The point I'm trying to make, TC, is that you need to hear it from both sides. You don't have to read mountains of books, but you need to hear a fair account. That's just sound reasoning. You wouldn't simply listen to one side of the argument and make your decision and still be able to call that logical, now would you? Similarly, if you insist on reading these books that are trying to bring these "discrepancies" to light, be sure to know what the other side says too.
To simply pick and choose what you want to listen to is ignorant. Although it pains me to listen to Sam Harris' claims, I am still giving him his fair chance.
And, if you do decide to read those passages in the Bible, make sure to read the verses before and after it too. Alone certain Bible verses can sound bad, which is what Harris is banking on. It's like when people misquote Darwin to show that even he doubted his evolutionary theory, when in the next line he implies otherwise.
The point here is that anyone can take what they want out of the Bible and still be a believer, whether they are a religious liberal or an ultra conservative. I don't think I will be any more enlightened talking to either person, because each one is taking their inspiration from the same book. There have been people who have lost their faith because of these discrepancies. I don't think I will come to any more marvelous conclusion if I took the time to read it myself, but I might just look up the passages Harris quotes. I don't think they will be any different.
Harris and Dawkins and their peers are not out to misrepresent the Bible intentionally, but to point out that it has potential for both ill and good within it, meaning that it is not solidly moral.
I'll provide you with an example that mirrors what you are telling me: P. Z. Myers said Dawkins should read the mountains of volumes in religious libraries that discuss and debate religion and belief, but those books don't solve the argument themselves. As Dawkins said:
"I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom if there had been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question of whether God exists. The vast majority of theological writings simply assume that he does, and go on from there. For my purposes, I need consider only those theologians who take seriously the possibility that God does not exist and argue that he does... To expand the point, most of us disavow fairies, astrology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian Theology etc."
Last edited by TimeChaser at 6:01:25 PM EDT on October 17, 2008.
Sorry, but from what I've heard now of the first 16 minutes, he is taking the Scriptures out of context. Here's a comment I wrote down after his reading of Deuteronomy 13 and the strange reference to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (which I don't find any hateful comments in at all):
"You cannot trust a nonbeliever to understand what a believer believes. You need to hear it from the horse’s mouth."
If a person is not Christian and does not "believe" in the Bible, how can one honestly expect them to understand it?
TC, if you want to know about what the Bible is actually trying to teach, go to the believers. Not the loudest members, but the most knowledgeable. To expect to learn about Christianity from an atheist/nontheist is absurd, in the same way I would not go to a creationist to learn about the theory of evolution.
I haven't really read the Bible, but I don't think he'd be so crass as to take passages out of context.
I'm glad you aren't dismissing it entirely based only on the first minutes. When you get a bit further in, he will explain his position: that anyone can cherry-pick whatever they want from the Bible to justify their position, whether it is good or bad. His point is that the book is muddled and self-contradictory on many points, and that it is not the single best guide to morality that has ever been in the history of civilization, and that humans can understand morality on their own without having to refer to ancient scriptures.
Last edited by TimeChaser at 4:53:42 PM EDT on October 17, 2008.
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
From the very first minute, I hear something I disagree with.
Basically, Harris is saying that the Bible encourages hateful behavior. I will reserve final judgement on this until I get a bit further in, but I have a feeling he'll be quoting Bible passages out of context in order to prove this fallacious claim of his.
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
@TimeChaser:
The point I'm trying to make, TC, is that you need to hear it from both sides. You don't have to read mountains of books, but you need to hear a fair account. That's just sound reasoning. You wouldn't simply listen to one side of the argument and make your decision and still be able to call that logical, now would you? Similarly, if you insist on reading these books that are trying to bring these "discrepancies" to light, be sure to know what the other side says too.
To simply pick and choose what you want to listen to is ignorant. Although it pains me to listen to Sam Harris' claims, I am still giving him his fair chance.
And, if you do decide to read those passages in the Bible, make sure to read the verses before and after it too. Alone certain Bible verses can sound bad, which is what Harris is banking on. It's like when people misquote Darwin to show that even he doubted his evolutionary theory, when in the next line he implies otherwise.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
@Miss Anonymous:
The point here is that anyone can take what they want out of the Bible and still be a believer, whether they are a religious liberal or an ultra conservative. I don't think I will be any more enlightened talking to either person, because each one is taking their inspiration from the same book. There have been people who have lost their faith because of these discrepancies. I don't think I will come to any more marvelous conclusion if I took the time to read it myself, but I might just look up the passages Harris quotes. I don't think they will be any different.
Harris and Dawkins and their peers are not out to misrepresent the Bible intentionally, but to point out that it has potential for both ill and good within it, meaning that it is not solidly moral.
I'll provide you with an example that mirrors what you are telling me: P. Z. Myers said Dawkins should read the mountains of volumes in religious libraries that discuss and debate religion and belief, but those books don't solve the argument themselves. As Dawkins said:
"I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom if there had been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question of whether God exists. The vast majority of theological writings simply assume that he does, and go on from there. For my purposes, I need consider only those theologians who take seriously the possibility that God does not exist and argue that he does... To expand the point, most of us disavow fairies, astrology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian Theology etc."
Last edited by TimeChaser at 6:01:25 PM EDT on October 17, 2008.
Bazinga!
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
@TimeChaser:
Sorry, but from what I've heard now of the first 16 minutes, he is taking the Scriptures out of context. Here's a comment I wrote down after his reading of Deuteronomy 13 and the strange reference to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (which I don't find any hateful comments in at all):
"You cannot trust a nonbeliever to understand what a believer believes. You need to hear it from the horse’s mouth."
If a person is not Christian and does not "believe" in the Bible, how can one honestly expect them to understand it?
TC, if you want to know about what the Bible is actually trying to teach, go to the believers. Not the loudest members, but the most knowledgeable. To expect to learn about Christianity from an atheist/nontheist is absurd, in the same way I would not go to a creationist to learn about the theory of evolution.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
@Miss Anonymous:
I haven't really read the Bible, but I don't think he'd be so crass as to take passages out of context.
I'm glad you aren't dismissing it entirely based only on the first minutes. When you get a bit further in, he will explain his position: that anyone can cherry-pick whatever they want from the Bible to justify their position, whether it is good or bad. His point is that the book is muddled and self-contradictory on many points, and that it is not the single best guide to morality that has ever been in the history of civilization, and that humans can understand morality on their own without having to refer to ancient scriptures.
Last edited by TimeChaser at 4:53:42 PM EDT on October 17, 2008.
Bazinga!
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
From the very first minute, I hear something I disagree with.
Basically, Harris is saying that the Bible encourages hateful behavior. I will reserve final judgement on this until I get a bit further in, but I have a feeling he'll be quoting Bible passages out of context in order to prove this fallacious claim of his.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/17/08 | Reply
@:
Take a look at the previous post, then. ^^
Bazinga!
mewmewpudding
Otaku Eternal | Posted 10/16/08 | Reply
Ooh, that's a nice link, too. I'll use which ever one is easier. |D
Thanks again, TC!