Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The question comes down to HOW the picking and choosing is done. If it is done as part of an honest quest to find ultimate truth, ie. the true nature of God, with the intention of acting accordingly, then there is no mockery. Any erroneous interpretations would be just another example of the sinful and imperfect nature of man. </font>

I do not for a second doubt that many theists are well intenioned, but this is irrelevant to the point.

Either God says it's ok to own other human beings as slaves, or He does not.

Either God says we should kill our wife-to-be if she is not a virgin by the time of our marriage, or He does not.

Either God says it's ok to sell our daughters, or He does not.

These are either/or propositions. There are no maybes. Now most everyone in today's society would quickly dismiss any of the above as being insanely immoral acts. Yet, the bible declares all three of these (among MANY other heinous acts), as being perfectly acceptable.

Either the bible is our moral compass or it is not. When you start saying, "Well, I very much disagree with God on those things, so I'm gonna say that's not to be taken literally. But I really like what God has to say about love, so yeah... Let's make that part literal!".

What you are doing (whether you realize it or not), is taking God out of the picture and inserting your own human version of morality. If this can possibly be justified, then it renders the biblical god as completely unnecessary!

Remember, our purpose is to try and philosophically discuss whether belief in a particular god and/or religion can be logically correct.

Too many of you guys take this on a personal level and feel insulted. I can't say that I blame you, because you are being bombarded by common sense logic that blows your beliefs out of the water and leaves you looking silly. But try and remember that it is your faulty logic that we non-believers are attacking. Not you personally.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

These are either/or propositions. There are no maybes.


[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you have this attitude it's probably useless to try discussing it with you. If I did try you, when I brought up things like context, translation, interpretation you would accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

The fact is all the statements you made can be rationally discussed. But if you are going to say a particular passage must mean X, and you define X and won't accept another definition and then insult someone who explains why your definition is wrong, then it hardly seems worth the effort.

But if you want to pick one of those statements and support it from the Bible, I'm stupid enough to give it another shot. Please specify exactly what you are complaining about and the exact text(s) you think support what you say.

[Lestat]

I don't have time now, but I'll try to come up with some examples and would love to have them explained (and I will honestly listen with good intention to the explanations).

<font color="blue">But if you are going to say a particular passage must mean X, and you define X and won't accept another definition and then insult someone who explains why your definition is wrong, then it hardly seems worth the effort. </font>

But just so you know, the main thrust of my point is this:

I know how to read. You know how to read. There are theologists who've dedicated the greater part of their lives to the study of the bible, who know how to read. Yet even they differ on what certain parts of the bible mean and how we're supposed to take them. Precisely because the bible in parts is so vague, it requires HUMAN interpretation to make sense of them. And again, not all humans (even theologists), can agree on them.

So what I'm claiming is that we are not left with the word of God (if there were one), but with human interpretation. At the very least, God couldn't have deemed it too important that we understand what he meant. This is especially true where science has rendered a part of the bible as clearly untrue as in the case of evolution (which even the pope has declared true). Now theologians have to hit the drawing board again, and come up with a new interpretation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So what I'm claiming is that we are not left with the word of God (if there were one), but with human interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Say one propositional statement God could make that humans can't misinterpret. If Clinton can equivocate on the meaning of "is" ....

[ QUOTE ]

Now theologians have to hit the drawing board again, and come up with a new interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's ok for scientists to say they were wrong about something they previously thought was certain, but if theologians do it they're intellectually dishonest? The Bible says God will lead us into the truth - it doesn't say we have all the truth instantly imprinted on our brains at the moment of conversion. So maybe we shouldn't even start, because I get the feeling no matter what I say you will just claim I'm twisting Scripture to say what I want.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...Therefore, you are making your OWN interpretations (or following other error prone human's interpretations), as to what is moral and what is not.

Do you see how this is circular? If parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literelly, then there is no good reason to think that ANY of the bible should be taken literally. When humans start picking and choosing which of God's words we're suppose to believe are literal or not literal (such as right from wrong/moral and not moral), you don't need the bible at all anymore. In fact, you make a mockery of it.

So I believe what Dawkins is saying is, don't be wishy-washy. Either the bible is the literal word of God, or you can't be sure ANY of it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
But my position is that I'm not sure. That's why I believe in personal introspection/prayer/whatever you want to call it. I am not surrendering my moral judgements and I dont think I have to in order to be religious. Furthermore, I do not think my beliefs should be quarantined from discussion or criticism and nor should anyone else's.

If they're stupid beliefs they should be labelled such.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,

It sounds to me like you aren't what Dawkins is refering to when he discusses moderates who shelter extremists. The main point I take from it is that moderates are those who don't take a literal interpretation and use it to define what is morally right where extremists do (by this criteria I guess you would be considered moderate).

Where your stance differs from Dawkins definition is in the fact that you think that beliefs should be questioned. The moderates that Dawkin's refers to are the ones who don't question the beliefs of extremists because they don't want to attract attention to their own irrational beliefs.

The harm that these moderates do is not in their own actions but in the shield that they provide to extremists by shutting the door on questioning religious beliefs. Its as if they are embarrased about some teachings of the bible (as any compassionate believer should be) and don't want to face the tough questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also dont think "what's in the bible" is automatically moral. The way I read dawkins though, he intended it to apply to all believers and this would have to include me. Havent heard back from him yet though...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The chance of my religion being "true" is next to nil - it's just the best I can do at the moment.



[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]
My position is essentially that I have rational grounds for being a theist (although very slender) but no rational way to choose which religion is right. Consequently, I have to make an irrational choice (which I do based on introspection/prayer/"what feels right") and I have very little confidence in this process of delivering the correct answer.

In other words, I believe I can defend a belief in God on rational grounds, but I cant rationally argue that christianity is correct. All I can do is say that it seems the best to me (but I have many incorrect beliefs in all kinds of areas, so it would be remarkable if my beliefs in this area were all correct).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,
What, exactly, does Dawkins mean by "sheltering" fundamentalists?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I dont really know, which was the reason for my post. I think his claim is that theists defend their beliefs until it gets uncomfortable, at which point we fall back on "you must respect religious beliefs and not challenge them on logical grounds".

I think he then claims that, by setting a precedent that harmless, soft religions shouldnt be challenged on rational grounds - we pave the way for violent and dangerous religions to also avoid scrutiny or condemnation.

I think his argument fails if the moderate believes (as I do) that faith should be questioned, challenged and criticised by non-believers. However, I'm pretty sure that Dawkins believes that ALL believers are doing harm. I dont think he can make this stick and I'm wondering if I've missed something.

(I've also tried to contact him personally via email, to see if he's interested in explaining further. I doubt I'll get very far though as he must get a lot of mail of that sort)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not for a second doubt that many theists are well intenioned, but this is irrelevant to the point.

Either God says it's ok to own other human beings as slaves, or He does not.

Either God says we should kill our wife-to-be if she is not a virgin by the time of our marriage, or He does not.

Either God says it's ok to sell our daughters, or He does not.

These are either/or propositions. There are no maybes. Now most everyone in today's society would quickly dismiss any of the above as being insanely immoral acts. Yet, the bible declares all three of these (among MANY other heinous acts), as being perfectly acceptable.

Either the bible is our moral compass or it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think the bible is our moral compass. I thought that was clear.

[ QUOTE ]
When you start saying, "Well, I very much disagree with God on those things, so I'm gonna say that's not to be taken literally. But I really like what God has to say about love, so yeah... Let's make that part literal!".

What you are doing (whether you realize it or not), is taking God out of the picture and inserting your own human version of morality. If this can possibly be justified, then it renders the biblical god as completely unnecessary!

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think the biblical god is necessary for morality. I think religion is a question of ontology - does god exist or not? If I'm wrong in my belief in god, I still think it's wrong to hurt people. If I'm right in my belief in god, I still think an atheist can be a good person.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, our purpose is to try and philosophically discuss whether belief in a particular god and/or religion can be logically correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, Lestat, you seem to be arguing about a completely different set of beliefs to the ones I have. Again, I dont think religion has much to do with morality - I would certainly go against a dictate in the bible if I thought it was immoral.

[ QUOTE ]
Too many of you guys take this on a personal level and feel insulted. I can't say that I blame you, because you are being bombarded by common sense logic that blows your beliefs out of the water and leaves you looking silly. But try and remember that it is your faulty logic that we non-believers are attacking. Not you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is really quite strong - I dont recall having my beliefs blown out of the water. Luckyme came closest I think a while back, but it was more raising doubts about whether it would even be possible for me to change my mind, not presenting a logical contradiction. I hope you can back this up with a belief of mine, followed by a logical demonstration that it leads to a contradiction...?

[soon2bepro]

bunny, Dawkins is NOT talking about the people like you. He's talking about people whose faith is so strong that it doesn't leave room for anything else that might be contradictory. These people don't analyze what they're believing, they just use a dose of common sense. But what Dawkins is saying is that this dose of common sense is, for a minority, contradicted with all the teachings on absolute certainty and faith. Again, you're not the one he's talking about. I could name you a bunch of reasons why I think your religion might be bad for you or why it's definitely bad for others, but you asked about The God Delusion.