dilemma. It’s our problem, not the Bible’s."
No, in other words, bullshit. Every version of the God concept is problematic. The concept is by its nature a paradox. It is from its contradictions and incompatible components that makes it a dilemma.
This line of thought leads to some other differences I take with the overall approach and implications of Baden's "When God plays the villain" piece. The title suggests it is only an occasional thing that God is the bad guy. How does that not eviscerate some of the most commonly held beliefs about God. If God is the supreme being and the creator/source of all things then God must the origin of evil. God cannot "play" the villain since God is the villain. It is equally true (within the context) that if evil is always present then God is constantly rather than occasionally the villain. This in turn leads to a variety of dilemmas and paradoxes for theists. How can an all-powerful and perfect God be both benign and malevolent simultaneously? How can an absolute divine being create freewill? If humans cannot violate the basic traits of a perfect entity (Omnipotent, Omniscient...) how can we possess freewill or any responsibility or meaning? And so forth...
Overall, it is an interesting piece. I enjoyed reading most of it but was a bit disappointed with how he winds it down. I should have seen it coming despite hoping for something more substantial. The very last sentence was an all too common theistic dodge.
"In other words, it is our changing concept of God, over two millennia, that is responsible for the moral dilemma. It’s our problem, not the Bible’s."
No, in other words, bullshit. Every version of the God concept is problematic. The concept is by its nature a paradox. It is from its contradictions and incompatible components that makes it a dilemma.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Quotation
"Many think it is impolite to talk about religion in any meaningful way in most settings. Strangely, this unwritten prohibition is promoted most vigorously by people who talk about religion in virtually every setting."
Guy P. Harrison
"Is It Rude to Ask?"
50 Simple Questions for Every Christian
Guy P. Harrison
"Is It Rude to Ask?"
50 Simple Questions for Every Christian
It's Not Always About Legality
Mark Osler's March 31st HuffPo piece fails to live up to its title, "Bigotry or Belief? A Test", in a few rather obvious ways. The first mistake he makes is in conflating whether something is legal or not with whether it amounts to bigotry. This is somewhat understandable since he is a law professor and therefore may think primarily in legalistic terms. However, his "test" only determines whether an individual or group can legally get away with a specific set of behaviors/actions. It says nothing about whether those behaviors are biased and/or bigoted. It is quite possible to be an upright law-abiding citizen and still be a narrow minded bigot.
The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.
The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.
Flunking Church and State
It's pathetic and sad but not surprising that so few of our political leaders either understand or are willing to support one of the most basic concepts in the Constitution. According to the Secular Coalition the majority of Congress fails miserably to support the separation of church and state. As reported on Religious News Service piece "Secular Coalition flunks most members of Congress on church-state report card" better than half of our legislators got an F on the SC's report card. Even though it is not commented on, quite a few of those who failed probably cling to false notion that the US is a "Christian Nation" and that separation is a myth. Both assertions are so mind-numbingly stupid that it still amazes me that anyone who adheres to them even tries to pretend that they've read the Constitution. There isn't a single reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity. On top of which the only references to religion at all are negative in their framing (establishment clause and no religious oaths of office).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)