It’s not because I am obstinate, though I can be obstinate.
Rather, I simply can’t believe things like: “A virgin had a baby” or “A man who was dead later became alive” or “This piece of bread is really a man’s flesh.” I can’t believe such things because these things are simply not true. To me, such assertions are nonsense and it befuddles me when I hear other people uttering them. It’s especially befuddling to see the way many people utter religious claims. It’s as though they believe they have knives in their backs and they damned well say such things, or else. “Or else what?” I often think. “Let go of those scary thoughts. It’s just a bad dream. Free yourselves! Wake up!”
I also try to be kind. I am sadded to see people wasting their time and energy due to fear and ignorance. I want to do my part to help those who feel compelled to utter patently untrue things, even if they only do this on Sundays.
I am not alone, of course. In our frustration, many of us non-Believers wish to come up with a quick and dirty explanation for why other people publicly proclaim oxymoronic religious claims. It is this urge to quickly dispense of this mystery of religion (the mystery that anyone takes religious claims seriously) that is addressed by Pascal Boyer in his 2003 article, “Religious thought and behavior as byproducts of brain function.” Boyer is a faculty member in the departments of anthropology and psychology at Washington University in St. Louis.
In an earlier post, I briefly mentioned Boyer as one of the prominent writers on religion who holds the position that religion is a byproduct of normal human cognition. This byproduct theory is certainly one emphasis of Boyer’s article. He also reminds us, however, that it might not be easy to determine a simple mechanism causing this byproduct. After all, human cognition, the source of this “byproduct,” is exceedingly complicated.
In his article, Boyer notes that most attempts to explain religion in terms of evolution have proved unsatisfactory “because a single characteristic identified as crucial to the origin of religion is not in fact general.” For instance, my characterization above (that people follow religions due to fear and ignorance) is one of the overly-simple explanations Boyer had in mind. Boyer suggests that any meaningful explanation for religion would to be a cognitive cocktail, requiring reference to many aspects of human cognition.
In his article, Boyer presents a chart to warn us to avoid many of the commonly heard simple (and false) explanations for “why does religion exist?” Here are the commonly heard overly-simple explanations for religion, coupled with Boyer’s refutations:
The claim: Religion answers people’s metaphysical questions.
Why it’s not true: Religious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.).The claim: Religion is about a transcendent God.
Why it’s not true: It is about a variety of agents: ghouls, ghosts, spirits, ancestors, gods, etc., in direct interaction with people.The claim: Religion allays anxiety.
Why it’s not true: It generates as much anxiety as it allays: vengeful ghosts, nasty spirits and aggressive gods are as common as protective deities.The claim: Religion was created at time t in human history.
Why it’s not true: There is no reason to think that the various kinds of thoughts we call ‘religious’ all appeared in human cultures at the same time.The claim: Religion is about explaining natural phenomena.
Why it’s not true: Most religious explanations of natural phenomena actually explain little but produce salient mysteries.The claim: Religion is about explaining mental phenomena (dreams, visions).
Why it’s not true: In places where religion is not invoked to explain them, such phenomena are not seen as intrinsically mystical or supernatural.The claim: Religion is about mortality and the salvation of the soul.
Why it’s not true: The notion of salvation is particular to a few doctrines (Christianity and doctrinal religions of Asia and the Middle-East) and unheard of in most other traditions.The claim: Religion creates social cohesion Religious commitment can (under some conditions) be used as signal of coalitional affiliation.
Why it’s not true: But coalitions create social fission (secession) as often as group integration.The claim: Religious claims are irrefutable. That is why people believe them.
Why it’s not true: There are many irrefutable statements that no-one believes; what makes some of them plausible to some people is what we need to explain.The claim: Religion is irrational/superstitious (therefore not worthy of study).
Why it’s not true: Commitment to imagined agents does not really relax or suspend ordinary mechanisms of belief-formation; indeed it can provide important evidence for their functioning (and therefore should be studied attentively).
Boyer warns that most of the mental machinery inviting believe in religion “is not consciously accessible.” Our conscious beliefs represent the tip of the cognitive iceberg. Further, he cites experimental tests demonstrating that
people’s actual religious concepts often diverge from what they believe they believe. This is why theology’s, explicit dogmas, scholarly interpretations of religion cannot be taken as a reliable description of either the contents or the causes of peoples beliefs.
Rather than first-order beliefs, Boyer argues that religious beliefs, which are conscious and explicit, are “interpretations of one’s own mental states.”
As an example of how religious beliefs dovetail with normal cognitive function, Boyer raises the issue of communication with non-present nonphysical entities. When we think of a friendship, we often imagine walking are talking with a friend. Boyer reminds us, however, that “a good deal of spontaneous reflection in humans focuses on past or future social interaction and on counterfactual scenarios. This capacity to run off-line social interaction is already present in young children.” He reminds us that all of us have lingering thoughts and feelings about our acquaintances who are recently dead; all of us are capable of carrying on conversations in our head with dead people.
Indeed, our spiritual “friends” are much like our real-life friends. How startling is should be to us that spirits and gods all communicate with English-speaking believers in English. How odd it should be that the spirits so often agree with our own moral intuitions. How surprising it should be that the things that we find disgusting are also disgusting to them. Their favorite foods and hobbies are the same as ours!
What are the other cognitive systems from which religious beliefs might sprout? Boyer suggests these: “detection and representation of animacy and agency, social exchange, moral intuitions, precaution against natural hazards and understanding of misfortune.”
All of this is fodder for Boyer’s suggestion that we should look for our explanation for religion in the blossoming research on cognitive neuroscience. At bottom, Boyer warns that religion might not be a spectacular or fundamental error of reasoning, as many skeptics would like to believe. Rather, cognitive science suggests “a less dramatic but perhaps more empirically grounded picture of religion as a probable, although by no means inevitable byproduct of the normal operation of human cognition.”
I find it strange that the article states
" Indeed, our spiritual “friends” are much like our real-life friends. How startling is should be to us that spirits and gods all communicate with English-speaking believers in English. How odd it should be that the spirits so often agree with our own moral intuitions. How surprising it should be that the things that we find disgusting are also disgusting to them. Their favorite foods and hobbies are the same as ours! "
hmm
I would beg to differ.
Most Christian .. talks with spirits.. if that is the wording you use, tell the person that what they are doing, likeing , and so on is not agreeable to God and telling them to change thier ways.
Science seeks to explain what is, how it got here, and what it does, and how it does it.
the person that said gravity is sin and it is sin that holds people on the earth … is … wacko .. those beliefs are not found ANYWHERE in the Christian religion.
Before someone disputes anything, it would be benificial to find out what the actual belief they are trying to … diss… is.
Evolution is an UNPROVEN Theory.
even so … it does not prove how the first life came to be here.
and even taken to its fullest … it does not answer that question.
Most main stream scientests are going with the Big Bang Theroy, however the problem with that is , any explosion causes destruction, not construction.
The Quantium Physisits are starting to lean towards Intelligent Design. although the quickly add that the Intelligence behind the design can in no way be God.
Wanting to think there is no God … does not make God go away,
and Conversley, Wanting there to be a God, does not make one.
The God of the Jews, The one in the Holy Bible, the same book Christians and Jews read says that God HIMSELF says
Test Me
Try ME
Prove me
i dont think he is the least afraid of science… lol
He made it all
The more they investigate into how the world works,
the more they find out, there is intelligence far greater than our own at work.
God made the Sun and the stars and you can see and feel and touch.
Science, and Math, are trying to understand and unfold what is.
The more they PROVE , the more they confirm That there is a God,
Not the other way round.
Virgin Birth ?…….It is not unknown for females to concieve without having been sexually penetrated. Sperm ejaculated in the vicinity of the vagina may enter the vagina and result in impregnation.
Christianity?…………..has a pretty incomparable record to most other religions when it comes to persecution, torture and theft and murder.
Humans seem to need to believe in everything having a "beginning"……maybe it is all really very simple….there always was "something" and there always will be "something"
Rather amusing to hear that God made man in His own image when we consider what that image has managed to achieve down here on good ole planet earth…….do not think that I will put God on my Xmas card list!
Erich:
I too will quote the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible and God's obvious power as the creator. My point here is not something open to opinion and if you will read it is obvious why.
Job Chapter 38 vs 2 through 6
(God speaking to Job) "Who is this that darkens my council with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you will answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its corner stone?
You should read the rest of this, it is amazing, but I will point out one part of the next four chapters of this great book in the Bible, and that is Job chapter 38 vs 31 says simply; (again, God speaking to Job)
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?"
This was written approximately 3500 years ago but even if you go back to the king James translation in the 1500's man had no idea that the constelation of Pleiades was a group of stars that are bound together moving in one direction, and that Orion was a group of stars moving apart from one another. But the Creator gave us that information long, long before we knew it was true. Man has only figured this out in recent history. These kinds of knowledge God gave us through his Word are hard to deny. As Jesus told Paul………."It is hard for you to kick against the bricks!"
May the Lord grant you peace and understanding and a life that is full of His truth and His knowledge.
Interesting post, but I have to say it was the responses it generated that took me by surprise. As I read the post the summary I reached was something along the lines of:
Erich is often guilty of expressing disbelief in religion based on the superficial (on the surface) claims of some religions. Since the reasons we have developed religion are complex and the tools to investigate the phenomenon are only recently developed, we should be careful to avoid making simplistic arguments for (and then use them against) religion that generally tend to be incorrect.
Then you have a bunch of comments, and I guess even more than you published, that attack you for saying some religious claim was false, such as those about virgin birth. And a lot of posts randomly attacking science even going so far as say that we can't even prove that our understanding of electricity and/or solid state physics (electronics) is correct.
Wow, were you able to tell what brought most of these visitors to this post? Most of the time the responses to your posts are fairly technical, if the post (like this one) was, and on topic.
Xiaogou has a very intelligent, articulate response, but alas, is one who does not understand the difference between God and religion. God is our Creator; as such He commisioned the Bible as His instruction for man to be written over millenia. It all fits together- only God could pull that off. You can travel the world, and unless you find yourself in a stale, structured church group or cult, you will not find a dime's worth of difference in the "interpretation of what Christianity should be".
Religion, on the other hand is a MANMADE belief structure, seemingly about God, but having no understanding of Him or His precepts. There are so many religions today; but only one God, and only one Book inspired by Him over a period of 4000 years or so, now 6000 years since man was created. No religion on earth can claim this, because it's simply God-inspired instead of manmade belief.
As for Rob's response above to my 'blog'- I'm with you, Rob. If you read my complete commentary, you'll see I was trying to show the absurdity of belief in the evolutionary theory, and how to prove that God does exist. I, too, am a Christian, and have so many examples of how God has moved powerfully in my life that there's not enough space here, nor would I, as 'casting pearls before swine' just doesn't work.
May you all be blessed who take time to read these 'blogs'.
Dear Gary Gittings,
I extend my respect. True, the Inquisition was a crime. But the Church opposed executing people for their beliefs for the first 12 centuries of its history. But sadly the Inquisition afterwards did last for about 500 years. On the other hand, the worst Inquisition was the one in Spain, which started in late 15th century. The Pope condemned its excesses. Once this happened, after about 1500s, the Spanish Inquisition (though still somewhat harsher than the other notorious one in Italy) was actually the fairest court in Spain. Case in point: historians have found several cases of criminals before secular courts, who purposely said something blasphemous, just so they could be taken to the Inquisition instead. If that doesn't prove that the Inquisition was fairer than secular courts of the same time, I don't know what does! Anyway, Pope John Paul II apologised, for the burning of people for their beliefs, that did occur.
I feel for Galileo, but that was one instance. There are so many instances when the Church helped fund the development of science. In the dark ages, it was monasteries that kept ancient knowledge alive. The Church helped fund the 1st Universities in 12th century. Christian beliefs of "Faith and Reason" propelled the scientific advances of later centuries (it's no coincidence that modern science was born in Europe). Copernicus was afraid of his colleagues making fun of him for his beliefs, so he went to none other than Pope Paul III for support! Galileo was a devout Christian! Newton's discoveries in physics and calculus were propelled by his religious beliefs. Jesuit priests have done so much for science. In 19th century, 10% of scientists were Catholic priests (although probably less than 1% of the general population were clergy)! A Jesuit came up with Big Bang theory in 1920s – seeing it as an explanation for creation. There are many more examples of Christianity helping – not opposing – science.
Many Meso-American Indians, such as Mayas and Aztecs, practiced human sacrifice. Christianity was opposed to such brutality. Pope Paul III, when he found out about the brutalities of many Spanish conquistadors, wrote the decree "Sublimis Deus," often called the Magna Carta of Indian rights, in 1537. It proclaimed that "the Indians were truly human and capable of receiving the faith and that they were not to be deprived of their liberty or property, even though they may be outside of the faith."
Most Christians (except for evangelical southern Christians) don't believe that non-Christians will burn in hell. Vatican II taught in Lumen Gentium: "For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
I personally can't stand people who say that non-Christians will burn in hell.
Finally, many people acknowledge that modern ideas of universal human rights, equality of all human beings, just war doctrine (actually invented by St. Augustine), and other ideas we cherish, are rooted in the teachings of a preacher who lived in Judea 2000 years ago, and referred to Himself as the Messiah, and only wanted for human beings to love and respect each other and to do what God desires.
Glory be to Jesus Christ, Son of God and our Saviour, for ever and ever! Amen.
This is the most beligerent waste of time I've enjoyed in a long time.
So here is my take.
I like the symbolism of the "Jedi". I can feel the force eminating from all living things. As a code to live by, it puts us in the category of all living things. The responsibility is vast and does not pretend that man is above all other life. Why is there only a human soul?
I have yet to be spoken to or feel god in a church. And yet he has never failed to come for a visit when I am at the river at the crack of dawn.
The best thing about the "Jedi" religion is that there is NO ONE putting himself between you and god (the force).
I find it repugnant that some people still pretend that god wants you to follow them.
please note that if you pretend to represent god, you do not.
Erich, I agree. I've read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained and came away with a much greater appreciation for both the variety and depth of unjustifiable claims that humans believe and the mental mechanisms that allow such credulousness to occur. Mainstream religious believers have lots of company throughout the world and would do well to read about the beliefs of other lesser known cultures and tribes and ask themselves the question: how can those people possibly believe that which they believe? while recognizing the fact that their supernatural beliefs are no different in kind, just content. Boyer's points that you print in this article are a nice summary.
Two other brief comments. I've never ever been happier in my life: free of depression, needless anxiety, etc. It all came about because I learned to think clearly and critically (meaning that I'm not willing to accept unreasonable claims that lack evidential support nor am I willing to consider any assertions that can never be proven or disproven). And, yes, my imagination is still intact — imagine that!
And, am says: "My point being to you… TO BE A HAPPY PERSON, BE HAPPY FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You should try it."
To am and others I ask: are we to be happy for the terrorists of 911 and the others who have been and are willing to kill and then die because of the promise of great rewards in the hereafter? Many of them are happy and even blissful at the moment they end their lives along with the lives of many innocents. Until we realize as a society that such fantasies, no matter how emotionally expedient, are part of the problem, not the solution, unnecessary ideological battles and human suffering will rage on. We can't afford to indulge in these fantasies anymore. Conventional or not, if there is no way to keep them alive other than utter will, best to let them fade into obscurity.
Time to wake up. Time to grow up. There is no Santa but natural wonders (including many delightful humans) abound all around us. That's plenty (and healthy) for me.
I see religion more or less as the dark side of what could be called a social conscience. The concept is difficult to explain.
Social animals form groups. these groups have a distinct behavior that is often unlike that of its constituent individuals. This behavior, in turn, pressures the individuals in compliance with the groups norms. In effect, the sum of the parts is much more that the whole.
Take dogs as an example. They are very social animals. As a pet, a dog can be a furry friend, a protector, and a dependant, all at the same time. But, when you get 3 dogs together, they begin to act like a pack. A dog pack is a hunting group. The purpose is the find something and kill it.
Organised religions began as primitive governments. The nature of people is such that we do not care to take on additional responsibilities, but we will if no-one else is there to do the job. THe problem with this is that people with no particularly useful skill tend to gravitate toward positions of authority. and usually they (the leaders) are the least responsible members of the society. Eventually, the only way to defer accountability for their actions, is blame the bad things on some supernatural "higher intelligence".
Social groups seem to have a collective intelligence. This intelligence is always less than the average of the individual member, and as the membership grows, the collective intelligence shrinks. Religion is the armor of the dictators. it provides a wall to block knowledge for those that would question the authority of the irresponsible leadership.
Man created god in his image. Not the other way around.
While I can't argue with any of the statements about religion in your article, I am annoyed with your attitude towards the "gullible" believers who believe out of "fear and ingnorance". Insulting or belittling people who don't agree with you is not an intelligent arguement. For the record I share many of the opinions that you have outlined in this article, but I have to respect the opinions of others and refuse to profess that my opinion is the only correct one. In fact I almost envy the believer's notion that it is all a question of faith. It makes things a lot simpler.
Since I have the opportunity, I will throw just a few comments out to add to discussion.
1. While religion has been the major cause of many wars and untold numbers of deaths throughout the ages, it is not the belief that is to blame. It is rather the blind following of the leaders of organized religion that should be blamed. (can also apply to blind following of political leadership, but that's another post)
2. Science must share the blame for wars/deaths because although they may have been religiosly inspired, the best science of every age was employed to increase the slaughtering capabilities.
3. In your post, you mention "English speaking God". The God of Christianity is the same God of Judism and Islam (some might argue all religions), so the language would likely be whatever language the beleiver would understand.
4. On the same subject, all of your religious statements used as examples of unbeleivable statements are from Christianity. This implies that you are biast against Christianity, or you didn't bother to look into any other religions "oxymoronic" beliefs. Reincarnation (Hindhu), the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Judism), Acension of Mohammed (Islam)…….
Lots of hard to explain beliefs out there, don't limit the discussion to just Christianity.
That's enough for now I guess.
If "God" is that greate and made all of this: why does he need myths and unclear methods to communicate to his creatures? If he made a plant to have chlorophyl to make use of light- why is it that he has to be all mystical when speaking to man?
Is harder to believe that nature would go against its rules (to create this so called mirecales) or to believe that man would tell a lie and continue telling it, especialy for personal gain?
John McNally:
Thanks for stopping by. It's like a crazy fireworks show down here in the comments section. Lots of bright colors and convoluted shapes. The extent to which people are displaying great passion does leave me scratching my head. It seems that most of these commentors are using this post as a mere excuse to shoot off their prepackaged positions on science/religion. Very few people have referred to Pascal Boyer or his article (the link to the article is embedded in the post).
Based upon my traffic software, most of these comments are being referred by Netscape. I thus suspect that many of these comments are by people new to this site.
I find it hard to believe there are people still challenging the THEORY of Evolution – that's like challenging the THEORY of GRAVITY! Duh. . .it's a term used to gather information, information that may evolve as we get smarter – tho I fear after reading all these responses that is not in the near future. And for those people who have convinced themselves that Science state the Universe was created from nothing – nothing could be further from the truth. You only say that because you are ignorant of Science.
The wars will stop once we get past the myths of god and religion. . .but, again, after reading these responses, I can only feel sadness.
If you wanted to prove that the Christian religions was false and that God does not exist – not just the rediculous virgin idea – all you would have to do would be to carry on as Jesus did. As the Jewish Mesiah who would lead the Jews out from under Roman rule – like Moses with the Egyptions – Jesus was hung out to dry. No mirical happened and now his family's tomb, including Jesus', has been found. The bible was written to reinterpret Jesus' life and times. Nothing in Christianity has any merit other than as a social experiment to prove the opposit of what the religion currently stands for.
Pardon me Erich and others who are reading the post. I degress for a moment to answer a comment made to me. Please understand that this comment is my personal belief and does not in anyway refer to anyone besides the person I am sending the message.
Mo King I understand that you may be upset with what I wrote. I made no mention of God nor of the Bible. I believe as you do about both. Then I have also talked with people who say they are Christians and I have noticed differences that have caused mass divisions even within the same chuch to the point that one group breaks away from another because they believe that thier interpretation of the Bible is better than the other's. For example, the question of Baptism. Variations vary from is it necessary, or not? Does the person needs to be submerged under water or just sprinkled? A baby needs to be baptised or the person needs to be cognizant and fully aware of the choices he is making? I could go on, but the simple idea as baptism has been interpreted in many ways. Who is right? I cannot say, but if I had a chance to talk to Jesus himself he could answer the question. Until that happens each of us no matter what religion we belong to have to go on faith and THAT is what this is all about. I apoligize to anyone who is not Christian or belongs to a faith that believes in Baptisms one way or another. I am not siding with anyone. This is just my observations.
I am saying that the only way to find out the truth is to talk to the people who wrote what is now written no matter what religion they are affiliated with. By talking with the originators or contributors you will learn truely what is going on. To witness the events as they transpire will be definitely an eye opener. Perhaps if it could happen it would change the way even those who believe in a faith to really answer the questions like, do we crack the egg from the small end or the big end? Perhaps it should be cracked in the middle or perhaps it does not matter?
Until then have faith in what you believe in. Seek the truth for yourself.
There are free spelling lessons available on-line, in case anyone is interested. I'm not necessarily directing this comment at those who are most vehemently attacking this post.
For example, see http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/
Erich-I am not fearful of putting religion under the microscope. There has always been people and entire societies, kingdoms, etc, that have misinterpreted the bible. That doesn't make the Bible wrong but it does say something about the people who misinterpret the Bible. So, you can say the same about people who speak of the theory of evolution as if it were fact and draw reference to an individual that has the same opinion as himself.
Erich, you have put religion under the microscope possibly biased. I think that mankind basically rebells at the thought of answering to a supreme being especially when they think they are more intelligent than the vast majority.
You are in the same boat as some religious people. You need to stop shooting holes in the bottom so your boat.
Don't worry about people and their spelling. This is an exchange of ideas and belief. Your not their teacher nor their parent you arrogant a**.
Spelling: Get the FireFox browser. More secure than IE, built-in spell-checking for all entry fields, and it will copy all your IE favorites, bookmarks, etc. when it installs.
Jerry:
The Bible, which you claim to be an extraordinarily perfect book, is a document that promotes slavery (and see here) as well as all sorts of oppression and violence (and especially see here). These huge problems with the Bible are some of the reasons that traditional religious beliefs are fading in America.
These major problems with the Bible lead to shameless cherry-picking by Believers-they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren't even there. Children can see through these techniques. That's why 88 percent of the children raised in evangelical homes leave church at the age of 18, never to return.
Because the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradictions, I seek a better way. You consider my need to seek truth beyond the Bible as arrogant, which is your prerogative. I carefully treat all religious books with the same level of skepticism with which I treat all other written works, including science books. Can you assert the same?
I'm not harping on people who follow religions. Many religious people (They include many close friends) are truly extraordinary and generous people. My problem is with people who gullibly follow religions because they've been scared into doing so. My problem is also with people who strut around thinking that they are superior to good-hearted non-religious people just because they claim to read and claim to believe the Bible.
BTW, did you call me an offensive name because you've run out of arguments?
Look at all you people shouting your opinions at one another. Many of you not actually spellling anything correctly or using somewhat proper grammar. That is all beside the point though. My opinion (more about your comments not about the article so much) is this, what is the point? We all go six feet under at some point, and we (living humans) will most likely never know what, if anything, happens after death. Not to mention we (the people responding) won't be around to see the day the world ends anyway, so let's all go outside and enjoy the fresh air.
Erich I never made any of the claims you have stated and it is clear that you strut around thinking that you are superior to good-hearted religious people.
Of course I think you are full of it. Bye
Erich: Jerry evidently is a follower of the late huckster , Rev. Gerry Falwell, who said " Christians, like soldiers and slaves, don't ask questions". That statement made many of his followers very proud that he would say such a thing. I take the statement as a celebration of the group's ignorance.
Why is that a cause for celebration? Oh, I forgot. You're not supposed to ask questions!
Erich beware not to follow into the same trap that you say others do. You claim that "they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren’t even there." It is often the same with people who wish to say bad things about the Bible. They point the bad things as in the slavery theory and all the bad things in the Bible and do not look at all the good things in the Bible and promote the same with equal enthusiasm. I also agree that the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Yes, even Jesus lost his temper and died a gruesome death. It is part of humanity. Personally I have found the United States if not all parts of the world where man lives to be full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions but, I do not want to leave it and go some where else. Instead I look at it try to make sense of all this violence, ambiguities and contradicions and make peace with myself. To be truthful if I was a child of some of these Evangelist I would take off as soon as I can because many I have met are insufferable. I would not swallow lot of the things they teach because God said for them to say it.
The Bible is not a flowery book that hides all the bad things and only promote the good. Many religions and sadly even Christians promote the good and try to hide the bad. People tend to do that. I have not met one politician who truthfully tells it all. Instead they promote the good and hide the bad (as much as possibly.) They too are often full of ambiguities and contradictions. Those who are truthful or open are often shunned or thought badly(and not in office long). I personally am ashamed of some of the things I have done.
I do believe that many Christians do only read the parts of the Bible they can accept and ignore the rest. They are even willing to excerpt parts of the Bible to make outlandish claims on how people both Christians and non-Christians should behave or act. It should be the opposite as the Bible should be teaching the reading Christians how to behave and act.
Again I am not defending the Bible, but I hope you take the time to make a study of the Bible and not just one, but the many versions of it to determine what is going on why is the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Perhaps you can make peace with yourself about the Bible.
Xiaogou: The reason a few fatal defects are important to note in the Bible is that most of the most vocal and insufferable supporters of the Bible are people who claim that the Bible is "inerrant," totally and completely true and without error.
Until we can agree that the Bible has errors, contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, there is little hope of a conversation between believers and skeptics. It is clear that there are hundreds of errors, inaccuracies, and episodes of senseless violence in the Bible (see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Until we can agree that the Bible is in many ways unsavory and that Believers do their cherry-picking in much the same way that skeptics consider candidates for valid moral principles, the prospects of a conversation are dim, indeed (for evidence, see the numerous comments to this post, in which the commentor shows no indication that he or she has actually read or understood the post).
Your advice is well taken, however.
Erich I find no argument to your last post. First there are many Bibles and many vary for one another on more than one point so yes there has to be problems with someone saying that the Bible is totally beyond tampering with. Second, I am not asking for you to have a logical dialog with believers of the Bible. Trying to speak logically with them I agree will be pointless and counterproductive. I have had same lack of success as you.
You are seeking answers to religion and as I have pointed out that it is a very deep subject worthy of deep and complex study. The idea is not to become a heckler, but a man of knowledge. If you want to understand religion is to go beyond the written word and understand the heart of what is being said. Learn the lessons in the words and use them to improve your life and in doing so improve the life of others.
The heart of three influential religions lies in the Tanakh, the scriptures of the Hebrew people. From that branch comes the Bible’s New Testament for the related two after that. Finally the Koran is the last text of that major branch of religion, Islam.
One thing to remember when going over these books is that over time there will naturally be errors and inaccuracies due to errors in translation and transmission. Again I cannot stress that unless you can talk to the authors of the various parts who really know what went on. If we could look on them and realize that they are perhaps writing about something way above what their understanding and could easily be explained by a perfectly simple scientific phenomenon accurately. On the other hand you may witness a miracle which is indescribable in human terms. Just as some person in the distance future finding a book on the big bang theory will criticize us because we are observing something that is way beyond our scope of understanding to describe. They will scoff at us say, “The big bang theory is full of errors and inaccuracies.”
As for violence I do not know of any book of human endeavors to be without it. Chemistry has gun powder and chemical warfare. Physics has its A-bomb and laws of gravity to determine the path of artillery shells falling on helpless innocence. Should we stop reading those books as well?